Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
October 29, 2024, PC Packet
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Commission 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (36o) 874-5533 planning@portorchardwa.gov PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, October 29, 2024— 6:00 pm *** Attendees may attend in person at City Hall or via Zoom*** ***Planning Commissioners will attend via Zoom*** Join Zoom Meeting, Public Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/i/86180242823 Dial -in (phone audio) only: + 1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 8618024 2823 Planning Commissioners please use individual webinar links. 1. Call to Order: 6:00 p.m. Pledge of allegiance. 2. Welcome and Introduction. Planning Commission and City Staff Introductions. 3. Audience Comments: Topics not listed for public hearing on tonight's agenda. Please limit comments to 3 minutes. 4. Approval of Minutes from: a) October 1, 2024 (Attachment) (ACTION) 5. Business Items: a) PUBLIC HEARING: 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update (Attachment) The 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update includes revisions to all elements and the Bethel Subarea Plans: Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Climate Resiliency, Bethel/Lund Subarea Plan and Sedgwick/Bethel Subarea Plan. A public hearing will be held to gather testimony on the proposed updates. Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner b) PUBLIC HEARING: SB 5290 Permit Processing A Public Hearing for an amendment to Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.20, 20.22, 20.24, 20.25, 20.50, 20.86, 20.88, 20.96, 20.127, 20.132, and 20.200 for consistency with Chapter 36.70B RCW, as amended by SSSB 5290. Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner c) DISCUSSION: Director's Report Update to the Planning Commission on recent related to past and upcoming Planning Commission activity. Staff Contact: Nick Bond, AICP, Community Development Director 6. Adjourn Next Planning Commission Meeting — December 3, 2024 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Commission Minutes 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: (36o) 874-5533 • Fax: (36o) 876-498o Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 1, 2024 Hybrid Meeting - Zoom Teleconference COMMISSIONERS: Present: Annette Stewart (Vice Chair), Stephanie Bailey, Paul Fontenot. Joe Morrison, Wayne Wright Absent: Tyler McKlosky (Chair), Louis Ta STAFF: Community Development Director Nick Bond, Principal Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Shaun Raja, Assistant Planner Connor Dahlquist 1. CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Stewart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were three members of the public present attending remotely and none attending in the chamber. There were no comments regarding issues not on the agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19, 2024: Commissioner Stewart asked if the other commissioners had reviewed the minutes from the August 19th, 2024 meeting and if anyone had any issues or proposed amendments. Seeing none, a motion was entertained to approve the minutes. Commissioner Wright moved to approve the minutes with Commissioner Fontenot as a second. The motion passed unanimously. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. DISCUSSION: 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE OVERVIEW. Principal Planner Jim Fisk provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan's purpose, process, engagement methods, and involved consultants. AHBL Consultant Alex Campbell gave a presentation on the regulatory framework informing the Comprehensive Plan update, specifically the recent legislation impacting middle housing requirements. Campbell also gave an overview of the ten elements that comprise the Comprehensive Plan. Principal Planner Jim Fisk shared the staff and consultants' confidence that the Comprehensive Plan update is in line with the Growth Management Act, Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2050, and countywide planning policies. Fisk also shared that the City issued a Determination of Non -significance on September 241h for the Comprehensive Plan update and the plan elements were submitted to the Department of Commerce for a 60-day review on September 251h. The plan was also submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council for a 30-day review on October Pt Fisk requested the Commission to open a hearing for public testimony regarding the Comprehensive Plan update and that additional Commission comments should be submitted in writing no later than October 15t' so that suggestions may be implemented before the October 29t' Commission meeting. However, comments will be accepted through the close of the hearing. Public comment will be closed at the October 29t' meeting and the plan will move forward for recommendation. Commissioner Stewart thanked the staff and consultants who participated in the update and opened a public hearing for testimony on the Comprehensive Plan update. A member of the public, Jessica Hartsell, gave comment of concern on the plan's transportation element. Hartsell emphasized the importance of connected and protected bike and pedestrian pathways and shared that the preferred Bethel -Lund and Sedgewick-Bethel subarea plans do not provide sufficient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Hartsell shared that there should be a master plan of these types of pathways which promote alternative forms of transportation for those who do not want to drive or cannot drive. Hartsell highlighted Port Orchard's waterfront trail and Gig Harbor's Cushman trail are great examples of promoting activity and taking pressure off of the roadways through alternative forms of transportation. Ian Harkins provided comment on behalf of the Kitsap Building Association. Harkins shared concern on the Land Use element, specifically the City's use of impact fees to curb new development and believes it will punish homebuilders and homeowners creating increased unaffordability. Harkins also shared support of the Housing element in increasing workforce housing near transit and employment centers but shared that there is a lack of incentives for existing property owners and future developers to participate in creating these centers. Harkins commented on needed clarification in the Housing element on the reintroduction of the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption as the Plan update calls for a reintroduction of it after being appealed the previous year, as well as clarification on the Plan's verbiage of "streamlining of development regulations for permitting multifamily and middle housing." Commissioner Stewart thanked members of the public for providing testimony and asked if other Planning Commissioners had feedback. Commissioner Wright gave comment that Plan formatting and text edits still need to be made as he had previously brought up. Wright also asked that the comment matrix is reflective of feedback that has been given by the Commissioners and visible for the public. Commissioner Wright thanked the staff and AHBL for their hard work on the Plan. Commissioner Morrisson also gave gratitude to city staff and AHBL. Commissioner Fontenot thanked the members of the public who attended and gave feedback. He emphasized how important these comments are appreciative of their time. Page 2 of 3 B. DISCUSSION: DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Bond gave an update that the City's council chambers should be completed before the October 29th meeting. ADJOURN: Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 6:44 pm. Annette Stewart, Vice Chair Nick Bond, Community Development Director Page 3 of 3 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (360) 874-5533 • FAX: (360) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 5(a) Meeting Date: October 29, 2024 2024 Comprehensive Plan Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP, Development Subject: Update Director Issue: The City of Port Orchard started the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update in Fall 2022. After selecting a consultant, the City developed a Public Participation Program to gather community input on the update. The City has conducted significant public outreach on the Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan including: • Comprehensive Plan Kick-off and Visioning Workshop. • Online engagement using Social Pinpoint. • Social Media posts. • Created a website and maintained a project mailing list. • Engagement at the Port Orchard Farmer's Market. • Planning Commission meetings where discussion of the Comprehensive Plan occurred. These outreach efforts were summarized in the September 22, 2023, Public Engagement Summary. Since then, the City has held three public workshops: • February 28, 2024: Policy Workshop - Collected feedback on current policies and future policy suggestions. • May 9, 2024: Land Use Workshop - Sought input on land use policy and proposed zoning regulations. • July 24, 2024: Bethel/Lund and Sedwick/Bethel Subarea Plan Workshop - Gathered public input on preferred alternatives for the Bethel Subarea Plans. Public comments were accepted in -person and online until September 17, 2024. All workshops included an online component through Social Pinpoint to ensure broader community participation and feedback for the draft elements and subarea plans presented at the public hearing. Alongside these outreach efforts, the City and its consultant prepared an Existing Conditions Report, which serves as a baseline for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update. This report covers population demographics, housing, the economy, and planning targets to assist in developing goals and policies. Key findings include: • Population and Demographics: Rapid growth and increased diversity. • Households: Insights into household size and income levels. • Housing Stock and Affordability: Challenges like vacancy rates and limited middle housing options. • Economy: The local economy is largely service and retail -based, with most workers residing outside Port Orchard. • Population and Job Targets: Historical growth rates in both areas. Starting in January 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed ten draft elements of the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, including Land Use, Housing, Parks, and Transportation. Feedback from the Commission and the public was compiled into a comment matrix, which the City reviewed to determine which comments to accept, consider further, or dismiss. The City provided explanations for each decision and presented these to the Planning Commission in June. Since then, the City and consultant have refined all draft elements based on this feedback to ensure alignment with the Growth Management Act (GMA), PSRC's Vision 2050, and Countywide Planning Policies. During the Bethel Subarea workshop at the Kitsap Regional Library, attendees discussed three development alternatives: • Alternative 1: Status Quo — Maintains current zoning with some necessary adjustments for state middle housing legislation. • Alternative 2: Compact Development — Encourages flexible regulations and strategic zoning changes for efficient growth and improved pedestrian access. • Alternative 3: Transit -Oriented Development — Focuses on leveraging planned transportation improvements and fostering mixed -use areas to promote walkable neighborhoods. The meeting saw strong attendance, resulting in substantial community input. Public comments on the subarea alternatives were also accepted online via Social Pinpoint until August 11, 2024, with an extended email feedback period until September 17, 2024. This allowed for further refinement of the Bethel Subarea Plans, which have now been updated and submitted to the Planning Commission for review. Based on the feedback received, the city proposed hybrid preferred alternatives for each of the subareas. Bethel/Lund combining Alternatives 1 and 2, and Sedgwick/Bethel reflecting variations of Alternatives 2 and 3. Minor zoning changes were made in both subareas, mainly to align with existing developments. The hybrid alternatives include proposed height overlay districts, allowing for increased building heights from three to four/five stories in certain areas, providing more flexibility for development while providing for transitions to existing areas of residential development. Summary of Draft Elements and Updates: • Introduction: Provides historical context and addresses growth challenges, emphasizing the significance of the downtown waterfront and transit access. Updates include growth data and references to Vision 2050. 2 • Land Use: Serves as a roadmap for future development, ensuring it aligns with city goals. Updates include demographic data, zoning map changes, and growth capacity references. • Housing: Establishes policies for diverse housing options to enhance quality of life, referencing the Housing Action Plan and addressing middle housing requirements. • Parks and Recreation: Outlines a strategy for enhancing parks and recreational facilities, ensuring they meet the needs of a growing population, consistent with the 2022 PROS Plan. • Natural Systems: Focuses on preserving natural assets and promoting healthy living while ensuring that development aligns with environmental goals. • Economic Development: Sets goals for employment and business growth, promoting a sustainable economy in line with regional policies. • Utilities Element: Addresses the improvement and maintenance of the utility system, ensuring it meets growth needs while maintaining service levels. • Transportation: Outlines future system improvements, emphasizing nonmotorized transportation options and creating a sustainable multi -modal system. • Capital Facilities: Plans for infrastructure to accommodate growth, ensuring alignment with state requirements and county planning policies, including a six -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). • Climate: Introduces a new element focusing on climate change, promoting strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing resilience. • Appendices: Supports the Comprehensive Plan by providing detailed, area -specific guidance that aligns with the city's vision and development goals. o Appendix A — Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map: Updated for consistency with all Comprehensive Plan Elements. Provides a visual representation of land use designations, guiding future development and zoning decisions. o Appendix B — Plans Adopted by Reference: Updated to include current plans from other jurisdictions and other City of Port Orchard plans, including water and sewer system plans, the City's Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and other related documents. o Appendix F — Bethel — Lund Subarea Plan: An added appendix, this plan provides a framework for future land use and infrastructure development in the Bethel — Lund subarea. o Appendix G — Sedgwick - Bethel Subarea Plan: An added appendix, this plan provides a framework for future land use and infrastructure development in the Sedgwick - Bethel subarea. o Appendices C, D and E: There are no changes proposed to these appendices as part of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update. However, these appendices will be included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. On September 24, 2024, the City issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance regarding the 2024 Comprehensive Plan adoption. The following day, a 60-day Notice to Adopt was sent to the Department of Commerce. The City submitted all elements and appropriate Appendices to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 1, 2024. At the October 1, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the materials and opened a public hearing to collect testimony regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the Bethel Subarea Plans. The hearing was left open until the October 29, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. During 3 the October 1 meeting the Planning Commission took public comment regarding the Comprehensive Plan Elements. The Planning Commission was encouraged to provide comments on the draft Elements by October 15 to incorporate changes into the version presented tonight. Since the October 1 Planning Commission meeting, staff have since revised the Elements based on public comment and the Commission's input during the meeting. Public comments were incorporated into the June Comment Matrix and are provided as an attachment to this Staff Report. In response to public testimony received at the October 1 Planning Commission meeting, staff revised the Housing, Land Use, Transportation Elements and the Bethel subarea Plans. The comments and associated action are detailed in the attached comment matrix, and reflected in the redline text of the respective sections. The Capital Facilities Element has been updated to include revised dollar values for the projects previously presented to the Planning Commission on October 1. These values have been adjusted to reflect ongoing budget discussions with the City Council and Finance Department. While not presented in redline format, they represent the most current figures available as of this report. However, these values remain subject to further changes before final adoption by the City Council. Staff met with PSRC to receive feedback on the draft elements on October 21, 2024. During the meeting between City staff and PSRC, feedback was provided on the draft Comprehensive Plan elements which was documented in a follow up letter included in the packet. Comments were received and are being addressed as follows: • PSRC recommended including a policy addressing tribal treaty rights consistent with MPP-DP-7 as found in Vision 2050. In response, city staff added a new goal encouraging coordination with other jurisdictions, agencies, tribes, and ports, which has been incorporated into the Land Use Element presented to the Planning Commission and copied MPP-DP-7 verbatim as a city policy under this new goal. • PSRC suggested revisions to the Transportation Element have been made to address PSRC's comments, ensuring compliance with certification standards. These revisions include adding a reassessment strategy for potential funding shortfalls, and strengthening policies related to mobility options for people with special needs. The updates are reflected in the redline version of the Transportation Element attached to this report for the Planning Commission's review. • PRSC recommended adopting a policy in the Parks element to ensure that parks are located within a 10-minute walk of all areas of the City. This suggestion is already documented in the PROS plan, but a policy has been added to the parks element. • PSRC provided several comments to the City regarding housing. These comments require that the City show its work regarding housing affordability. The City's consultants are working to update supporting materials adopted as appendices to the plan, but these additions will not be ready prior to October 29. As such, the suggested motion indicates that the Planning Commission should ask that the City Council ensure that these issues are resolved through further revisions in support of the plan. • Additional comments were received concerning business displacement as redevelopment occurs and climate impacts to vulnerable populations. City staff continue to meet with PSRC on these two issues and recommends that the Planning Commission ask that the City Council resolve these 4 comments to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan stays on track to be adopted by the end of the year. As of the date of this report, the Department of Commerce has not yet provided official comment on the Comprehensive Plan. Informally, the Department of Commerce has indicated that there are no significant issues with the Comprehensive Plan draft. However, some minor responsive edits may be necessary. Staff anticipate receipt of these comments after the close of the public hearing and plan to work with the City Council to address any comments received. Tonight, the Planning Commission is asked to continue the public hearing, accept additional public comments, close the public hearing, deliberate on the Comprehensive Plan Elements and make a recommendation to the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommend continuing the public hearing to take additional public testimony on the 2024 Comprehensive Plan and Bethel Subarea Plans and after closing the hearing make a recommendation to the Port Orchard City Council regarding the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update. Suggested Motion: "I move to recommend approval of the 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council as presented and to further recommend that the Council review the PSRC comments and any comments that may be provided by the Department of Commerce and address any unresolved issues from these comment letters." Attachments: 2024 Comprehensive Plan: Introduction, Land Use Element, Housing Element, Parks Element, Natural Systems Element, Economic Development Element, Utilities Element, Transportation Element, Capital Facilities Element, Climate Element. Bethel/Lund Subarea Plan and Sedgwick/Bethel Subarea Plan. Appendices. 2024 Zoning Map. Revised Comment Matrix. PSRC Comment Letter. 5 Chapter 1.1 Introduction Introduction Port Orchard is a small but growing city in the Puget Sound region of Washington State. It is near major urban and employment centers and enjoys an outstanding natural setting. Port Orchard's residents have a strong community spirit and value the area's important maritime history. These aspects contribute to a high quality of life that influences people's choice to live and work in Port Orchard. Like most cities in the Puget Sound region, rapid population growth in the last decade has contributed to increasing demands for goods, services, housing, and infrastructure. These demands on the local community represent some of the biggest challenges facing the City since it last undertook updating its Comprehensive Plan in 2016. Downtown Port Orchard has continued to be a focal point with its waterfront location and access to transit, including passenger ferry service with connections to downtown Seattle. How Port Orchard manages its growth in the years to come is crucial to the City's businesses and residents. Bolstered by its rich history, active community participants, and scenic location, Port Orchard has the opportunity to build on its many assets to create a more connected and vibrant city. There are great opportunities to continue revitalizing the downtown area, draw more attractions to the city, and encourage appreciation for Port Orchard's natural resources and friendly, close-knit community. The City will take strategic steps to identify and strengthen the relationship between the built environment, natural environment, community members, and government to further the goals of a cohesive community based on a deep understanding of the need to balance development with the preservation of unique and critical environmental resources. 1.1.1 Statement of Purpose and Intent The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan establishes a framework for addressing the challenges of today and the future. The Plan integrates the desires of the community and best practices in contemporary city planning, making the government more responsive to the needs of the community and more connected with residents. Used properly, this document will guide decision -making and development in Port Orchard by ensuring that ordinances, regulations, programs, and projects are developed in accordance with community values and goals. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan specify measurable, achievable actions that most effectively utilize resources, retain the small- town character of Port Orchard, and build a stronger community. Developed with significant public input and City leaders' review, this document will guide Port Orchard's development and growth patterns for the next 20 years through 2044. This document will update the existing Comprehensive Plan, which was last fully updated in 2016. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 1.2 2044 Targeted Outcomes With continued hard work that is focused and coordinated in accordance with the goals and policies in this comprehensive plan, Port Orchard will remain one of the best small cities in Washington State. By careful planning, Port Orchard's increasing number of residents will enjoy a sustained high quality of life that is founded upon its supportive community, healthy economy, and pristine environment. Using the community's vision for the future, by the year 2044 the City will have built upon these positive attributes and will have achieved the following: • Port Orchard has retained its small-town character and strong community spirit. • The historic downtown is attractive and vibrant. • Efficient patterns of development have reduced real per capita infrastructure costs. • Housing has remained available to all members of the community, and the diversity of housing types has expanded. • Housing has remained available and affordable to all members of the community, and the diversity of housing types and densities has expanded. • Walking, biking, driving, and transit infrastructure make it easy to get around the city. • Port Orchard's waterfront and open space resources are highly enjoyable by the community. • Community organizations are better empowered to coordinate events and activities. • Residents continue to enjoy a comfortable and productive relationship with City government. • Residents have access to well -paying jobs, have short commutes, and choose to shop locally. • Local businesses are supported by the community and government policies that promote economic development. • Residents are better informed and connected to the planning process. • Port Orchard's critical areas, shorelines, and other natural resources are appropriately protected with no net loss to critical areas and their functions, and where feasible critical areas and shorelines are restored or enhanced. • Native American cultural and historic resources (archeological sites) will be protected through conditions on development approvals that require identification and preservation of designated sites, along with notification to the State and the Suquamish Tribe. • Impacts to natural systems are minimized while population and job growth targets are met. • Provide equitable service and access to opportunities for people of color, people with low incomes, and historically underserved communities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 1.3 Visioning: Connections Port Orchard is defined by its physical and social environments and the ways in which they are connected. This Comprehensive Plan lays out a vision for Port Orchard that is founded on connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to a stronger community. In addition to meeting state laws, addressing local and regional planning goals, and serving as a record of community input, this Comprehensive Plan seeks to bridge the specific goals and policies of the different elements to the needs and desires of the community through the established connections framework. It is important to think of Port Orchard not just as its parts, but as a cohesive whole. The City aims to improve the connections between land uses, housing, businesses, transportation, and the natural environment. As well as promote a higher level of interaction between the City government and community members. There are some key ways in which this can be achieved. Primary Connections: • Connect individual neighborhoods to the greater city • Connect people to the waterfront • Connect people to downtown • Connect downtown and the waterfront • Connect people via land use choices that encourage meaningful interactions (i.e. housing within walking distance to shops and restaurants that allows people to interact with each other on the street) • Connect separate areas of the city with a variety of transportation options • Connect people to the history of the city through the built environment • Connect neighborhoods to the regional trail network • Connect parks to housing and other parks • Connect residents and government officials • Connect business and government through a high level of partnership and cooperation • Connect identified wildlife habitat areas and corridors with greenbelts and other open space areas. • Connect the community to the natural environment through education and voluntary stewardship. Elements of Connection Within the comprehensive planning process, physical, social, and governmental influences must be considered in how Port Orchard is connected. Physical element: The infrastructure, housing, transportation, parks, natural amenities, topography, critical areas, restaurants, shops, businesses, schools, and all other built and natural aspects that make up the city. Social element: The residents, the groups, and the interests they represent. Government element: The professional, public services, and regulatory side of the City that must work to maintain and foster a relationship with residents that is healthy and responsive to community needs and desires. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 1.4 Centers Building concentrations of activity in Port Orchard will help create a more vibrant city. Within countywide centers, a mix of land uses will lead to higher levels of local connectivity. Centers can connect housing, businesses, and services in a more focused way, allowing for more efficient land uses and allocation of public resources for infrastructure. See Section 2 (Land Use) for more information on Centers. 1.5 Port Orchard History The Port Orchard area was historically occupied by the Suquamish people, whose ancestors have lived in the Central Puget Sound area for approximately 10,000 years. Ethnographic and archeological evidence shows that the Suquamish people have lived, gathered food stuffs, produced ceremonial and spiritual items, and hunted and fished for thousands of years in the area now known as Port Orchard. Sidney M. Stevens first purchased 88.5 acres of land in 1885 with the intention of starting the town that would become Port Orchard. His son, Frederick Stevens, platted the land in 1886 and named the new location Sidney, after his father. Early businesses focused on lumber and a handful of saloons. Other industries included sawmills, shingle mills, and a pottery and terra cotta plant. The town was incorporated on September 15, 1890, and became the first town in Kitsap County to be both platted and incorporated. Sidney became the county seat in the general election of 1892. Shortly after, the U.S. Navy sought a suitable location for another west coast base and found it in the Sinclair Inlet with the assistance of Sidney's residents. This location would later become the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The original industries began to fade with the addition of the naval shipyard, and subsequently many of the employees of the timber industry moved to the shipyard for work. In December of 1892, the residents of Sidney petitioned both the state legislature and the Post Office Department to rename the City to "Port Orchard." After much confusion with the local post office, Sidney was finally renamed "Port Orchard" in 1903. The first school in Sidney opened in 1889 and later the South Kitsap Union High School opened in 1922. In 2000 the City's land area was 3.96 square miles, but after several annexations, increased to 9.63 square miles in 2012. These annexations have also increased the population of Port Orchard, growing from 11,144 to 15,587 people between 2010 and 2020. The Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates that Port Orchard's population as of June 28, 2024 had risen to 18,300 people. Figure 1-1. Port Orchard Population Growth 2016-2024 OFM Estimates 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 OFM Population Estimate Annual Growth Rate 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2°% 1% 0% 2023 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 1.6 The Context of Planning in Port Orchard 1.6.1 What is a Comprehensive Plan? A comprehensive plan is a tool that allows a City to anticipate and guide changes in a manner that is consistent with the desires of the community. Based on extensive public input that has occurred over the last periodic updates, this document serves as the record of the City's long-range vision, priorities, and concerns. It translates the community's vision into goals and policies for the City to use in evaluating and making future physical, economic, and community development decisions. When implemented, the comprehensive plan acts as a tool for managing growth, coordinating programs and regulations and protecting the community's quality of life and critical resources. In the face of constant and inevitable change, it ensures that community goals are predictably, consistently, and effectively promoted and implemented. In Washington State, comprehensive plans cover a 20-year planning horizon and are required to be updated every 10 years' with a 5-year mid -cycle review. These plans serve as long-range policy guides for managing growth and development within a jurisdiction, considering both the natural environment and available resources. In addition to being required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to include a 20-year outlook, this timeframe also provides enough time to accommodate and guide population and employment growth effectively, while also providing a realistic outlook for demographic changes, economic shifts, and workforce dynamics. This longer time frame also allows jurisdictions to make decisions related to land use and infrastructure that can withstand short-term fluctuations, ensure investments align with projected growth, and maintain a coherent vision for the community. 1.6.2 Population and Employment Allocations and Capacities As population and employment continue to grow in the city, Port Orchard has been allocated a certain amount of the region's growth and must plan to accommodate that growth through its zoning and infrastructure capacity. In conjunction, Kitsap County has calculated how much zoned land capacity Port Orchard has. Port Orchard must plan for an additional 10,500 residents above its 2020 population by 2044, according to the most recent Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies which utilize the City's 2020 population from the US Census2. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report calculates that the City has an additional population capacity of 16,250 residents3. This is greater than the City's growth target (10,500 additional residents) as found in the Countywide Planning Policies and means that the City has surplus capacity for an additional 5,750 residents. To achieve its population growth target, Port Orchard would need to sustain a 3 percent annual growth rate until 2044. However, Port Orchard has seen a growth rate exceeding 3 percent per year since 2020. While this accelerated growth rate is not expected to continue, it is anticipated that Port Orchard will reach its growth target prior to 2044 if current trends continue. Similarly, Port Orchard must plan for an additional 5,400 jobs above its 2020 employment by 2044 in 1 http://app.lee.wa.eov/RCW/default.asl)x?cite=36.70A.130 2 https://www.kitsap.eov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/ KRCC%20Apprroved%2OGrowth%2OTargets October%202022.pdf 3 https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/ FINAL%20Buildable%20Lands%20Report November%202021.pdf Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 accordance with the most recent Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies'. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report identifies that Port Orchard has an additional employment capacity of 5,243 jobs, resulting in a small employment deficit of 157 jobs by the year 2044'. This deficit has been eliminated through minor changes proposed to the land use map in Appendix A and through the adoption of the Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel subarea plans as discussed in the Land Use Element. These population and employment growth allocations are used throughout the Comprehensive Plan for internal consistency. Whether Port Orchard adds over 10,500 residents and 5,400 jobs by 2044 depends on several factors. These include the completion of infrastructure projects in support of growth as outlined in Chapters 7-9, the health of the local economy, and the quality of public services such as schools. These factors influence how many people move to Port Orchard and how many jobs are created. The main goal of this Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that this growth aligns with the City's vision, which has been shaped by community involvement and input. This will be achieved through the implementation of the goals and policies contained within this Comprehensive Plan to facilitate coordinated and sustainable growth. 1.6.3 Port Orchard Urban Growth Area (UGA) The Urban Growth Area (UGA) in unincorporated Kitsap County affiliated with Port Orchard is an area designated for eventual annexation into Port Orchard. According to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, the UGA population in 2020 was 15,370, and the County has allocated it an increase of 3,552 people by 2044. The Buildable Lands Report shows the UGA has a capacity of 3,552 people based on existing zoning. This means that the land capacity of the Port Orchard affiliated UGA is exactly large enough to accommodate its population growth target. If the City were to annex all its UGA by 2044, it would need to provide infrastructure and services to these new residents. This has significant implications for Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and its provision of public services. Even if the City doesn't annex these areas, many of the residents living in the UGA work, shop, recreate, and travel in Port Orchard. As such, the City must consider the proximity of these areas and impacts to the City from this population when making decisions. 1.6.4 Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) The Washington State GMA was passed by the state legislature in 1990 to protect Washington's quality of life, economy, and environment from the threat of uncoordinated and unplanned growth. It requires state and local governments to identify and protect critical areas and natural resource lands, designate urban growth areas, adopt and regularly update comprehensive plans, and implement them through capital investments and development regulations. Cities and counties planning under the GMA are required to adopt development regulations that are consistent with, and implement, their comprehensive plans. The GMA also promotes coordination and consistency between cities, counties, and the state, in part by requiring that all comprehensive plans address certain goals. The 15 goals of the GMA' are: 4https://www.kitsap.eov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/ KRCC%20Apprroved%2OGrowth%2OTargets October%202022.pdf 5https://www.kitsap.eov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/ FINAL%20Buildable%20Lands%20Report November%202021.pdf s https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.020 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 • Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development. • Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled and are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. • Housing. Plan for and accommodate affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. • Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. • Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. • Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. • Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands and discourage incompatible uses. • Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. • Environment. Protect and enhance the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. • Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process, including the participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. • Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. Climate change and resiliency. Ensure that comprehensive plans, development regulations, and regional policies, plans, and strategies under RCW 36.70A.210 and chapter 47.80 RCW adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice. • Shorelines of the state. For shorelines of the state, the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 shall be considered an element of the county's or city's comprehensive plan. The GMA is codified as Revised Code of Washington (RCW) chapter 36.70A. It can be accessed online at the following link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A 1.6.5 Puget Sound Regional Council's VISION 2050 VISION 2050 is a regional strategy for accommodating the 5.8 million people expected to live in the central Puget Sound region by 2050. It is administered by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a regional planning agency with a mission to enhance the quality of life in the region. The region is defined as Kitsap, King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The PSRC develops policies and coordinates decisions about regional growth, transportation, and economic development planning. It is also responsible for selecting local projects to receive federal transportation funding. VISION 2050 is an integrated, long-range vision for maintaining a healthy region. It promotes the well- being of people and communities, economic vitality, and a healthy environment. VISION 2050 has been refined from the previous VISION 2040 framework with the following primary tenets to support comprehensive regional growth strategies: • Retains the same core emphasis on a strong economy, healthy environment, preserving farms and forests, and supporting growth within the urban growth area and centers • Retains the same plan structure as VISION 2040, with a numeric Regional Growth Strategy, multicounty planning policies, and actions • Identifies new regional outcomes and a vision statement for the region • Addresses equity and health in policies and actions throughout the plan • Supports implementation of recent plans and initiatives, like the Regional Transportation Plan, the Regional Economic Strategy, the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan, the Regional Centers Framework, and Growing Transit Communities The concept of people, prosperity, and planet provides a central theme for VISION 2050. This concept signals that our regional leaders use an approach that considers social, cultural, economic, and Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 environmental benefits when making decisions. Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan proposes a sustainable approach to growth and future development. The Plan commits to maintaining and restoring ecosystems, through steps to conserve and enhance key fish wildlife habitats and other critical areas, to promote restoration of degraded shorelines, to improve water quality, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This Comprehensive Plan has been updated based on residential and employment targets that align with VISION 2050. Through the targeting process we have identified the number of housing units in the City that currently exist and that are anticipated to be developed within the planning period and have identified needs for affordable housing. Residential and employment targets for the City's designated local centers of importance will be identified and expanded in future subarea planning for these centers. This Plan addresses each of the policy areas in VISION 2050. The elements of the Plan include goals and policies that address habitat protection, water conservation, air quality, and climate change. Environmentally friendly development techniques, such as low -impact landscaping and stormwater runoff management, are encouraged. The Plan calls for more compact urban development and addresses mixed -use and transit -oriented development. There are directives to prioritize funding and infrastructure investments to our centers of local importance. The Housing element commits to expanding housing production at all income levels to meet the diverse needs of both current and future residents. The Economic Development element supports creating jobs, creating sustainable and livable communities, and improving connections between housing, employment, and transportation. The Transportation element advances cleaner and more sustainable mobility, with provisions for complete streets, context -sensitive design, and alternatives to driving alone. The City's transportation planning is coordinated with Kitsap County, including level of service standards and concurrency provisions. The City also commits to conservation methods in the provision of public services. The Implementation section of the Plan addresses local implementation actions addressed in VISION 2050, including identification of underused lands and housing targets. VISION 2050 can be accessed online at the following link: www.psrc.org/planning-2050/vision-2050 1.6.6 Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council and Countywide Planning Policies The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) is an inter -local forum for local jurisdictions and the voice on countywide transportation planning and policy issues. Its members include Kitsap County, Port Orchard, Bremerton, Bainbridge Island, Poulsbo, and the Port of Bremerton. Kitsap Transit and the Suquamish & Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes are Associate Members, and Naval Base Kitsap is an Ex Officio member. The Council coordinates the review and monitoring of the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies and related population forecasting and distribution. The Council's Executive Board is responsible for the distribution of federal grant funds for federal transportation funding via the PSRC. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies tailor the PSRC's regional growth management guidelines to Kitsap County and is the policy framework for the County's and the Cities' comprehensive plans. The Countywide Planning Policies address 15 separate elements, ranging from urban growth areas to affordable housing. The Countywide Planning Policies are required by the GMA and were originally established in 1992. The Kitsap County Planning Policies can be accessed online at the following link: www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/Pages/Kitsap-Countywide-Planning-Policies.aspx Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 1.7 Community Involvement in the 2044 Update The Plan is ultimately written for the residents of Port Orchard and to implement their visions of the community's future. The GMA requires actively involving the public during the development and update of the Plan. This process began with the creation of a Public Participation Program that outlines opportunities for community involvement, how the public can submit comments, and how the public is notified of open meetings. The City began soliciting public input in early 2023 at a public Kickoff and Visioning meeting held in January. At this meeting, the City outlined the scope of this 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan and solicited feedback on the City's progress toward implementing the 2036 Targeted Outcomes contained in the City's previously adopted Comprehensive Plan (2016). This feedback was used as a baseline to review community priorities for this Periodic Update and identify new opportunities and challenges since the City's last Comprehensive Plan update. A Policy Workshop held in February of 2024 provided an opportunity to review, give feedback, and revise policy language in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This meeting identified items that must be included in the Plan for consistency with the Washington State Growth Management Act, Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050, and the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. The intent of this Workshop was to give the public an opportunity to provide input on policy updates the community felt are needed, given the growth and change throughout the City since the last major Comprehensive Plan Update in 2016. A Land Use Strategies Workshop in May of 2024 summarized updates to the City's Zoning Map, Future Land Use Map, and introduced proposed zoning code revisions. The public was encouraged to attend this meeting to review and provide feedback on the City's anticipated approach to meeting the state, regional, and county regulatory requirements of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update process related to land use, zoning, housing, and overall growth that the City will be experiencing over the next 20 years. In association with the subarea planning efforts conducted with this Comprehensive Plan update, the City hosted a public workshop at the Kitsap Regional Library in Port Orchard in July 2024. The workshop presented detailed information related to the specific planning efforts related to the Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund subarea plans with the intention of achieving Countywide Center designations for those areas. The workshop prepared interactive maps and questionnaire boards detailing proposed changes to these specific areas of Figure 1-2. Kickoff and Visioning Meeting Figure 1-3. Port Orchard Farmers Market Booth Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 the City to collect input on community desires for the future of these areas that have adequate infrastructure, transit service, and developable land to focus growth. More detailed information for these subareas is provided in the Land Use Element. The subarea plans are included as Appendix F and Appendix G of this Comprehensive Plan. 1.8 Organization of the Plan The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan is designed to align with the community's vision and values. It is built upon the concept of "connections" outlined in Section 1.3, emphasizing that the interlinking of the physical and social environment as discussed in the elements contained within this Plan lead to a stronger community. This leads to the centers strategy, which not only implements the Regional Growth Strategy found in VISION 2050 but is integrated into the Land Use element. The Land Use goals, in turn, then influence all of the other Plan elements, creating a cohesive and interconnected framework. This comprehensive strategy ensures that every aspect of the Plan ties back to the community's vision and overall goals, fostering a well -integrated and sustainable approach to development. BASELINE INFORMATION emu!__ CENTERS STRATEGY HOUSING CL 4V _io PARKS LAND USE ELEMENT FN.Q 0i W v _ UTILI IES ��z� r . �t x CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENTS Rt �0 0 RECONOMIC 0 00 0 DEVELOPMENT CLIMATE � ., NATURAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Figure 1-4. Organization of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 2. Land Use 2.1 Introduction The Land Use element represents the nexus of the Comprehensive Plan, where land use goals, policies, map designations, and decisions are created to connect and incorporate all other elements through a future -looking lens as Port Orchard continues to develop. The purpose of this section is to provide a framework to guide future land use to help Port Orchard grow in an orderly, rational, and efficient way and help the community realize its potential during the 20-year planning horizon. The goals and policies contained herein recognize that effectively planning for growth can result in lower taxes and fees to fund and maintain infrastructure and services as unplanned growth can reduce efficiency and increase the cost of utilities, roads, and other services, as well as consume valuable open space. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Comprehensive Plans to contain land use elements that describe the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses. Once adopted, land use goals and policies will be functionally implemented through Port Orchard's development regulations. The Land Use element must plan for the City's population and employment growth projections in accordance with GMA requirements while balancing new development needs with the community's aspirations and values. 2.2 Key Issues and Concepts As a community, Port Orchard is growing due to a healthy birth rate, immigration, and annexation. This plan accommodates Port Orchard's 2044 population and employment growth allocations, as distributed through the VISION 2050 framework and agreed upon in coordination with other Kitsap County jurisdictions in the Countywide Planning Policies. Port Orchard's land use and zoning designations currently provide sufficient land capacity within City boundaries to accommodate the targeted 10,500 additional residents who will make Port Orchard their home (during the 2020-2044 planning period). In conjunction with the findings of the Buildable Lands Report, the Future Land Use Map shows how the additional 3,552 projected and allocated residents in the adjacent Urban Growth Area can be accommodated. A common theme heard throughout the public engagement process for this Comprehensive Plan Update has been focused on how to manage growth in a way that protects the small-town character of the community while allowing for new and innovative development that responds to changing household needs and growth pressures. Figure 2-1 below shows the changes in age brackets from 2010 to 2021, with a noted increase in the 35-54 age bracket (+4% since 2010). As Port Orchard's population ages, the City needs the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs and desires of the various age groups and their unique needs and desires from a land -use perspective. Page 2 -1 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Figure 2-1. Age Distribution Comparison 14% 18% 12% 13% 14% 2% Port Orchard (2010) Port Orchard (2021) Kitsap County Washington 65 and older 55 to 64 45 to 54 35 to 44 20 to 34 19 and younger The Land Use Element establishes the broad, general direction for the City's land use policies. These land use policies are established not only in accordance with the forward -looking population and employment growth projections allocated to the City but are also responsive to the existing population changes that the City has experienced since the last major Comprehensive Plan update. This element provides the City's policy plan for growth over the next 20 years. It also implements many of the goals and objectives in the other plan elements through suggested land use designations and other action recommendations. The Land Use Element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses and the appropriate intensity and density of land use designations to accommodate allocated population and employment growth projections. The City's development regulations and permitting processes are used to establish adequate development standards for growth, to ensure it occurs in a manner consistent with both the provisions of GMA and the community's vision for the future. To accomplish this, the Land Use element establishes goals and policies that seek to: • Accommodate changes in population and demographics • Encourage development in urban areas, reduce sprawl, and deliver services efficiently • Ensure land use designations reflect need and demand • Minimize traffic congestion and encourage the development of a multimodal transportation system • Protect open spaces and the natural environment • Promote physical activity • Support a range of employment opportunities • Allow middle housing types in areas predominantly characterized by single family detached housing. Page 2 - 2 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 2.3 Land Use Designations The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Figure 2-2. Future Land Use Designation Distribution identifies seven different land use designations, the distribution for which are shown in Figure 2-2 and do GB mapped in Figure 2-3. These land use designations are PCs 519oores r implemented through the City's zoning regulations contained in the Port Orchard Municipal Code. As shown in Table 2-1, each land use designation may correspond to one or more zoning designations for IND 138 acres implementation. As the City develops subarea plans for 2% its designated centers as described in section 2.7, new zones and standards consistent with this Plan will be created. In doing so, the City will ensure that the land capacity can accommodate the population and employment growth allocations adopted in the countywide planning policies and take reasonable measures to ensure that they are not surpassed. Figure 2-3. Port Orchard Future Land Use Map ` Land Use Designation SpvH,... Greenbelt (GB) al' Low -Density Residential (LDR) Medium -Density Residential (MDR) � - - - -' �IILIFr -oT � High -Density Residential (HDR),II-. Commercial (CDM) Urban Lndustnal (IND)' I Public and Community Spaces (PCS) I i v n -W-Br1FA7R VALLEX WD -1W - \ riN'w W SATE ""N l6 7 Ill INE DR STATE HWY A W. � it ... - � _- i 1._ • lM - _ iJ — 41-1 i � lF ji EA I I 1 L �y lI 1,274 acres 23% cor 873 ai 15, HU 61 acres 1% LDR 858 acres 15% MDR )28 acres 34% ttdRSrat v RD X B,�fIRY RD r� �I SE' ICK RD ill I II IL 73 IA LN F rl ikEe RD > { -Tit Page 2 - 3 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Table 2-1. Port Orchard Zone and Land Use Descriptions Protection of critical areas, habitat management areas, Greenbelt greenbelts, and designated open space. Allows for low density residential development. Low Density Residential Allows for single-family detached housing. R2 allows single-family detached and attached, ADUs, - . - Medium Density duplexes, cottage courts, and Residential Residential townhouses. R3 allows all of the above plus fourplexes and apartment buildings. Allows for cottage courts, Residential 4 JHigh Density Residential fourplexes, townhouses, and apartment buildings. Residential• Use Neighborhood Mixed Use MU — Business Professional Mixed Use Allows for commercial uses, Commercial Mixed D. . -• Commercial retail, office, mixed -use commercial/residential, and Mixed professional services. Corridor H — Commercial Heavy AN — Industrial Flex Allows for manufacturing and Industrialassembly, Urban Industrial bulk storage and I — Heavy Industrial warehousing, and transfer and AMA trucking services. Allows for government � � � � IF Public and Community services, utilities, parks, . Parks Spaces schools, and other related — Public Facilities public facilities. Page 2 - 4 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 2.4 Zoning and Current Land Use Characteristics Most land in the City is devoted to housing. Figure 2-4. Zoning Designation Distribution -September 2024 Commercial areas throughout the City offer E, a range of goods and services and provide 1443%res employment for residents and those living in surrounding rural areas as well as contribute 138 alrr., additional tax revenue to help fund and maintain 13a es 2% public services and facilities. Industrial lands allow `1% 858alres for light manufacturing and warehousing it 15% 8 acres businesses, which also provide job opportunities 1% and support the area's economy. The zoning 35M es DMU designation acreage distribution is shown in Figure 1% 48 acres 2-4 and is mapped in Figure 2-5, both of which are 1% provided for reference only since zoning is a CFI R2 development regulation that may be amended 214%fey 639 acres R3 29% through a quasi-judicial rezone process as defined cc 289 acres 182 acres 5% by the City's code. The Official Zoning Map is kept 3% RPMU R4 53 acres 61 acres on file with the City of Port Orchard City Clerk. 1% 1% Figure 2-5. Port Orchard Zoning Map - September 2024 Zoning Districts OW Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) ri Greenbelt (GH) 77 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) " y Residential l (R1) Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) � Residential 2 (R2) Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU)- Residential 3 (R3} Industrial Flex (IF) Resldentlal4 (R4} Light Industrial (LI) '�'' +; y Commercial Corridor (CC) Civic and Institutional (CI) ��KITSpp ST � -TII_ r{, 4 � Commercial Heavy (CH) Public Facilities (PF) �-z ._ w � �L,� e � ,� d Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) Parks and Recreation (PR) RE) Tit LE fy� Iw SE MAPLE ST o ?� - - S �a VAL� < — u z w '.'I{ebb' 1LL -\ s If _ F, �(fr r- a SE FIR 5T H_WY Sb yGIN T■� f It a z s ONE DR 1_\l� -� 11 `4 �1ffi k i' % G3' S ->\ T.,TgT - -t 8 TREMONT �` .' _ p �1 p. �/ 7y' 't �I�� � ' _ � �� � 7 I MAY ST W �. �� 1 £ -c / ray IN —71 j4 7+7 Jg�,�E BERCER LN? r0 7o SE SALMONSERRY RD .a IF gm Y` M SE SEDGWICK RO J. � i=^ T ry TI 1-' / 1 ��`- tf;� �✓ ern,., � h I�Ia�E CEDAR RD ✓ate _ . �ac E� SE VAN SKIVERtLt �_ — �� ✓� a r, Page 2 - I Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 2.5 Buildable Land Capacity The Kitsap County 2021 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) found that the City of Port Orchard has room to develop, through vacant or underutilized lands, a total of 6,659 dwelling units, or enough space for 16,250 residents using a variety of housing types, with the BLR basing these calculations on an assumed average of 2.44 people per housing unit. This means that the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate its growth allocation developed under the VISION 2050 framework, but also that it has surplus capacity which could potentially allow the City to exceed its growth allocation. The City's Population Capacity is shown in Table 2-2: Table 2-2. Port Orchard Population Capacity and Demand City of Port Orchard Population Capacity and Demand 2044 Population Capacity 16,250 2020-2044 Allocated Population Growth 10,500 Net Population Capacity (+ or -) 5,750 UGA Pop. Capacity/Demand Ratio 1.55 2.5.1 Current and Projected Growth and Performance Port Orchard's population growth allocation as found in Appendix B of the Countywide Planning Policies provides a target of 10,500 people to be accommodated between 2020 and 2044. As part of the City's 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, the City has the benefit of reviewing historic population growth data to evaluate its performance in accommodating population allocations. Since the City's last Comprehensive Plan Update in 2016, the City grew at an average rate of 3.1% annually as shown in Table 2-3 below. Port Orchard experienced a housing boom beginning in 2020 that continues in 2024. Prior to 2019, growth rates averaged around 2% per year. Since 2020, growth rates have been significantly higher averaging around 5%. The City projects that the current housing boom will slow in the coming years and that growth rates will return to historic averages. Table 2-3. Port Orchard Population Growth OFM Intercensal Population Estimate (prior to 2020) and Postcensal Estimates (after 2020) OFM Forecasting Year Annual Growth Rate 14,240 2016 2.6% 14,497 2017 1.8% 14,746 2018 1.7% 15,064 2019 2.2 % 15,587 2020 3.5% 15,960 2021 2.4% 16,400 2022 2.8% 17,480 2023 6.6% 18,300 2024 4.7% The City must maintain an average annual growth rate of 1.788% over the next 20 years to meet (and not exceed) KRCC's growth allocation of an additional 10,500 population in 2044. Alternatively, the City would need to add an average of 389 residents annually over the 20-year period to reach the KRCC growth target. Page 2 - 6 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 2.5.2 Employment Capacity The 2021 Kitsap County BLR identifies that the City had an additional employment capacity of 5,243 jobs at the time of writing the BLR, which would result in a small employment deficit compared to the 5,400 allocated employment target established in association with the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. In order to eliminate this deficit, the City has taken multiple regulatory steps: • Increased permitted development heights within the Ruby Creek Subarea • Increased permitted development heights within the Downtown Subarea • Developed new subarea plans for Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel areas to apply appropriate zoning for existing/planned transit and infrastructure availability Based on the results of the Land Capacity Analysis conducted in association with this Update, the result of these regulatory steps has created an anticipated employment capacity of 14,015. This exceeds the allocated 2044 employment target of the Countywide Planning Policies by 53 jobs, demonstrating adequate employment capacity for the allocated employment target over the 20-year planning horizon. 2.6 Overlay Districts The City's development regulations include land use overlay districts which are applied in parts of the City. Port Orchard's overlay districts accomplish varying objectives including implementing subarea plans, providing regulations for the development in centers, regulating specific uses, and determining building heights. The City currently utilizes the following overlay districts: • Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) • Self -Storage Overlay District (SSOD) • Ruby Creek Overlay District (RCOD) • View Protection Overlay District (VPOD) • McCormick Urban Village Overlay District (MVOD) • Bethel Lund Subarea Height Overlay District • Sedgwick Bethel Subarea Height Overlay District The creation of a new overlay district may be appropriate as the City continues to develop subarea plans under the Centers approach to growth. 2.7 Land Use Goals & Policies Goals are not listed in any particular order. Port Orchard strives to: Goal I. Retain Port Orchard's small town commercial and residential character while accommodating allocated growth citywide. Policy LU-1. Ensure that land use and zoning regulations maintain and enhance low density residential neighborhoods, while encouraging that new development provides a mix of housing types. Policy LU-2. Limit industrial development to locations accessible from arterials or freeways and discourage industrial access through residential areas. Policy LU-3. Maintain building and site design standards that support an attractive and functional Page 2 - 7 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 built environment in all areas of the City. Policy LU-4. Encourage the subdivision of large parcels and, through private subdivisions and public acquisitions, the creation of a continuous street grid similar in scale to the downtown's, especially in designated centers. Goal 2. Ensure that sufficient land is available for development to accommodate allocated growth in population and employment. Policy LU-5. Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of housing units within the City and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted population growth. Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of commercial retail and office space within the City and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted employment growth. Policy LU-6. Ensure adequate land is available for light industrial and commercial uses, including high technology, medical, and office uses, in appropriate areas to diversify Port Orchard's economic base and provide for the community's changing needs. Policy LU-7. Monitor the rate of residential, light industrial and commercial growth against the 20- year targets established in VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies, and if growth appears to deviate from a rate that complies with these targets, consider adopting reasonable measures such as reducing/increasing adopted transportation levels of service,Fed Lie* ng/inereasm. iinpaet fees, or accelerating/delaying projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-8. Allow for a variety of single-family, middle housing, and multi -family housing types and employment opportunities that meet the needs of diverse socioeconomic interests. Policy LU-9. Notify adjacent military facilities of relevant local land use decisions. Policy LU-10. Allow for the siting of organic materials (OM) management facilities to meet OM reduction and diversion goals as identified in the Kitsap County Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Goal 3. Implement a strategy to develop centers. Policy LU-11. In consultation with stakeholders and the general public, develop a comprehensive strategy to implement centers as a means of directing and prioritizing residential and commercial growth. Policy LU-12. Within centers, set minimum building densities that enable lively and active streets and commercial destinations. Such limits may take the form of: minimum floors or building height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. Goal 4. Ensure that both public services and infrastructure are Page 2 - 8 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 developed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Policy LU-13. Prioritize capital facilities and transportation investment in those locations targeted for growth and higher land use densities. Policy LU-14. Coordinate with Kitsap County to develop a plan and timeline to annex UGA land adjacent to the City, consistent with the City's capability to provide municipal services and applicable law. Policy LU-15. Identify land in the UGA that is useful for public purposes, such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, parks, schools, and other public uses. Goal S. Protect, enhance, and maintain the values and functions of Port Orchard's natural areas, open spaces, and critical areas. Policy LU-16. Evaluate a range of incentives to encourage compact development to preserve open space throughout the City, possibly to include density credits, incentive zoning, and/or transfer of development rights. Policy LU-17. Prioritize the development of new parks, open space, and passive and active recreational opportunities in underserved neighborhoods and centers, especially those that do not have a park within a 5-minute walk, as identified in the Port Orchard Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Policy LU-18. Incentivize infill development to preserve and protect open space, critical areas, and natural resources. PolicyLU-19. Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater usedforpublic water supplies through zoning designations, development regulations, and the local critical areas ordinance. Goal 6. Reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, promote public health, reduce auto dependency, and increase multimodal transportation opportunities for accessing retail services, health care services, and places of employment. Policy LU-20. Ensure orderly development, concurrency of infrastructure provision, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas through an effective and predictable permitting process. Policy LU-21. Continue to review zoning, subdivision, and street regulations for barriers to low - impact development. Encourage the minimization of impervious surface areas in development. Policy LU-22. Promote local food security and public health by enabling the establishment of urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers markets, and food production and distribution infrastructure. Policy LU-23. Enable land use patterns that allow all residents to safely and efficiently access commercial services, especially grocery stores and healthcare facilities, without an automobile. Page 2 - 9 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy LU-24. Encourage the expansion of transit networks that enable both incorporated and unincorporated neighborhoods outside of the City to access job centers within Port Orchard. Goal 7. Encourage the development of active, vibrant, and attractive destinations throughout the community. Policy LU-25. Incorporate the following principles in planning for commercial areas: • Create lively and attractive places on a human scale. • Support a mix of retail, office, and residential uses in multistory structures. • Create transitions between commercial areas and surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Protect residential areas from excessive noise, exterior lighting, glare, visual nuisances, and other conditions that detract from the quality of the living environment. • Encourage multi -modal transportation options, especially during peak traffic periods. • Promote an intensity and density of land uses sufficient to support effective transit and pedestrian activity. • Promote a street pattern that provides through connections, pedestrian and vehicular access. • Establish urban and architectural design standards that support an attractive and functional pedestrian environment, such as block size limits and requiring street- facing windows and doors. • Encourage pedestrian travel to and within commercial areas by providing: ■ Safe and attractive walkways. ■ Close groupings of land uses. ■ Parking lot design that provides safe walking routes and pedestrian connections between adjacent properties. ■ Off-street surface parking to the backs or sides of buildings to maximize pedestrian access from the sidewalk(s). Goal 8. Connect new and existing neighborhoods to each other, to commercial and employment centers, and to public facilities. Policy LU-26. Require adequate transitions between different land uses to mitigate potential negative impacts of noise, light, and air pollution. Policy LU-27. Require new development to provide connections to and through -access for existing and planned trails and roads. Explore strategies to encourage existing development to provide the same as part of a City- and region -wide trail and open space network. Page 2 -10 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Goal 9. Encourage the ongoing development of downtown as an active, vibrant community, commercial, social, and civic center while respecting its historic character. Policy LU-28. In conjunction with the Centers Strategy as provided in Section 2.7, enhance downtown Port Orchard's role as the center of the South Kitsap region, reflecting the following principles in development standards and land use plans: • Encourage land uses that support transit centers and promote pedestrian activity. • Promote a mix of uses, including retail, office, and housing. • Encourage uses that will provide both daytime and evening activities. • Support civic, cultural, and entertainment activities. • Provide sufficient public open space and recreational opportunities. • Enhance, and provide access to, the waterfront. • Develop enhanced design guidelines and design review requirements that promote attractive, pedestrian -scale development and redevelopment within the City's historic downtown area. • Encourage and promote commercial building maintenance and occupancy to enhance the downtown business core. Policy LU-29. Consider conducting a downtown parking study to assess current and future parking needs and develop solutions and strategies to address identified constraints or oversupply. Policy LU-30. Ensure land use designations and development support existing maritime industries, promote creative uses of the waterfront, and facilitate the planning and construction of waterfront parks and gathering places. Goal 10. Collaborate with the County and nearby cities to develop a comprehensive watershed plan that incorporates land use strategies aimed at improving the health of Puget Sound. Policy LU-31. Reduce stormwater impacts from development through watershed planning, redevelopment and retrofit projects, and low -impact development. Policy LU-32. Coordinate land use planning with the County and nearby cities to identify changes that may occur to stream hydrology and water quality as a result of different land use scenarios and under a full build -out of the City's designated land use classifications. Policy LU-33. Implement the recommendations contained within the Downtown Basin Stormwater Plan to ensure that development of the Downtown subarea does not result in increased stormwater runoff and pollution to Puget Sound. Policy LU-34. Implement the 2023 Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 -11 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Goal 1 1. Ensure land use planning is equitable and does not worsen environmental health disparities. Policy LU-35. Integrate community health, equity, and displacement into appropriate planning practices and decision -making processes. Policy LU-36. Reduce impacts to vulnerable populations' and areas that have been disproportionately affected by noise, air pollution, or other environmental impacts. Goal 12. Establish land use patterns that increase the resilience of the built environment, ecosystems, and community to climate change. Policy LU-37. Establish development regulations that incorporate best practices for reducing the risk of wildfire, extreme heat, flooding, and other climate -exacerbated hazards. Policy LU-38. Identify and implement strategies for reducing residential development pressure in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Policy LU-39. For areas within the Wildland Urban Interface, apply the requirements of the Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code. Policy LU-40. Develop regulations for elevating new and substantially improved structures that are at demonstrated risk of damage caused by sea level rise. Policy LU-41. Address rising sea water by siting and planning for relocation of hazardous industries and essential public services away from the 500-year floodplain. Goal 13. Monitor population growth rates to ensure that the City is accommodating its share of regional growth as allocated in the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU-42. If the City's population growth rate falls below the rate needed to meet the 2044 population growth target, the City should consider adopting reasonable measures such as reducing adopted transportation levels of service, impact fees, or accelerating growth -related projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-43. If the City's population growth rate exceeds the rate needed to meet the 2044 population growth target, the City should consider adopting reasonable measures including increasing transportation level of service standards, impaet fees, or delaying projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Goal 14. Coordinate and collaborate with other cities, counties, ports, special purpose districts, agencies, tribes, and the military in furtherance of regional goals and policies. Policy LU-44. Consider the potential impacts of development to culturally significant sites and tribal 1 See RCW 36.70A.030(47) for definition of vulnerable populations Page 2 -12 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 treaty fishing, hunting, and gathering grounds. 2.8 The Centers Strategy 2.8.1 Introduction Throughout the post-war housing booms of the 1920s and 1940s, suburban residential development has become synonymous with the beginning of a development pattern known as urban sprawl. Sprawl expands development over large amounts of land, resulting in long distances between homes, jobs, and stores. It also significantly increases dependence on the automobile and traffic on neighborhood streets and highways, as driving is required for nearly every activity. This development pattern also draws economic resources away from existing communities and spreads them thinly and inefficiently, far away from a community's historic core. This increases spending on new roads, new water and sewer lines, and police and fire protection. This ultimately leads to the degradation of the older city, higher taxes, and fewer available resources for already existing communities. In the early 1990s, Washington sought to combat this adverse development style by adopting the Growth Management Act (GMA). Among other ambitions, the GMA suggested a new development pattern broadly known as "centers". In association with the City's 2016 major update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City designated ten "local centers" in accordance with the criteria provided in the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2040. In subsequent years, VISION 2040's criteria and terminology for centers have been revised, and as such the City has revised its center terminology and boundaries for consistency. Based on the new criteria established in PSRC's VISION 2050, the City has five designated "countywide centers" and four designated "local centers". Figure 2-3. The advantages of Infrastructure and Land Use Concurrency Compact development Power Sewer enables efficiency in Q capital facilities construction and A CD service delivery Roads Water A. Least Dense 2.8.2 What are Centers? B. Moderately Dense C. Most Dense ��ouu nnn uun unn - -- ----- --- --, -i III111 noon �. nnn .... --------------��� ------ ---- N& • l�l' Traditional neighborhoods often had smaller business districts that served surrounding residential areas. These districts typically had retail shops, markets, and services that were a short walk from the homes in the area. Additionally, these districts created a unique identity that solidified the neighborhood. With the increased cost of fuel and the economic recession, residents of Port Orchard have expressed a preference for the development of smaller, local retailers and service providers in places that knit Page 2 -13 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 people and commerce together on a local level. Centers are focused areas of development that have key uses which enable the City to deliver services more cost -efficiently and equitably pursue a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound and provide a means of influencing growth and change through collaboration with the community in planning for the future of these areas. This strategy helps to accommodate growth in designated areas while preserving the existing character of the community, thereby retaining more open space and the dominant pattern of existing development. Centers accomplish these objectives by: • Concentrating a thoughtful mix of supporting uses. • Allowing more intense development while maintaining appropriate scale. • Offering a wider variety of housing types that meets the needs of the broader community. • Minimizing the dependence on vehicle trips. The Centers strategy is a comprehensive and long-term approach to planning for a sustainable future that helps preserve those aspects of the community that residents' value. This approach is intended to maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services and promote collaboration with private interests and the community to achieve mutual benefits. Providing opportunities for residents, jobs, stores, services, and open spaces to be located in close proximity can reduce the reliance on cars for shopping and commuting and offer better access to daily wants and needs. Increasing residential and employment densities in key locations makes transit and other public services convenient for more people and therefore makes these services more efficient. According to VISION 2050, centers serve important roles as sub -regional hubs and secondary concentrations of development. They provide a dense mix of housing and services, such as stores, medical offices, and libraries. They serve as focal points where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living, and recreation. They often have a civic character with community facilities, such as municipal buildings and other public places. Local centers should be served by regular local transit and regional express transit service and should have a complete network of sidewalks and access to bicycle paths and transit facilities. The Regional Centers Framework identifies the process for the designation of Centers and defines five different types of Centers: Regional Growth Centers Regional Growth Centers are major centers strategically located to accommodate significant population and employment growth. They are characterized by compact, pedestrian -oriented development, with a mix of office, commercial, civic, entertainment, and residential uses. Regional growth centers include two subtypes — Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers. Metro Growth Centers must meet a minimum existing density of 30 activity units3 per acre and a minimum planned target density of 85 activity units per acre. Urban Growth Centers must meet a minimum existing density of 18 activity units per acre and a minimum planned target density of 45 activity units per acre. 2. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are areas that preserve lands for family -wage jobs in basic industries and trade and provide areas where that employment may grow in the future. They 2 https://www.psrc.org/media/3038 3 A measure of total activity that combines the number of jobs and population. (VISION 2050) Page 2 -14 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 are characterized by having industrial land uses and being located near ports, railroads or major highways. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers include two subtypes — Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers. Both subtypes must meet specific criteria for designation, including a minimum number of existing jobs, capacity to meet a minimum number of planned jobs, and have a regional role. 3. Countywide Centers Countywide Centers are designated in accordance with each county's countywide planning policies and serve an important role as places for concentrating jobs, housing, shopping and recreational opportunities. Countywide Centers include two subtypes — Countywide Growth Centers and Countywide Industrial centers. Countywide Growth Centers must be designated within the County's Comprehensive Plan and must also meet a minimum existing density of 10 activity units per acre and must plan for a mix of residential and employment uses and have capacity for additional growth. Countywide Industrial Centers must also be designated within the County's Comprehensive Plan and have a minimum of 1,000 existing jobs and/or 500 acres of industrial land, as well as be 75% zoned for industrial uses, and have capacity for additional growth. 4. Local Centers VISION 2050 calls for local jurisdictions to support a centers -based approach to planning and development and designate Local Centers. These centers are designated through a local planning process, not through the Regional Centers Framework process. 5. Military Installations Military installations are a vital part of the region, and while they are not subject to local, regional or state plans and regulations, recognizing the role they play in the regional economy and to regional growth patterns is important to local planning. Centers achieve "Designated" status when they are officially recognized by PSRC and approved in accordance with the Regional Centers Framework. They are then eligible for infrastructure investments and prioritized for transit access. Centers that are identified as "Candidates" are those that have been identified for future growth but are still being planned for their suitability and feasibility as a Center. Page 2 -15 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Figure 2-4. Pedestrian -focused Town Center Concept Page 2 -16 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 2.8.3 Designated Centers (Existing and Planned) The following centers have been designated in the City's comprehensive plan by center type: Regional Centers. The City has no designated regional centers at this time. Downtown Port Orchard was evaluated as part of the Downtown Subarea Planning Process as a candidate for regional center designation but achieving the PSRC requirement for 45 activity units per acre was determined to be too large of a change to Downtown Port Orchard. As Downtown continues to grow and evolve, its candidacy as a regional center should be revisited in the future. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The City has no designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers currently. The City's only industrial park is too small to be considered either a Manufacturing/Industrial Center or a Countywide Center. Port Orchard is served by the nearby Puget Sound Industrial Center — Bremerton. Countywide Centers. The City has five designated Countywide Centers. Not all of these Countywide Centers meet the minimum activity units per acre threshold per the PSRC Regional Centers Criteria for Countywide Centers (ten activity units per acre). The City intends that these Countywide Centers which don't presently meet the activity unit threshold set by PSRC will undergo land use capacity analysis in association with future subarea planning efforts to meet the activity unit threshold. These centers may temporarily be recognized as candidate countywide centers or local centers until the activity unit threshold is met. The City's designated Countywide Centers are as follows: 1. Downtown Port Orchard 2. Ruby Creek 3. Mill Hill 4. Sedgwick Bethel 5. Bethel Lund Local Centers. The City has designated the following local centers: 1. Annapolis 2. Old Clifton Industrial Park 3. Tremont Center 4. McCormick Woods Military Installations. The City has no military installations within the City Limits. Page 2 -17 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Figure 2-5. Port Orchard Centers Map Ril,I CENTERS � { K Bsr r ANNAPOLIS' BETHEL/LUND DOWNTOWN r ® MCORMICK TlPmII. 1LJ @® _It �! MILE HILL " OLD CLIFTON INDUSTRIAL :'I XnSAPs y �- RUBY CREEK �i _ sw,,q s a 41 — TREMONT/ L ��� d; I 4 orvsiorvsSEDGW`I L i TREMON KIBETHE '/ s �E oa <s _ L 4 -- r 1-W"t J SROUFEST_..� u SE FIR ST J,16 STAVE HWY LL.!I j 7wyi � �- TREMOM ST'., A �+7 T'1� _ MAY STW - o �� SE LUND AVE 1 4-1 ¢ / T -1 5E VALLAJR CT 1 s zooil L fi _ Q i ��1 SE BERCEN LN a j `� rT �,r _ > , Y—C f 5E SALMCNOERRY RO9 r T w s 1 se vnLe Roy _ �7 �� �� sE serer wcK Rn� / �- c _ rt1� r rJam' 1'' Yam% / � �� � ICw ' /05 r rtT- r� / I� �� a'r A ®® — w LN 1 , / �.&i-a � l ,64.�5?�.a5" � 4 �- }\--_- J •, r 7 � .�� �RI 1 --'}-- ��'� � E. !f' � I T-�F 2.8.4 General Center Goals and Policies The following are a list of general goals and suggested policies that Centers should seek to fulfill. Although Centers have common elements, it should be acknowledged that each Center is unique and have/will have a different set of priorities. Centers goals should be tailored to the specific Center in question. Generally, Centers should seek to: Policy CN-1. Prioritize the City's residential, commercial and light industrial growth and infrastructure investments within designated Centers, in accordance with VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy CN-2. Focus future growth in designated, higher intensity areas in an effort to encourage the preservation of open space and maintain surrounding neighborhood character. Policy CN-3. Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. Page 2 -18 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy CN-4. Provide commercial services that serve the population of the Center, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region (dependent on the suitability of the scale of each Center). Policy CN-5. Support pedestrian and transit uses by promoting compact, mixed -use areas with appropriate infrastructure that provide a variety of activities. Policy CN-6. Balance objectives for accommodating growth, encouraging compatibility, promoting housing affordability, and offering a wide range of housing types. Policy CN-7. Provide access to parks and public pedestrian spaces by creating them within each Center or by creating connections to existing public and open spaces. Policy CN-8. During subarea planning for Centers, develop an implementation plan that addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. Policy CN-9. The City shall direct growth to Centers of all types through focused regulations and directed capital projects. Policy CN-10. The City should support employment growth, the increased use of non -automobile transportation options, and the preservation of the character of existing built-up areas by encouraging residential and mixed -use development at increased densities in designated Centers. Policy CN-11. The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well -served by public transit. Policy CN-12. The City shall create and designate zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. Policy CN-13. The City shall encourage a broad range of housing types and commercial uses within designated Centers, through zoning and development regulations that serve a local, citywide, or regional market. Policy CN-14. The City shall encourage the creation of public open space, private open space, and parks within and serving designated centers. Page 2 -19 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 2.8.5 Specific Center Descriptions and Policies 2.8.5.1 Downtown Port Orchard Countywide Center In 2021, the City completed a subarea plan for Downtown Port Orchard which is adopted by reference in Appendix D. This plan combined two previous centers, the Downtown Port Orchard and County Campus Centers into one center. The center was evaluated for possible designation as a Regional Urban Growth Center, but there was a lack of support for increasing the level of activity in the center to a planned target of 45 activity units per acre. The boundaries of this center are shown on the map below: Figure 2-6. Downtown Port Orchard Countywide Center Map ILVES RD A ST�- E _ t -LEA s ■;. 5 E RILZ E Page 2 - 20 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.2 Tremont Local Center Purpose The purpose of the Tremont Subarea Plan is to ensure that future development in the Tremont Corridor is guided by specific standards and land use regulations that have been generated by community wide involvement. Planning efforts prior to 2010 established a vision, goals, and policies for the neighborhood which appear in this section. Figure 2-7. Tremont Countywide Center Map il" TREMONT r • C ■ ■FJI Ftl 1 ■ Ego a _ 'r, � ■+ v� r suNser LN w l.. y •i s� MAY STw CLAY LN T V/� ■1 a w ■ :� oz 5 _ SOUTH KITSAP BLVD � � - : — `�. F- f ■ s� j-�SWOi�L,Rr'hbhRo __ °' ■ J _ 1 �-.y� � �I—L��'�—�——�����\`���`���rirJ��� s-—— —� ? J FB 0.P5`+)'SI s ' _- . T I i ■. y� rr a, 41 r0 r i �� ■ H I- ♦t��. — c6LDEN • .� \ a a GAZEPC ST -- T SWMARLrA.-AY j* fw d L -'- I — � '■ \ Imo/ ���r� T. ��'=� � �-'_�■.• � l Vision The Tremont Corridor is one of three primary entry points into the City of Port Orchard from Highway 16. Presently the area is a mix of single-family residences, commercial, health care facilities and multi- family residences. The expanded Harrison Hospital Urgent Care Campus and Kaiser Permanente facilities are the anchors for businesses along the corridor, particularly from Pottery Avenue west to State Route 16 forming the basis for a Hospital Benefit District. The Tremont Corridor is a through -way for travelers and residents wanting to access shops and services in the core of the city and businesses and homes in outlying areas. The Tremont Corridor also announces to residents and visitors alike that Port Orchard has economic vitality and provides services and opportunities to its citizens and residents in the south Kitsap area. Page 2 - 21 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 Tremont Corridor and Port Orchard residents have determined that they would like to see the corridor developed in way that encourage professional businesses that support the health care facilities already in place and businesses that allow the continuing free flow of traffic from State Route 16 into the downtown areas. Focus should be placed upon pedestrian connections within the district as well as providing a regional connection to the South Kitsap areas served by the hospitals and emergency service providers within the district. The City completed a roadway reconstruction project within the Tremont Corridor in 2018, which improved intersections, created bicycle lanes, widened sidewalks, provided street trees in landscape strips, and a landscaped median that creates a boulevard style of roadway. The Tremont corridor is promoted to include design standards that will necessitate new development to provide a consistent, attractive landscape edge while maintaining a human scale to new and redevelopment projects. A system of trails that are pedestrian and bike friendly connecting the Tremont Corridor to the Port Orchard marine walkway with trails through natural areas are key to the success of the Tremont district. The Tremont district is envisioned with some multi -family residences to accommodate the combination of residential and employment land uses within walking distances of the major health care facilities. Some cafes and neighborhood services are also envisioned to support those living, working, or visiting the health care facilities. Regulations and design guidelines should help to ensure that parking is provided in a manner that is beneficial to the neighborhood and enhances the flow of transportation through the district. In addition, Tremont Corridor stakeholders envision monument signage that are tastefully designed and constructed of natural materials. The corridor from Pottery Avenue east to Sidney Road consists primarily of single-family residences and small clinics. Single family uses are encouraged as a desired mix of services and residential uses within this district. Housing and Employment As of 2018, the Tremont Center measured 215 acres containing 1,092 residents and 702 jobs. This equates to eight activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Tremont Center Goals Goal 14. Encourage development within the area that supports the major hospital and medical installations (Harrison Hospital and Kaiser Permanente) and assists the emergency response agencies in the corridor (South Kitsap Fire and Rescue). Policy CN-15. Encourage regulations that enhance existing businesses while providing incentives that promote economic growth in the corridor while maintaining sensitivity to residents in the area. Policy CN-16. Encourage professional and office uses that support the medical industry and create pedestrian oriented health care focus. Policy CN-17. Promote the creation of a hospital benefit district that will create opportunities for additional community and economic development funding. Page 2 - 22 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 Goal 15. Encourage residential units within walking distance to employment, services, and health care facilities. Policy CN-18. Require sidewalks or interconnected pedestrian paths or a system of trails for non - motorized transportation with all new development. Goal 16. Encourage development of an efficient multimodal transportation system and develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet its needs. Policy CN-19. Encourage all new developments to limit direct access to Tremont Street. Policy CN-20. All future City paving projects on streets within the Tremont Corridor should include continuous six-foot paved walkways for pedestrian use. Policy CN-21. Developments abutting public rights -of -way within the Tremont Corridor should include sidewalks and bicycle lanes consistent with the non -motorized improvements identified in the Transportation Element. Policy CN-22. The City shall help to facilitate the development of trail systems that connect the Tremont Corridor with transportation facilities in the surrounding areas. Policy CN-23. Encourage the expansion of Kitsap Transit's service to increase trip frequency within the Tremont Corridor. Page 2 - 23 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.3 Mile Hill Countywide Center The Mile Hill Countywide Center consists of development along the Mile Hill Road commercial corridor and adjacent multifamily development from the South Kitsap Mall to the eastern City boundary near Whittier Avenue SW. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. As of 2018, the Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center measured 70 acres containing 174 residents and 288 jobs. This equates to seven activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. The City should aim to develop a subarea plan for this center in future years. Figure 2-8. Mile Hill Countywide Center Map Page 2 - 24 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.4 Sedgwick-Bethel Countywide Center The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea spans across a total of 235.7 acres and is situated at the intersection of SE Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road SE. Sedgwick-Bethel is bordered by Port Orchard's unincorporated area to the east and by Blackjack Creek to the west. The study area's northern boundary encompasses recent developments and other vacant and developable lands. The Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 20.6 Activity Units per acre. For detailed information related to this Center, see Appendix F: Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan. Figure 2-9. Sedgwick-Bethel Countywide Center Map 1 t-1 h Ilw , L 4 1■ �s■. I111 �.I'� I �L T SE Sh�sE%rcrRo 11- �_ � � 1 � sEStILMONBERRY#fU —� L j 'F� I, i i T� Imo. SE BELFORD LN �w ■�1 7. i o ■ i■ 1T1. SE BLUEBERRY RD f ■ t � I = ^— = --SE SYLV75iN- I�I—L 1 5E KDOA CIR i r SE PIPERBERRY WA ; — — � ^I^ � I { IT?, • I� .'III I ^i_ :: — ■ — - _ i--� —I L-i ■ SE SEDGWICK RD I ■ - � I 1 4t j r TI um - IL Page 2 - 25 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.5 Bethel -Lund Countywide Center The Bethel -Lund Subarea is centrally located at the intersection of Bethel Road SE and SE Lund Avenue and bounded on the west by Blackjack Creek and east by Port Orchard's unincorporated area. The study area covers a total of 211.2 acres and extends north and south to capture areas of recent and upcoming developments. The Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 14.5 Activity Units per acre. For detailed information related to this Center, see Appendix G: Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan. Figure 2-10. Bethel -Lund Countywide Center Map BETHELILUN I —J . ONO ��4 -- � —I -� 3E tt1NDBERB RE, — -a I.�.. �` �a'�'■ L - - -I L ■4- ~� �� _ - - - sE LUND AVE 100 �� — II i �� Ti- f 1 ± TLF er,l1.! ■y.I3 �I -fir ;■LT,' SE VALL4IR LT - _ _ y j - y •.-'T SE]ERRYLN .',: 17 S r A�s;�r n " � � � _ j SE POLAR STAR WAY- �, I�L1.•� 16, o a Imo. ►�� -I i FAMW�D}_v SATI ISE�■ � �$� I_ <L. ■ -L-IGOLDENRODSTJ TT -`I—f�LL�l ♦I■ r PT ■ �i7�, • # AL 0. I Po� i F I r # NI !n i �I III;I . - f16i'`�'i"�_ &_IL/ ♦�#'. i ��Iw�-'ICI f■ > ��I� Ll I I ■ I L � f � i �� eRY Ra I `— � I I I A.�I I'� I ■ —T �l j !''L I f� .!i �_Ii�I l=�Ir. �I_I �J!!■I "h� !I'1��'�r.Pkl i Page 2 - 26 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.6 Sedgwick-Sidney (Ruby Creek Neighborhood) Countywide Center The Sedgwick-Sidney Countywide Center is a rapidly developing area of the City at the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road that has seen significant multifamily and commercial development since its designation in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as a Countywide Center. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City has developed the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Subarea Plan, which was adopted in September 2020. As detailed in the Subarea Plan, the center is planned to consist of 14.82 activity units per acre (with activity units being measured by combined capacity of jobs and housing units), with the activity units being comprised of a mix of approximately 73% residential and 27% commercial at full build -out. Figure 2-11. Sedgwick-Sidney Countywide Center Map 11 1 r '- 4 If I I i 7' i .■ I . I RUBY CREEK — ��I � _ —� —.L= rl r I - I I •yi 1 r ":?BURN WAY V I � � 4 --= r I SW HOVDE i �1 swseocw�cxao— \ qq —I I�- r �ti I i I� L� Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.7 Old Clifton Industrial Park Local Center The Old Clifton Industrial Employment Local Center is located at the site of reclaimed sand and gravel mine. Its close proximity to transportation facilities and its isolation as a result of past mining activities make it an ideal site for industrial and employment uses. The site is served by Kitsap Transit and is located along Old Clifton Road near State Route 16. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area as time and resources allow. There is the potential to expand this center boundary to the south along Old Clifton Road. Any expansion should be evaluated as part of the development of a subarea plan. Figure 2-12.Old Clifton Industrial Park Local Center Map JLD CLIFTON INDUSTRIAL- i ff— � } 'ECAP 6I' i �— _. _IuMSDEN ao 5-wD(Dgr, p • Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.8 McCormick Woods Local Center The McCormick Woods Local Center is located along SW Old Clifton Road near the western boundary of Port Orchard. The Subarea includes the McCormick Village commercial district which is surrounded by a mix of single family and middle housing types. The Center includes the McCormick Village Regional Park and a future South Kitsap School District school site. In 2021, a subarea plan for this local center was prepared. See Appendix E to the Comprehensive Plan — McCormick Urban Village Subarea Plan. Figure 2-13. McCormick Woods Local Center Map MCORMICK— — p�E iaR`6 SW PIEP LN i --!nft DRAL�-� � � w ♦ I ffi �?�?N Lnr� ��� �r a W� r — r I SW YARROW ST • SW OLD CLIFTON RD 11 LJ� 1' �/ �'• 1 FaY\' —�T i Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.5.9 Annapolis Local Center The Annapolis Local Center is located on the Sinclair Inlet shoreline east of the Port Orchard's Downtown Countywide Center. This center includes Mitchell Point and the Annapolis Pier, from which Kitsap Transit operates a foot ferry service to Bremerton during the work week. Commuter parking is located east of the pier. The area also includes several historic buildings, commercial services, and residences, as well as a public dock and kayak launch point. The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway will end at the foot ferry facility. 2-14. Annapolis Local Center Map ANNAPOLIS � 1 ;rk44 ;�> BEACH E -AV Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 2.8.7 Road Map to Implementation Further planning for centers is required to implement the City's vision for the overall centers' strategy. The City is committed to undertaking a sub area planning process for each center, to better identify center boundaries and to develop a vision statement, goals, and policies for each center that are responsive to the unique attributes of that center. This planning process will establish recommendations for amending development regulations, zoning designations, design guidelines and capital facility plans to reflect and implement the sub area plans. It also ensures that public engagement and community outreach efforts will be conducted to provide members of the community the opportunity to help steer the direction of the planning efforts. Subarea plans for the centers will be adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: September 2024 Chapter 3: Housing Chapter 3. Housing 3.1 Introduction The intent of the Housing element is to establish coordinated and comprehensive policies that will help guide decisions on housing issues within and around Port Orchard. Provisions that ensure suitable housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels are a primary consideration in enhancing the quality of life found in Port Orchard. Information in the Housing Element is supplemented by the June 2023 Housing Action Plan, which identified current housing trends and developed actionable strategies through an equity lens to support and encourage housing production that meet local Housing Vision Enable housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels that accommodates population growth while balancing new and existing neighborhood characteristics. Through the adopted goals and policies under the Housing Element, the City will pursue opportunities to: • Preserve and improve existing housing stock • Expand overall housing supply • Encourage housing that is affordable to all income levels • Establish mechanism to reduce displacement due to development • Promote thriving, healthy neighborhoods community housing needs. The Housing Element also works in conjunction w i t h the overarching goals of the entire Comprehensive Plan, as well as the housing goals of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). As Port Orchard grows, it will be important to provide a variety of housing types to suit the needs and preferences of the expanding population. Addressing housing from various perspectives, such as promoting homeownership and creating more diverse housing opportunities, will be necessary to meet the housing needs of all of Port Orchard's residents now and into the future. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.2 Conditions and Trends 3.2.1 Housing Stock Housing Type. As of 2021, there were 6,165 housing units in the City, per 2020 census data. Port Orchard's housing stock is predominantly single -unit buildings (70%), nearly all of which are single-family 5� detached homes and a small number of attached townhomes. Larger apartment building with 5+units make 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. 3-4 Units 4% MAnidArTi ,rod Housing Age and Production. Port Orchard's 2-Unit— housing stock is considerably younger than regional averages. Over half of the housing stock was built 1-unit after 1990, and two-thirds was built after 1980. This �o% is reflective of Port Orchard's high rate of housing production and permitting in recent decades. Figure 2 shows an uptick in permitting starting in the early Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year 2000s and the prevalence of single-family and larger Estimates, Table DP04. apartment developments. Note that this data shows Figure 1— Housing unit Type in Port orchard issued permits, not all these projects were and will be necessarily completed. Most of the single-family development seen in the past five years has been in McCormick Woods subdivision, which was annexed by the City in 2009, and the Bethel-Sedgwick area. Recent forthcoming projects of multifamily developments have been spread out throughout Port Orchard. According to the City's permit data, over 5,000 units are currently in the pipeline which shows some increase in housing diversity with future developments of fourplex, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, and mixed uses. (See Figure 3). The high rate of housing production will almost double the Port Orchard' housing inventory within the next several years. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing .ri ■ 5+ Unit Multifamily 500 Triplex / 4-Plex E ■ Duplex L 400 0- Single -Family Ln 300 0 aD 200 n E I Iz 100 0 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) Figure 2 — Permits Issued in Port Orchard by Unit Type, 1982-2022 3,000 2,500 2,000 v 1,500 -n E z 1,000 500 — ■ Mixed -Use Development ■ 5+ Unit Apartment 4-Plex ■ Townhouse ■ Development including single- family homes and townhomes Single Family D 2022 2023 2024 Permitting Initiated, Timeline Uncertain Source: City of Port Orchard. Figure 3 — Number of Units Permitted with Certificates of Occupancy Expected 2022 and Later by Unit Type Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing Middle housing provides solutions to expand housing choices and opportunities for households at all income levels and stages of life. As seen in Figure 3, developments of middle housing types, including fourplexes and townhomes, are gaining traction, likely due to the increasing need of more attainable housing choices. Supporting the development of middle housing can help expand the overall housing supply, potentially alleviating price pressures across the housing market. Additionally, it can create more homeownership opportunities, as these housing types are generally more affordable than single-family homes due to lower per -unit construction and land costs. Middle housing can also gently increase residential density in existing residential and mixed -use neighborhoods, easing pressures for additional infrastructure or further sprawl and foster more walkable neighborhoods as more residents can live nearjob centers and transit hubs and support retail corridors. What is Middle Housing? "Middle housing" includes duplexes, townhouses, cottages, courtyard apartments, and other building types that fall between single-family detached houses and apartments. Middle housing units tend to be more affordable to build than single-family houses and offers greater varieties of layout and sizes that are suited for a wider range of households. Expanding the areas where middle housing is allowed offer greater opportunities for "starter homes", or homeownership, to the new generation. ADUs Duplexes/ Triplexes Fourplexes Cottage Clusters AV - - do a Townhouses Courtyard apartments Small apartments (5-10 units) y ,i Source: Makers, 2023 Tenure. The majority of Port Orchard residents are homeowners (61%), while 39 percent are renters. This closely mirrors the statewide averages for renter households (36%), but it is notably higher than the county average (30%), largely due to the number of apartments in Port Orchard compared to the other parts of the county. Renters often face greater housing instability, including risks of eviction and rent increases, challenges that homeowners are less likely to encounter. Moreover, renters are more likely to be Black, Indigenous, and Other People of Color (BIPOC), as well as lower -income households, compounding these housing -related challenges. See 3.3 Housing Affordability and Figure 11, Share of Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing Figure 4 below shows that renters in Port Orchard tend to earn less than homeowners. In 2021, the median household income for renter households was $47,785, compared to $101,318 for ownership households. Additionally, renters have experienced slower income growth than homeowners. Between 2010 and 2021, renter incomes increase by 28 percent whereas ownership households grew by 58 percent increase. These disparities in both income and growth rate raise concerns about the ability of renters to transition into homeownership, particularly as wealthier households may outbid them for available housing. $75,766 $50,275 $64,068 $101,318 ■ 2010 r 2021 $47,785 $37,351 pr All Households Ownership Households Renter Households Source: American Community Survey 2021 5-Year estimates, Table S2503 Figure 4 — Median Household Income by Tenure in Port Orchard, 2010-2021 Vacancy Rates. During the mid-2010s, vacancy rates for both renters and homeowners decreased but have recently rebounded due to the increase in housing demand and prices. The overall vacancy rate is currently around 8.5 percent as of April 2024. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.2.2 Demographics Port Orchard is a rapidly growing city, currently home to 18,300 residents as of April 1, 2024. Since the last Comprehensive Plan Update in 2016, Port Orchard has grown on average 3.1 percent annually. Over the 20-year planning horizon for this 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, the City is required to plan for 10,500 additional population by 2044 based on Countywide Planning Policies and population allocations. The historical growth rate and population allocation suggests a sustained demand for housing in Port Orchard in the coming years. Refer to the Land Use Element Section 2.5.1 for additional population growth and population allocation information. 20,000 6% Population Average Annual Growth Rate 5% 15,000 f M C 4% o 10,000 3% o d I 2 ado � 5,aaa J Q l � ava a � 0% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2023 Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, U.S Census Bureau, LCG Figure 5 — Port Orchard Population and Growth Rate, 1960 — 2020 Port Orchard's population is notably younger. During the 2010-2021 period, over half the residents were under 34 years old, typically working and family - building ages, resulting in a corresponding increase in children under 19. Port Orchard also has a smaller share of residents of adults 65 and over. Figure 5 shows the racial and ethnic makeup of Port Orchard residents. About two-thirds of Port Orchard's residents are white and has a relatively large share of Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations. Port Orchard is more diverse than Kitsap County, where 25 percent of the population identifies as persons of color compared to 30 percent in Port Orchard. According to 2021 ACS, about IS percent of Port Orchard residents, or 351 residents, speak Spanish at home. Two or More Native Hawaiian Races American Ind / Alaska Nat 1% Black / Africa American Z% 69% Source: American Community Survey 2021, 5-year Estimate, Table DP02 Figure 6 — Race & Ethnicity in Port Orchard, 2021 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.2.3 Households Overall, Port Orchard's average household size (2.56) is similar to county (2.53) and statewide averages (2.55). Port Orchard has a high share of households of married or cohabitating couples with no children (34%) and those with children (29%). Older Adults Living AlonE 9% Single Adult(s) 20% Single parents 8% Couple, No children 34% ple, with hildren 29% Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, U.S Census Bureau, LCG Figure 7 — Port Orchard Population and Growth Rate, 1960 — 2020 Figure 8 shows the current mismatch between the need and availability of housing units for smaller household size. Approximately 57 percent of households are made up of one or two people, whereas only 35 percent of housing units are studio, one- or two -bedroom units. Although smaller households may choose to live in larger units, the mismatch can lead to housing affordability issues if smaller households are not able to find units suitable to their needs and budget. 4+ per^^ houses 26°i 3-persor househol 17% Household Size 1-narson hold 0/0 rson hold 35% Housing Unit Size 4+ Studio / 1 bE hPrIrnnm hedre 42% Source: American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP04, S2501 Figure 8 — Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2021 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 ms Chapter 3: Housing Port Orchard's younger population and shifting household dynamics signal the growing demand for smaller, more affordable housing options. As younger residents age and form families, the future demand for larger housing units is also likely to grow. To meet these evolving needs, encouraging alternative housing solutions, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and middle housing, create a flexible and adaptable housing market. These options offer a range of benefits, from accommodating multigenerational households to supporting older adults who wish to age in place and maintain their independence. By diversifying housing choices, Port Orchard can better respond to its residents' changing needs over time, ensuring long-term stability and inclusivity within the community. Universal Design and Aging in Place. Housing opportunities are maximized if housing design and choices accommodate the change people experience over their lives due to aging or life circumstances. Universal design principles ensure that all members of the community, regardless of age, size, or ability, can enjoy and use the built environment. Thus, promoting housing options, services, programs that support independence and choice for people to stay in their neighborhood helps to create a more livable community. 3.3 Housing Affordability Lack of affordable housing has ranked as a very high community concern. The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) engaged with housing stakeholders and the general public, who conveyed there is a lack of housing options in Port Orchard, even with recent regulatory changes by the City. Low -to - moderate income workers and fixed -income retirees report struggling to afford housing in Port Orchard, and long-time residents are seeing their adult children unable to afford buying a home in Port Orchard. There is concern that essential service and retail workers are leaving the community, limiting the social and economic diversity of Port Orchard, and thus creating challenging conditions for local businesses. In a survey, a little over 60 percent of renters and almost 50 percent of homeowners reported being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected financial event (such as an illness or job loss). Furthermore, housing providers report that cost inputs for new housing are going in the wrong direction amid rising prices for materials, labor, and land. Despite these great challenges, there may be some regulatory opportunities to improve the cost efficiency of construction plus opportunities to create partnerships with affordable housing providers. Regulatory tweaks to the code and design standards, promoting multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, and friendlier development processes for housing providers are among the solutions stakeholders feel could help better achieve Port Orchard's housing goals. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.3.1 Housing Prices Rising Faster than Income In recent years, rising housing and rental costs and stagnating income has strained all households across the state, including Port Orchard. Since 1989 (the earliest Kitsap County data is available from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis), housing prices in Kitsap County have increased faster than incomes. From 1989 to 2022, median housing prices have approximately tripled while median incomes have only doubled. The price of goods and services has also more than doubled; in 1989 an item that could be purchased for $10 is now $23.22, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. Household Income and Housing Price in Kitsap County, 1989-2022 (Indexed to 2000) 3.50 Median Household Income (2024 $) 3.00 Housing Price Index 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 rn o N m � Ln cfl r— w m o N m 8 Ln cfl r— co Ern o N m 71 r2 c2 r— o2 rn o N 00 M M M M M C) C) a) O O O O O O O O O r r cV N cV � � O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r [V N N N N N N N N N [V [V [V [V [V [V [V [V [V [V [V [V [V Source: Federal Reserve of St Louis (FRED) database on Household Income and Housing Price Figure 9 — Household Incoming and Housing Price in Kitsap County, 1989-2022 (Indexed to 2000) Despite the wide range of incomes and housing prices in Kitsap County, the overall trend reveals that many workers have not seen their incomes increase at a pace necessary to afford a typical home. The current relationship between housing prices and income has become strained, as housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident. Households earning the median income may not be able to afford, or have difficulty, in purchasing a median -priced home. Many renters find it challenging to transition into homeownership. The gap between home prices and household earnings highlights a housing market with high demand and limited affordable options, placing additional pressure on both current residents and those seeking to buy a home in Port Orchard. (See Figure 10). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing $900 ■ Household Income ($1,000s) $800 0 House Price ($1,000s) $700 $600 Median Sales Price ($468) $500 $400 $300 Median Household $202 $200 Income ($75) $101 $100 $25 A household earning $100,000 could not afford the median Port Orchard sales price of $468,000 even though they are earning nearly $30,000 more than the median household income. $607 $304 $200 $150 $75 1 $100 . $810 Source: American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, Zillow, Freddie Mac, LCG Figure 10— Housing Affordability at Various Price and Income Levels in Port Orchard, 2021 While all households are affected, communities of color and lower -income households are disproportionately impacted. These groups tend to face greater housing instability as they spend a higher percentage of their income on housing and have lower homeownership rates. The majority of ownership households in Port Orchard are White and Asian, and lower among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, Hispanic and Latino, and other races and ethnicities. (See Figure 11). This underscores the need for policies that promote housing stability and accessibility, particularly for the most vulnerable populations who face heightened risks of housing insecurity. ALL HOUSEHOLDS WHITE, NON -HISPANIC OR LATINO ASIAN •'. BLACK HISPANIC AND LATINO OTHER / TWO OR MORE RACE NATIVE HAWAIIAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER ■ Rent ■ Own Source: AC2 2020 5-year Estimates, Table 825003 Figure 11— Share of Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.3.2 Cost -Burdened Households The U. S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a measurement of "cost burden" to describe a subset of community's residents spending more that 30 percent of their income for housing. "Severely cost - burdened" households spend more than 50% of their monthly income on housing costs. These households pay a very large share of their income on housing costs which Area median income (AMI) is another data point often used by local government to set income limits for subsidized affordable housing. It is the household income for the median/'middle' household in a given region. impacts their ability to afford other life essentials like healthcare, childcare, and transportation. In other words, cost -burdened households are most at risk of displacement or housing hardship and in need of housing support. Figure 12 below shows the most recent HUD data on Port Orchard cost -burdened households by income based on percentage of HUD Area Median Income (AMI), which was $85,500 in 2019. In total, 1,670 low- and moderate -income households, or 32 percent of Port Orchard's households, are facing cost burdens, demonstrating the need for more subsidized affordable housing in Port Orchard, which is typically the only type of housing that can meet these deep affordability levels. Housing Action Plan stakeholders noted that over 1,000 people are on the waiting list for housing vouchers at the Kitsap Housing Authority, which manages vouchers in both Bremerton and Port Orchard. ■ Severely Cost Burdened 80-100% AMI o1 Q 2' 50-80%AMI I m E 0 C t 30-50%AMI m 0 < 30% AMI Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of Households Source: 2015-2019 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Figure 12 — Cost -Burdened Low -Income Households by Income Bracket in Port Orchard, 2019 3.3.3 Special Needs Housing The special needs populations typically encompass individuals who require support in their daily lives due to disabilities, health conditions, age, or other specific circumstances. These individuals may require specific housing accommodations or assistance. Social service programs, institutional settings, and assisted living facilities all cater to a portion of these needs. Currently, there are various supportive and group housing options for people with mental or physical disabilities, as well as a significant number of senior housing and assisted living facilities in Port Orchard. Port Orchard will continue to support the development of housing for people with specials needs through partnership with the County, service providers, and housing developers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.4 Housing Projection Port Orchard is designated as a High -Capacity Transit Community in Vision 2050 (PSRC March 2021). Using the Vision 2050 framework, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Committee's (KRCC) adopted Countywide Planning Policies setting a regional framework for its cities to accommodate growth while providing a share of the region's housing. The projected population growth for Port Orchard during the 2020-2044 planning period is 10,500 people, resulting in a population of 26,087 by 2044. According to the Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the average household size in Port Orchard is 2.64 people. This means that Port Orchard will need an additional 4,943 housing units by 2044. In other terms, Port Orchard needs to build an average of 198 new housing units per year to support projected growth. Figure 13 shows the number of new housing units needed for each income level. The largest housing needs by income in Port orchard is for very low-income households, with 30 percent of AMI or less, and for low-income households, between 30 and 50 percent of AMI. >120% AMI 100-120% AMI 80-100% AMI 50-80% AMI 30-50% AMI 0-30% AMI, non-PSH 0-30% AMI, PSH Emergency Temporary Housing 717 16S76 -� 1,246 AL 507 288 0 414 11 209 540 Iff Totals Current Supply: 8,610 Housing Units* New Supply Needed: 3,704 Housing Units -500 500 1,500 2,500 Baseline Supply (2020) Built 2020-2024 ■ Remaining New Supply Needed (2024-2044) *Note: The total current supply includes units constructed in 2020 and pending developments (2020-2024) PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing: A low-income housing mode where social, medical, and job service are provided on -site to help transition people out of homelessness. Emergency housing: Temporary accommodation for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Source: Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Allocation Through 2044, 2024 Figure 13 — Port Orchard Housing Supply and Need by Income Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.5 Housing Capacity by Income Band HB 1220, passed in 2021, amended the GMA to require additional housing unit capacity analysis by what income bands can be served by future housing units. Port Orchard's targets (based on 2020 data) and units built and permitted (since 2020) are shown in Figure 13. A Land Capacity Analysis was conducted as part of this comprehensive planning process to evaluate Port Orchard's ability to meet these targets within current zoning in the City. This analysis considered vacant, redevelopable, and partially -used parcels as classified in the City's 2019 Buildable Lands Analysis and updated based on development since 2019. Critical area acreage and deductions for future infrastructure needs and market factors were then removed from the gross vacant, redevelopable, and partially -used acreage. The net remaining acreage was analyzed by zone based on potential future density of development in each zone, as outlined in Port Orchard's zoning code, and accounting for recent development densities in the city. The results of this analysis were then aggregated by zone category based on the Department of Commerce methodology outlined in the 2023 guidebook "Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element." Following this framework, capacity for low-income households earning 0-80% AMI (HUD Area Median Income) is provided in zones allowing for apartments and multifamily housing types. Capacity for middle - income households earning 80-120% AMI is provided through townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and higher -end apartments. Capacity for high -income households earning 120% AMI and above is provided through zones allowing detached single-family homes. In addition, pending units were assigned to various income bands based on the income levels needed to afford those units based on current rental and home price data in Port Orchard. The results of this land capacity analysis show that Port Orchard has sufficient capacity to meet projected housing needs of low-, moderate-, and high -income households. The table below shows the City's housing needs, pending units, and land capacity for 0-80% AMI, 80-120% AMI, and 120% + AMI households through 2044. A full discussion of methodology and results of this analysis can be found in [Appendix XX Port Orchard Land Capacity Analysis]. Income Band Housing Need Aggregated Housing Needs Pending Units Remaining Needs Total Capacity Surplus/ Deficit 0-307o AMI P5H 414 2,848 967 1,881 1,920 39 0-307o AMI Non P5H 944 30-507o AMI 810 50-807o AMI 680 80-100To AM 1 351 696 1,148 -452 2,302 2,754 100-1207o AM 345 1207o AMI + 1,399 1,399 2,308 -909 211 1,120 Total 4,943 4,943 4,423 520 4,433 3,913 Source: WA Department of Commerce, Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group Figure 14 — Port Orchard Land Capacity Analysis Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing 3.3 Goals and Policies The ability of the region to provide various housing opportunities for residents in and around Port Orchard is very important. Limited housing opportunities adversely impact housing choice, economic development, neighborhood/community image and pride. Creating policy language that champions housing availability and affordability across all income levels serves to foster these concepts. This section seeks to establish basic policy principles related to housing availability and affordability. Port Orchard strives to: Goal 1. Housing stock is planned to accommodate growth targets, housing demands, and changes in the population. Policy HS-1 Ensure zoned capacity is sufficient to accommodate housing development to meet needs consistent with adopted targets. (see Figure 13 Port Orchard Housing Supply and Need by Income). Policy HS-2 Encourage production of diverse housing types throughout the City to expand housing choice and access for residents in all stages of life and all household sizes to meet the goals set under RCW 36.70A.020(4). These housing types include but are not limited to detached single-family homes, middle housing forms, multifamily dwelling units (within both single -purpose and mixed -use buildings), live -work dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, and clustered housing forms. Policy HS-3 Periodically evaluate City development standards and regulations to ensure it reflects market trends and, where appropriate, modify development regulations that unnecessarily add to housing costs and minimize the feasibility of building affordable housing. Periodically assess the amount of housing produced under these standards. Goal 2. Ensure that affordable housing options are available to all socioeconomic levels of Port Orchard residents. Policy HS-4 Provide opportunities through future land use and zoning districts for an economically diversified housing supply, including extremely low, very low-, low-, moderate-, and upper -income levels, to maximize housing options and serve a broad range of community needs. (RCW 36.70a.070(2) (d)). Policy HS-5 Support the development of housing and related services that are provided by regional housing programs and agencies for special needs populations, especially the homeless, children, the elderly, and people with mental or physical disabilities. Policy HS-6 Coordinate with other public entities, nonprofits, and religious organizations to preserve and facilitate development of permanent supportive housing, emergency shelters, and emergency housing. (RCW 36.70a.070(2) (c)) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing Policy HS-7 Evaluate surplus public land for affordable housing. Identify opportunities to lease or sell public land to affordable housing providers. (RCW 39.33.015(1)). Policy HS-8 Allow an increased density bonus for affordable housing located on property owned by a religious organization. (RCW 36.70A.545 and RCW 35A.63.300). Policy HS-9 Ensure that City fees and permitting time are balanced between housing affordability considerations and the need for supporting City services. Policy HS-10 Provide incentives and work in partnership with not -for profit and for -profit developers land trusts, and public housing authorities, such as Housing Kitsap, to develop and preserve long-term affordable housing options. Policy HS-11 Encourage development of housing that is affordable for workers at all income levels that is located near transit, education and training opportunities and other employment centers. Policy HS-12 Promote development of attached and detached ADUs in all residential to provide additional housing choices for all economic income levels, multi -generational households, and smaller households in residential neighborhoods. (RCW 36.70A.680). Policy HS-13 Expand capacity for middle housing in low -density residential neighborhoods that are unencumbered by critical areas or their buffers throughout the city to increase home ownership and rental housing options. (RCW 36.70A.635). Policy HS-14 to ^w,w,^,_-,*^ f-,., mly sized „n;}.Promote middle housing and multifamily housing with family size units. Consider the recommendations of the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan on refining the building type and form/intensity standards, adjusting the locally adopted building code, supporting staffing needs, and funding strategies. Policy HS-15 Consider the creation of zoning and other land use incentives for the private construction of affordable and special needs housing as a percentage of units in multifamily development. Policy HS-16 Consider adopting incentives for development of affordable multifamily homes, including middle housing, through property tax abatement in accordance with 84.14 RCW, focusing on designated centers with identified needs for residential infill and redevelopment. Policv HS-17 Explore the re-establishment of a Multifamilv Tax Exemption (MFTE) Droeram as a means of increasing the City's affordable housing supply. Consider the recommendations of the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan on eligible zones and properties, qualifying income levels, program duration, development incentives, and other standards. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing Goal 3. Promote the efficient u maximize development municipal infrastructure. ise of residential land in order to potential and make efficient use of Policy HS-18 Encourage housing growth concentration within walking and bicycling distance of public schools, parks, transit service, and commercial centers. Promote improvements to pedestrian and bicycles facilities where most housing growth is occurring. Policy HS-19 Encourage the development of both vertical and horizontal forms of mixed -use developments featuring a combination of multifamily housing and nonresidential uses within centers. Policy HS-20 Implement zoning and development regulations which encourage infill housing on empty and redevelopable parcels. Policy HS-21 Consider increasing maximum housing densities and implementing minimum housing densities in appropriate areas to increase land and infrastructure efficiency. Policy HS-22 Protect critical areas, or environmentally sensitive areas, from future housing development. Determine appropriate densities and uses and implement flexible development standards to balance the goals of housing targets and environmental protection. Policy HS-23 Establish a process for annexation informed by the need for infrastructure investments in new residential areas. Evaluate the fiscal impacts of higher infrastructure maintenance costs and additional service expenses resulting from annexation. Goal4. Reduce disparities in housing access and mitigate displacement impacts to vulnerable communities. Policy HS-24 When plans and investments are expected to create neighborhood change, use public investment and coordinate with nonprofit housing organizations to mitigate impacts of market pressure that cause involuntarily displacement of low-income households and vulnerable communities. Policy HS-25 Advocate for additional funding at County, Federal, State, and other levels to expand programs that: • facilitate home ownership for low- to moderate -income resident, • prevent, avoidable, involuntary evictions and foreclosures, and • provide assistance for repair, rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization. Policy HS-26 Encourage a variety of ownership opportunities and choices by allowing and supporting including but not limited land trusts, tenant opportunity to purchase programs, limited equity cooperative, and sweat equity. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 3: Housing Policy HS-27 Consider programs and other maintenance support, such as use of Community Development Block Grants or Housing Repair Programs to preserve or rehabilitate neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or abandonment. Policy HS-28 Encourage senior and special needs housing to be integrate throughout the community and be located near services. Policy HS-29 Strengthen coordination between the City, county, and service providers to provide homelessness support service and outreach. Adopt a Housing First approach. Goal S. Promote functional and livable forms of housing that integrates well with its surroundings and accommodates people in all stages of life. Policy HS-30 Encourage the development and maintenance of all housing, especially multifamily housing, that protects health and safety of residents and support healthy lifestyle and active living. Policy HS-31 Encourage energy efficient housing types that conserve non-renewable energy and help minimize impact on air quality and climate. Policy HS-32 Support housing options, programs, and services that allow seniors to "age in place" in their homes or neighborhoods. Promote awareness of Universal Design improvements to improve accessibility. Policy HS-33 Promote healthy, livable, and functional forms of housing at all scales through code provisions that provide for usable open space and/or recreational facilities, pedestrian connectivity, and safe and welcoming development frontages. Policy HS-34 Provide information and assistance to property owners of historically significant housing to encourage preservation of these cultural resource. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 4. Parks and Recreation 4.1 Introduction The Parks and Recreation Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan provides direction and guidance to improve and maintain the City's existing parks and recreation facilities while also creating new parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of a growing population. This Element has been developed as a collaborative effort with input from members of the public, elected and appointed officials, and Planning Department staff. The Element was updated to reflect current (2024) data, facilities, and Parks Vision Parks and open space are essential components in the fabric of a vibrant city. Our safe and well -maintained parks and recreation facilities knit the community together, stabilize and enhance residential neighborhoods, and add vitality to the downtown core while encouraging and supporting increased shoreline access and recreation. population, with the planning horizon projected to 2044. To supplement this Element, the 2022 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan is adopted by reference in Appendix D. This Element serves as a guide for general parks and recreation improvements while the PROS Plan identifies specific facilities and includes more detailed plans for maintenance, improvements, and/or additions. The City's regulatory and non -regulatory decision making, including budget decisions related to parks, should be consistent with both the Parks and Recreation Element and the PROS Plan. Used in this way, comprehensive parks planning minimizes conflict in decision -making and promotes coordination among programs and regulations to best serve the whole Port Orchard community. Over the next 20 years, the City of Port Orchard plans to focus on maintaining existing parks and recreation facilities while also expanding to meet future needs. These efforts will be funded by annual budget expenditures, grants, impact fees, and other financial means available to the City. Although the emphasis is to maintain the existing park system, the number of parks and trails will need to increase to meet the demands of the new population. Based on the levels of service identified in the City's PROS Plan, over the next 20 years the City should acquire additional land for new parks, recreation facilities, and open space opportunities consistent with the PROS Plan. 4.2 Public Involvement Throughout the development of and subsequent updates to the Comprehensive Plan and PROS Plan, the public has been offered several opportunities to provide input and feedback through surveys and public meetings/workshops. Public input and feedback assist the City to build a better understanding of the community's needs and desires, which is used to inform updates to the Plans. As part of the public engagement for the development of the 2022 PROS Plan, a survey was distributed to households within the Port Orchard zip codes. Survey results indicated high levels of satisfaction in the existing park and trail levels of service. The survey results also revealed Waterfront Park and McCormick Village Park as the most frequently used. More details on public engagement efforts and input gathered is available in the PROS Plan in Appendix D. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 4.3 Parks Vision — Connections The City of Port Orchard 2024 Comprehensive Plan identifies designated Centers. The vision of the Parks Element and PROS Plan is to ensure that every center contains and/or is connected to a park by safe non - motorized routes. Trails and open spaces were identified as a top outdoor facility (with ADA accessibility) to be added to Port Orchard in the 2022 Parks Survey. Connecting local centers and parks with safe non -motorized routes, including those in public right-of-way such as bike lanes and walking shoulders, will increase access to active transportation for all residents and benefit the entire community. The Nonmotorized section of the Transportation Element provides further detail on existing and future trails. Figure 4-1. Parks and Open Space Map F � _ /�' 1 � 4 ] . iP' in S Jfz Port Orchard parks and open spaces Qty Urnils Urban Q—th Ar 4.4 Existing Conditions 1 Bethel South Property 2 Bravo Terrace Open Space 3 Central/Clayton Park 4 OeKalb Pier 5 Etta Tumer Park 6 Givens Field/Active Club 7 Lundberg Park 8 M,CO ,rk Viliage Park 9 Mitchell Park 10 Old Clifton Wetlands 11 Paul Powers Jr Park 12 Rockwell Park 13 Seattle Avenue Open Space 14 van zee Park 15 Windfall Place Tot Lot 16 say Street Pedestrian Path Port Orchard provides a range of parks, recreation, open space, and ecosystem services by protecting native wildlife habitat, restoring and preserving natural systems, enjoying majestic marine and mountain views, and ensuring new development enhances the natural environment. The existing City parks system is supplemented by South Kitsap School District and the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department facilities. An inventory of current parks facilities and maps showing park facility locations is included in the PROS Plan in Appendix D. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 4.5 Future Planned Parks Facilities The PROS Plan provides a long-term vision and goals and objectives for the entire parks and open space network, including trail systems, recreation facilities, historic and cultural resources, and specific City - owned properties. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocates capital facility funds to maintain and acquire new parks and recreation facilities in the City and implements the goals and objectives of the PROS Plan. Additional potential sources of revenue to implement the PROS Plan goals and objectives include Port Orchard Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) and grant applications to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). 4.6 Challenges and Opportunities Challenges The City of Port Orchard faces a rapidly growing population. To provide adequate parks, trails, and recreation opportunities for the growing community, the City has developed new public park facilities in collaboration with McCormick Communities (St. Andrews Park and McCormick West pedestrian pathways). The City is also working toward developing a community event center with surrounding plazas, remodeling the Givens Park sports courts, building a new regional stormwater park southeast of Sherman Avenue, and expanding Ruby Creek Regional Park and McCormick Village Park. As the City's population and parks facilities grow, limited City resources, including staff time are strained. In the future, the City may wish to consider creating a Parks Department. The relative lack of safe non -motorized transportation infrastructure (i.e.; walking and bicycling paths) within the City is identified as a significant issue in the Non -Motorized section of the Transportation Element. It is also a challenge for parks and recreation planning, as one of the City's identified goals is to create non -motorized trail and path connections between local centers, parks, the waterfront, and other areas where people live and work within the community. The 2022 PROS Plan analyzed general walkability to recreation facilities based on existing City, Kitsap County, Port of Bremerton, South Kitsap School District, and Homeowner Association (HOA) facilities. The results indicate that there are significant amounts of developed areas within the City and UGA that lack effective park and recreation services, including but not limited to the following: • Port Orchard Centers — including portions of the designated centers in the Comprehensive Plan. • Undeveloped lands — in the northwest portion of the City, near Ross Point, • McCormick Woods — in the northeast portion of the development, where passive open spaces are provided, but not active uses such as playgrounds, sports courts, or other park amenities. Opportunities The City of Port Orchard benefits from its proximity to centers for recreation, open space, and sports fields outside City limits, and/or held by other agencies or groups, such as the South Kitsap School District and Kitsap County. Creating and strengthening regional partnerships will enable Port Orchard and its partners to provide higher quality facilities and more opportunities to access recreation opportunities than would be possible alone. The City of Port Orchard is already working with Kitsap County and other nearby jurisdictions to expand a regional watertrail including shoreline access with launch points, rest areas, and parking facilities. As identified in the Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, additional improvements to the City's non - motorized transportation network should be a prioritized to provide residents and visitors wider access to opportunities to enjoy a safe, interconnected system of parks and trails. The 2022 PROS Plan was approved by the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), meaning the City is Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 eligible for recreation and conservation grant programs through the RCO, which could potentially fund park land acquisition to keep up with the growing population and demand for parks and recreation facilities. 4.7 Goals and Objectives The City of Port Orchard has maintained a consistent set of goals and objectives in its endeavor to provide recreation opportunities to the community. The overall goal of the Parks Element is to develop and maintain adequate and convenient parks, recreation, and open space areas and facilities for all users and better serve both the existing and future population of Port Orchard and surrounding areas. This goal can be achieved by several objectives. ective 1: Increase Dublic access to the marine shoreline. Objective 2: Preserve and enhance active and scenic open space bar:. a. Enhancing and improving existing park facilities. b. Discouraging obstructions of scenic views. Objective 3: Increase the size and number of parks and open spaces by: a. Establishing partnerships with other agencies to jointly utilize public facilities. b. Promoting through public and private investments, the acquisition of open space facilities, and proper maintenance thereof. c. Using public input to develop plans for public parks. Objective 4: Provide parks, trails, and open spaces within walking distance of residents by: a. Prioritizing historically underserved communities for open space improvements and investments. b. Promoting equitable access to recreation opportunities. c. Providing for a mixture of active and passive open spaces within residential and commercial areas. As South Kitsap County and Port Orchard continue to grow, the importance of the limited recreation resources continue to increase. Greater population pressures demand well-defined goals and priorities. In order to achieve these comprehensive goals and objectives, concise and realistic goals must be specified: Goal 1. Establish a coordinated and connected system of open space throughout the City that: • Preserves natural systems. • Protects wildlife habitat and corridors. • Provides land for both active and passive recreation accessible for all. • Increases opportunities for physical activity. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 • Preserves natural landforms and scenic areas. • Is accessible by a safe non -motorized transportation system. • Promotes equitable access to parks and recreation facilities. Policy PK-1 Preserve and enhance the natural and aesthetic qualities of shoreline areas while allowing reasonable development to meet the needs of all residents. Policy PK-2 Promote visual and public access to shorelines where it is not in conflict with preserving environmentally sensitive areas or protecting significant wildlife habitat. Policy PK-3 Distribute parks and open spaces throughout the City, but particularly focus new facilities in or nearby: • Designated centers that do not currently contain parks or open spaces. • Residential neighborhoods facing the greatest population growth where populations are currently, or projected to be, underserved by existing parks facilities. • Residential neighborhoods that have historically underserved communities. • Areas where existing facilities are deficient. • Areas where connections could be made. Policy PK-4 Work with nearby jurisdictions, state, federal, and tribal governments to identify and protect open space networks to be preserved within and around Port Orchard. Policy PK-5 Preserve environmentally sensitive areas to delineate neighborhood boundaries and create open space corridors. Goal 2. Encourage the development and maintenance of open space and recreation facilities, where possible, in the established areas of the City. Policy PK-6 Obtain and preserve open space areas and recreation facilities to meet established levels of service and to link open spaces within a connected network accessible to the existing and future population of the City. Policy PK-7 Preserve the ecological functions of the Blackjack Creek watershed, the shoreline, and adjacent areas in balance with residential, commercial, and other uses. Policy PK-8 Shape and seek the right balance for urban development through the use of open space, thereby strengthening the beauty, identity, and aesthetic qualities of the City and surrounding areas. Policy PK-9 Maintain and/or expand shoreline parks and trails linking the downtown core to the shoreline. Proposed walking and biking trails should be designed to serve all residential areas. Policy PK-10 Encourage safe parks and recreation equipment by maintaining existing facilities. Policy PK-11 Develop covered play structures whenever feasible to encourage use of parks and recreation facilities in all conditions. Policy PK-12 Work with the Port of Bremerton to identify areas within the existing Port -owned waterfront parking lots that are suitable for conversion to open space. Upon mutual agreement of the parking areas to be converted; develop a plan for the creation of waterfront open space in these areas, with a focus on connecting to existing and planned shoreline access points and pedestrian pathways. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Goal 3. To provide open space or natural landscaping throughout the City limits. Policy PK-13 Zoning ordinances shall identify and preserve open space areas. Policy PK-14 Landscaping, such as trees and shrubbery, should be included in the commercial areas of the City. Policy PK-15 Vacant municipal land not required for municipal services should be maintained to provide a pleasing natural condition. Goal 4. Neighborhood parks and recreation facilities should be conveniently located throughout the City. Policy PK-16 The Active Club should continue to be maintained and improved. Policy PK-17 A Community Event Center should be encouraged. Policy PK-18 To ensure that the City's parks and recreation facilities are welcoming to all, new facilities shall be designed for accessibility to meet the requirements of the federal American Disabilities Act, and existing facilities should be retrofitted for increased accessibility where feasible and appropriate. Policy PK-19 Maximize the use of State and Federal grants for future improvements whenever possible. Policy PK-20 Coordinate with other governmental entities and civic organizations to provide new facilities to the public. Policy PK-21 Encourage commercial enterprises to establish facilities which are harmonious with the community vision and goals. Goal S. Encourage commercial enterprises to establish private commercial recreation facilities. Policy PK-22 Athletic fields should be supplemented with picnic and playground facilities to encourage family participation. Policy PK-23 Athletic fields should be developed in accordance with the PROS Plan. Policy PK-24 Continue to encourage and promote private sports and recreation programs. Policy PK-25 Coordinate with sports councils and committees when possible. Goal 6. The waterfront should be preserved and protected to enhance public use. Policy PK-26 Boat docks and marinas should be encouraged; however, these activities are not to be construed as the sole resource of the waterfront. Policy PK-27 Public access to the water is required for new municipal development, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment. Public access to the water should be provided for new commercial development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 infeasible or present hazards to life and property. Policy PK-28 Viewing decks and similar pedestrian -oriented structures are needed and should be constructed in the urban waterfront area. Policy PK-29 The Bay Street Pedestrian Path system should be maintained and expanded. Policy PK-30 Beach access should be identified and developed. This should be integrated with the Bay Street Pedestrian Path trail system and Kitsap Peninsula Water Trails system. Goal 7. Provide a variety of water and shoreline related recreation opportunities for the public. Policy PK-31 The City, in conjunction with other agencies and organizations, should work to maintain, enhance, and expand existing water and shoreline related recreation opportunities for the public. Policy PK-32 The City, in conjunction with other jurisdictions, should work to develop new and diverse water and shoreline related recreation opportunities for the public. Goal 8. Provide open space within residential and commercial developments. Policy PK-33 Continue to require buffers and open space with new development. Policy PK-34 Encourage creation of open and communal spaces with multi -family and commercial development. Goal 9. Preserve critical areas within open space. Policy PK-35 Steep slopes and sensitive areas within open space should be protected with critical area restrictions. Policy PK-36 Preserve open space that functions as a buffer between land uses. Goal 10. Promote the acquisition and maintenance of open space through public and private investment. Policy PK-37 Countywide open space acquisition should be encouraged. Policy PK-38 Maintenance of City -owned open space should take precedence over acquisition of new City parks unless the proposed park serves an identified need in the City's Parks Plan. Goal 11. Enhance and expand existing park facilities. Policy PK-39 Improvements in parks should be done continually. Policy PK-40 Prioritize expansion of existing parks in residential areas where communities currently underserved with parks and recreation facilities. Goal 1 1. Place and construct community entry monuments on arterial City entrances. Policy PK-41 Maintain and landscape existing Gateway areas. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy PK-42 Install wayfinding signage according to wayfinding system plan. Goal 12. Provide dedicated oversight and encourage public participation in planning for City parks and recreation facilities. Policy PK-43 The City should establish a parks commission or similar citizen board to review major parks development plans and proposals to purchase or sell City parks property and provide recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Policy PK-44 The City should consider creating a Parks Department to operate and maintain City parks and recreation facilities, and to plan and budget for future acquisitions and improvements. Goal 13. Identify and enhance the city's open spaces, trails, and park amenities to protect natural resources and expand recreational opportunities for all residents, ensuring_ accessibility and sustainable use of these areas. Policv PK-45 The Citv of Port Orchard should strive to maintain the level service standards adoated in its PROS plan including ensuring every resident has access to a park within a 10- minute walk, fostering inclusivity and promoting outdoor recreation. MPort Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Chapter S. Natural Systems 5.1 Introduction Port Orchard, which is located on the Sinclair Inlet of Puget Sound, contains interconnected creeks, wetlands and urban forests that provide amenities for residents and key habitat corridors and environments for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The City of Port Orchard serves as chief steward of Natural Systems Vision Port Orchard embraces its stewardship of the environment and natural resources, by protecting and retaining natural systems and building for a sustainable future. The City encourages Port Orchard's environment and is responsible for the implementation of many federal and state environmental protection statutes. Through regulation, operating programs and incentives, the City actively works to protect the natural systems of the community and promote sustainable development. the preservation, restoration and As Port Orchard continues to grow, development has enhancement of natural systems within the potential to negatively impact Port Orchard's its urban setting. J environmental resources, particularly natural open spaces, water quality and tree cover. State law requires cities to plan for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas (critical areas), such as wetlands, streams and geologically- hazardous areas. Environmental sustainability and responsible stewardship of natural resources require a continually improved relationship between the developed and natural environments. The City supports an approach that includes: • Maintaining critical areas regulations that protect and preserve the City's environmentally sensitive areas. • Encouraging the minimization of waste that can affect air, soil, and water resources. • Promoting open space and opportunities for recreation within existing and new development. • Assessing and reclaiming lost wildlife habitats when feasible. Encouraging the enhancement of greenbelts, habitat conservation areas, and wildlife habitat corridors. • Improving infrastructure systems to support healthy living for people and wildlife. • Supporting Puget Sound recovery through actions such as protecting and restoring critical areas, converting hardened shorelines to more natural conditions, protecting aquifers, promoting and installing stormwater infrastructure and upgrading sewage treatment facilities. • Increasing resilience by identifying and addressing the impacts of climate change and natural hazards on the environment, infrastructure, economy and public health. The City evaluates the impact of its administrative and legislative decisions on the urban environment, with particular attention to impacts on environmentally sensitive areas — and weighs the merits and costs of its environmental protection and enhancement against other important responsibilities (e.g., public safety, infrastructure needs and economic development). Non -regulatory efforts to protect natural resources include habitat/open space acquisition and preservation, salmon recovery projects and monitoring, and water quality projects and monitoring. The City recognizes the importance of protecting its unique natural setting while providing for the needs of the growing number of residents and businesses that call Port Orchard their home. Port Orchard's attractiveness as a place to "live, work and play" depends on preserving the natural assets of the community while simultaneously nurturing economic growth and social vibrancy. Therefore, the City has and will continue to support standards that preserve Port Orchard's natural systems to protect Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems public health, safety and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. The Natural Systems element works in concert with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly Land Use and Parks and Recreation, and within the framework of municipal financial planning. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance is the regulatory authority for development and activities within critical areas (wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas). Critical areas are discussed in more detail in Section 5.3 below. In the City's shoreline jurisdiction, the Shoreline Master Program establishes a regulatory framework and planning policies that provides an additional layer of protection for the City's shorelands and aquatic resources. 5.2 Existing Conditions Port Orchard enjoys a wide variety of natural systems, recreational areas, open space, and ecosystem connections. However, like most growing areas within the state, Port Orchard has experienced declines in tree canopy, water quality and the health of salmon populations, as well as increases in traffic congestion and surface water runoff from impervious surfaces. Key elements of natural systems in the City are regulated critical areas, as defined by the state Growth Management Act. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: • Wetlands • Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas. These areas are regulated through the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (POMC 20.162) and are protected with buffers and restrictions on development type and intensity. Critical areas also receive additional protection from other City regulatory and planning efforts for water quality, stormwater runoff, efficient use of land, and provision of urban services. Special status wildlife are those designated by federal or state government agencies as endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, sensitive and monitor species, and species of local importance in Kitsap County. Habitat used by these species for breeding, foraging or migration also requires protection. At present, listed species that have been documented in the Port Orchard vicinity include chinook, chum, coho, cutthroat, and steelhead salmonid species; smelt; sand lance; bald eagles; marbled murrelet; great blue heron; and Steller's sea lion. Figure 5-1. Marbled murrelet Port Orchard also has a diverse and active shoreline. The City's waterfront contains a multitude of docks, marinas and water -dependent businesses, which provide economic vitality to the downtown merchants and Port Orchard as a whole and provide needed services to residents throughout the region. Maintaining the general health of Port Orchard's shorelines and aquatic areas is critical to maintaining a viable working shoreline and a marine attraction. As in other urbanizing areas around Puget Sound, water quality and populations of marine life have declined Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems due to development impacts. The City supports the restoration of natural system processes and reduction of urban impacts that reduce the health of Sinclair Inlet and shorelands. The Inventory and Characterization that was prepared for Port Orchard's Shoreline Master Program contains detailed analysis of the City's shorelines and regulated water bodies. 5.3 Critical Areas and Shorelines 5.3.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas Within Port Orchard, geologically hazardous areas include unstable slopes over 30% grade, and areas of geologic concern include unstable slopes less than 30% grade and other slopes that meet criteria for high erosion potential, seismic hazard or groundwater seepage. Geologically hazardous areas are located along several stream banks and bluffs near the shoreline. Areas of geologic concern are widespread throughout the community and are often located in proximity to other critical areas such as wetlands and streams. Both geologically hazardous areas and areas of geologic concern areas are regulated through the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Engineering provides some solutions to environmental constraints associated with geologic hazards, but such solutions must be evaluated for suitability in individual circumstances. One of the most cost- effective methods of preserving slope stability is the preservation of native vegetation and retention of forested conditions within and at the top of geologic hazard areas. When vegetation removal is required to stabilize slopes, proper replanting and maintenance in compliance with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance is required. In addition to providing significant habitat value in areas of high opportunity (bands of steep slope areas extending throughout a city often provide habitat corridors in urbanized areas), the preservation of native and non-invasive vegetation and forest features helps prevent erosion, retains important soil binding root systems, and provides valuable open and green space. Along the shorelines, erosion of coastal bluffs replenishes beach sediments that are lost to tidal action, storms and surface runoff. 5.3.2 Frequently Flooded Areas Frequently flooded areas are defined as lands, shorelands, and waters that are within the 100-year floodplain as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate and Boundary Maps (see end of the element for FEMA map). Flooding is caused by excess surface water runoff and is exacerbated when eroded soil from cleared land or unstable slopes reduces the waterway's natural capacity to carry water. Construction and development activity within the floodplain reduces the floodway capacity. Flooding is also exacerbated by king tides in conjunction with heavy rain and wind. Figure 5-2. Flooding occurrence Flooding causes significant public safety problems, property damage, and habitat destruction. Small areas of floodplain exist within Port Orchard, generally along areas of Blackjack Creek, Johnson Creek Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems and Ross Creek (see City of Port Orchard Environmental Map at the end of this element). Under the Federal Flood Insurance Program, a limited amount of floodplain development is allowed if eligibility requirements are met; however, the City regulates land uses and land alteration activities to minimize development within floodplains and the potential for damage from flooding. 5.3.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are defined as those areas identified as being of critical importance to the maintenance of fish, wildlife, and plant species, including areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; habitats and species of local importance; commercial and recreational shellfish areas; kelp and eelgrass beds; forage fish spawning areas; naturally occurring ponds and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; waters of the state; lakes, ponds, streams or rivers planted with game fish by a government or tribal entity or private organization; state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Areas that are critical for fish and wildlife are primarily conserved via regulatory means; other areas are primarily dealt with through non -regulatory, incentive -based approaches. Designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Port Orchard include riparian corridors, wetlands, and naturally occurring ponds and lakes. Other lands may be given special consideration for fish and wildlife habitat if there is a primary association with an endangered, threatened or sensitive species. The City seeks to protect and sustain the existing natural functions of these areas and encourages the enhancement of areas that have been degraded in the past. Streams and water bodies provide fish and wildlife habitat, convey stormwater flows, provide recreational opportunities, and enhance the community's aesthetic appeal. In recent years, large areas of Port Orchard's drainage basins have experienced rapid development, which increases impervious surfaces within the watershed and results in a decline in surface water quality.' Blackjack Creek is the largest stream system in Port Orchard and extends into tributaries spanning an area of approximately three miles within the city limits. Blackjack Creek is the only stream within the City that falls within Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction based on flow rate, although a portion of both Ross Creek and Blackjack Creek estuaries are under SMA jurisdiction based on tidal influence. Blackjack Creek is one of the major fish producing streams in South Kitsap, and supports Chinook, coho, steelhead, cutthroat and summer chum (chinook and steelhead are ESA listed species). The summer chum run is the only native (non -hatchery) summer chum run known in the mid -Puget Sound area. Ross Figure 5-3. Blackjack Creek Creek is also a salmon stream and is surveyed annually for adult spawners. In recent years, the City has taken steps to protect the Blackjack Creek corridor and encourage restoration, while continuing to allow and improve public enjoyment through trails and overlooks. ' 2023 Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Further protections for both Blackjack and Ross Creek are appropriate and will be implemented through development regulations. 5.3.4 Wetlands Wetlands are integral to the local hydrologic cycle. They reduce floods, contribute to stream flows, and improve water quality. Each wetland provides various beneficial functions, but not all wetlands perform all functions, nor do they perform all functions equally well. Large wetlands, and wetlands hydrologically associated with lakes and streams, have a relatively more important function in the watershed than small, isolated wetlands. Urbanization within a watershed Figure 5-4. Ross Creek diminishes the function of individual wetlands by increasing stormwater volume, reducing runoff quality, isolating wetlands from other habitats, and decreasing vegetation. Undeveloped land adjacent to a wetland provides a buffer to help minimize the impacts of urbanization. The long-term success in function of the wetland is dependent on land development strategies that protect and restore wetland buffers. Science indicates that an undeveloped vegetated buffer is equally as important as the wetland itself as it contributes to the function of the wetland by providing wildlife habitat, retaining stormwater, filtering sediment and pollution, and moderating water temperature. When impacts to wetlands and their buffers due to development are unavoidable, and on -site wetland replacement is infeasible, wetland mitigation banks may be utilized to offset these impacts at a corresponding ratio of restoration, creation or enhancement in accordance with POMC 20.162. A new wetland mitigation banking site is currently being developed on the Ross Creek estuary in Port Orchard that may provide opportunities for development when on -site mitigation is infeasible as well as enhance ecological functions and habitat within the estuary. 5.3.5 Aquifer Recharge Areas All of the City of Port Orchard's public water supply is obtained from wells. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance recognizes critical aquifer recharge areas around water system wellheads and in areas that are highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. These areas are protected through a combination of regulatory restrictions and low -density zoning. Groundwater aquifers also supply water to lakes, wetlands, streams and to private wells. An aquifer is a sizable and continuous body of porous material composed of sand, gravel or silt saturated with water and capable of producing usable quantities of water to a well. As required by federal law, this water is monitored and tested to ensure that it meets the high standards required for drinking water. For water to be pumped on a sustainable basis, new water must enter the aquifer. Aquifers are recharged by rainwater infiltrating into the ground through permeable soils and by recharge from rivers, Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems streams and lakes. Wetlands and natural areawide landscape depressions that allow water to stand also may aid in groundwater infiltration by slowing runoff and allowing it to seep into the ground when located in suitable areas. Development can lessen the water entering the aquifer by covering recharge areas with impervious surfaces or filling wetlands and natural depressions that contain standing water. Groundwater contamination may also result from development. Once groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up. Preventing contamination is necessary to avoid exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential physical harm to people. As in any urban area, maintaining effective groundwater recharge and groundwater quality will be a continuing challenge as urbanization occurs. 5.3.6 Shorelines Shorelines within the City of Port Orchard include those portions of Sinclair Inlet lying within the city limits and all lands extending landward 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, together with any associated wetlands, river deltas, and floodways associated with tidal waters. The City also has one creek, Blackjack Creek, which is regulated as a "shoreline of the state" due to its average flow level. The estuarine portion of Ross Creek and portions of two lakes (Big Lake and Square Lake) also qualify as shorelines of the state. The Port Orchard vicinity is experiencing an increasing amount of urban development, which has affected the City's shorelines. Sinclair Inlet is a shallow, poorly flushing estuary, and the slow period of discharge and replenishment is a factor influencing its water and habitat quality in the inlet. The Department of Ecology's Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) and Water Quality Implementation Plan identifies fecal coliform contamination, mostly from non -point source pollution, in addition to significant chemical contamination that includes high levels of mercury and PCBs have been documented in Sinclair Inlet. Currently, existing impervious surfaces along portions of Bay Street are not treated for stormwater runoff and flow directly into Sinclair Inlet. However, improvements are being made with adoption of Low Impact Development Standards and within the City's Stormwater utility and updated NPDES permit programs. Figure 5-5. Sinclair Inlet The Inventory and Characterization section of the City's Shoreline Master Program contains detailed recommendations for land use, zoning, restoration plans and other actions that could assist in restoring shoreline water quality and habitat functions. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems 5.4 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Climate change poses significant challenges to the City of Port Orchard. Rising sea levels, exacerbated by climate shifts, threaten Port Orchard's downtown area, while warmer marine waters impact both the natural environment and public health. According to Kitsap County's Climate Change Resiliency Assessment, under the low -emissions scenario, 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. These rising sea levels are expected to exacerbate existing challenges with saltwater in its downtown area. Additionally, the City may expect to experience other climate impacts, including an increase in the number of extreme heat days during the summer and decrease in freeze -free days during the winter and increased intensity of maximum 24-hour precipitation events. The impacts of a changing climate over time are likely to be felt across all aspects of life in Port Orchard. These climate impacts emphasize the importance of implementing proactive planning and adaptation strategies to protect Port Orchard's environment, infrastructure, and community well-being. 5.5 Goals and Policies General Goal I. Maintain accurate and scientifically sound development regulations that protect the City's natural resources, while allowing for compatible growth and development. Policy NS-1 Maintain a Critical Areas Ordinance that protects surface water resources including fish and wildlife habitats and wetlands with special consideration for special status wildlife (listed species). Policy NS-2 Utilize Best Available Science to improve the protection of and increase the accuracy of information about wetlands, flood plains, channel migration zones, watershed boundaries and stream locations and types. Policy NS-3 Map wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, flood plains, channel migration zones, and the findings of professionally conducted local wetlands inventories into Critical Areas maps. Policy NS-4 Support the development of private mitigation banking programs in coordination with county, state and federal agencies, with sites in multiple watersheds to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams, and their buffers. Ensure that replacement of altered or displaced wetland or stream functions occurs within the drainage basin or service area identified by the department. Policy NS-5 Inventory and monitor natural resource and climate resilience factors, such as tree canopy, open space, stormwater runoff, urban heat effects, and sea level rise, establishing baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and program needs. Goal 2. Protect the water quality, flows and ecological integrity of streams, wetlands, and Sinclair Inlet by appropriately regulating storm water and land use while allowing for compatible growth and development. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Policy NS-6 Protect marine and fresh surface water resources by requiring that development, including rights -of -way, in critical areas is consistent with the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable local, state and federal regulations. Policy NS-7 Evaluate, avoid, minimize, and mitigate unavoidable impacts to surface water quality and quantity during the planning and development review process. Consider the cumulative impacts of existing and future development on surface water quantity and quality. Policy NS-8 Require native vegetation buffers along streams, marine and freshwater shorelines and wetlands to protect the functions and values of those surface waters. Goal 3. Preserve and enhance the City's tree canopy coverage to improve human health, protect wildlife habitat and enhance ecological function through the mitigation of urban heat island effects, reduction in stormwater runoff, energy consumption and release of carbon into the atmosphere. Policy NS-9 Adopt a canopy coverage target, consistent with NPDES Permit requirements, for the City and monitor progress on a regular basis to determine if policy changes are necessary to reach the City's target. Policy NS-10 Identify parks and open spaces in the City where tree canopy coverage could be increased. Policy NS-11 Use trees and vegetation to mitigate erosion potential, meet drainage needs and reduce the impacts of development. Policy NS-12 Establish programs and policies that maintain and increase forests and vegetative cover and prioritize the connectivity of forests that provide valuable wildlife corridors within the City. Goal 4. Adapt to changing climate conditions to minimize adverse effects on the environment, infrastructure, economy, and public health, especially as they relate to impacts on vulnerable populations and areas that have been disproportionately affected by climate change. Policy NS-13 Plan for and consider impacts from climate change including sea level rise, flooding, wildfire hazards, and urban heat on both existing and new development. Policy NS-14 Develop greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories and climate action plans to reduce or eliminate emissions. Policy NS-15 Develop and implement adaptation strategies to prevent or minimize the adverse effects of climate change. Policy NS-16 Consider and implement where feasible nature -based solutions to address climate change, such as tree planting programs to sequester carbon, and low impact development strategies to address stormwater runoff, flooding and pollution. Policy NS-17 Reduce risk from natural hazards through mitigation, prioritizing vulnerable communities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Identify areas susceptible to flooding, wildfires, earthquakes, landslides and other natural hazards that overlap with at -risk populations to prioritize capital improvements. Policy NS-18 Apply an equity lens when considering the impacts of climate change on vulnerable and disadvantaged populations who have the least resources to deal with its impacts. Prioritize capital improvements in areas that have been traditionally underinvested in the City. Goal S. Ensure that all residents of the City, regardless of race, social or economic status have clean air, clean water, and other elements of a healthy environment. Policy NS-19 Reduce impacts to vulnerable populations and areas that have been disproportionately affected by noise, air pollution, or other environmental impacts. Geologically Hazardous Areas Goal 6. Protect the public health, safety and welfare from geologic hazards. Policy NS-20 Ensure that development in geologically hazardous areas occurs in a manner that minimizes hazard to health or property and minimizes impacts to the natural environment, including stream and shoreline processes. Policy NS-21 Protect public safety and health, maintain water quality and habitat, minimize erosion of soils and bluffs, and diminish the public cost of repairing areas from damage due to landslides, erosion and seismic activities through appropriate regulation and development conditions. Policy NS-22 Where information about extensive fill areas is known, depict fill areas as areas of geological hazard. Policy NS-23 Restrict development in geologically hazardous areas according to the Critical Areas Ordinance, unless the site is demonstrated by a qualified geotechnical engineer to be suitable for building. Policy NS-24 Protect forested steep slopes and ridgelines designated as geologically hazardous areas. Policy NS-25 Require revegetation with appropriate native plant species and enhancement of existing native vegetation on steep slopes that have been cleared in violation of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Goal 7. Consider geologically hazardous areas in assigning comprehensive plan designations and implementing zones. Policy NS-26 Maintain and update a City map for land use planning and regulatory purposes that depicts both Geologically Hazardous Areas and Areas of Geologic Concern, per the definitions in the Critical Areas Ordinance. Policy NS-27 Maintain and update a Critical Areas Ordinance that addresses land use controls in geologically hazardous areas. Policy NS-28 Base the geologically hazardous areas map on best available scientific information, such as the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Quaternary Geology and Stratigraphy of Kitsap Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems County, and other available geotechnical reports. Policy NS-29 Update the geologically hazardous areas map regularly to reflect the latest information. Policy NS-30 Establish development standards in geologically hazardous areas that promote retention and maintenance of existing native vegetation, and which discourages clearing of ridgelines and slopes to provide scenic vistas, and to ameliorate stormwater drainage impacts. Policy NS-31 Encourage location of building sites away from steep slopes and breaks in slope. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Goal 8. Safeguard the quality and quantity of long-term water supplies by preserving and protecting critical aquifer recharge areas through use of the appropriate regulatory means. Policy NS-32 Coordinate with the US Geological Survey, Kitsap County Health District, and the City Public Works Department to maintain and update the methodology and mapping used to identify Category I and Category II Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Policy NS-33 Limit land uses listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water exhibit titled "Potential Sources of Drinking Water Contamination Index' within Category I Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Within Category II areas, require appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation for listed land uses. Policy NS-34 Require proposed projects that present a potential threat to critical aquifer recharge areas and groundwater quality to provide hydrogeologic information to evaluate the proposal, in accordance with adopted plans and regulations. Policy NS-35 Implement plans created to improve water resource management, using resources available to accomplish higher priority actions first. Policy NS-36 Take immediate action to correct or limit saltwater intrusion in areas with evidence of intrusion and prevent saltwater intrusion in areas where hydrologic information indicates that saltwater intrusion is likely. Wetlands Goal 9. Protect the water quality, flows and ecological integrity of wetlands by appropriately regulating land uses and storm water through the development review process. Policy NS-37 The City's Critical Areas Ordinance shall protect existing wetland functions in order to maintain water quality, retention, and wildlife habitat. New development adjacent to protected wetlands shall be subject to vegetative buffers as identified in the Critical Areas Ordinance and other applicable development standards. Policy NS-38 Strive to achieve no net loss of wetland function in the short term, and a measurable gain of wetland function in the long term, in the following manner: Avoid direct impacts on wetlands and buffers; minimize direct impacts to wetlands and buffers; and mitigate impacts through creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands or buffers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Policy NS-39 Use of fencing, tape, or approved alternative to delineate wetland boundaries, buffers, and construction setbacks during construction shall be required as a condition of the land use permit or building permit. No construction activity or mechanical equipment shall be allowed in these delineated areas. Policy NS-40 Identification of wetlands and delineations of their boundaries shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements, and the most recent version of the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington, or as required in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Policy NS-41 Require the use of green infrastructure and low -impact development where such approaches are feasible when mitigation is required to address increased storm intensities and stormwater runoff. Frequently Flooded Areas Goal 10. Reduce the risk of damage to life, property, and the natural environment from flooding through appropriate regulatory means. Prevent development on floodplains that might have the potential to damage property or increase height, flow or velocity of floodwater. Policy NS-42 Avoid development in frequently flooded areas except when no conditions will be created which will be injurious to life, property or natural systems in times of flooding. Policy NS-43 Require improvements to existing structures within frequently flooded areas to be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Policy NS-44 Minimize diking and bank protection that may alter the natural hydrology of streams, except where used to enhance habitat. Policy NS-45 Prohibit the construction of flood barriers that will unnaturally divert floodwaters or that may increase flood hazards in other areas. Goal 11. Prevent land use in floodplains that may degrade water quality during times of flooding. Policy NS-46 Prohibit locating hazardous materials and solid waste facilities in floodplains. Policy NS-47 Coordinate with the Kitsap County Health District to identify failing septic systems and connect to sewer, where available. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Goal 12. Preserve natural flood control, stormwater storage and drainage or stream flow patterns. Policy NS-48 Minimize habitat fragmentation and maximize connectivity of open space corridors when designating land use and zoning classifications and reviewing development proposals. Policy NS-49 Identify and protect habitat conservation areas throughout the city, where appropriate. Policy NS-50 Coordinate with appropriate federal and state agencies, local tribal governments, and community organizations to refine and maintain thorough assessments of habitat types Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems and areas with important habitat elements. Based upon these assessments, develop a habitat protection plan that identifies areas most in need of protection and restoration, with special consideration for special status wildlife species. Policy NS-51 Consider the potential development impacts to habitat conservation areas, plant communities, and fish and wildlife populations in designating land use and zoning classifications. Policy NS-52 Require appropriate native vegetative buffers along surface waters to protect fish and wildlife habitat. Larger or enhanced buffer areas may be required to adequately protect priority fish and wildlife species. Buffer enhancement, restoration, and/or mitigation shall be required where buffers have been degraded or removed during new development. Policy NS-53 Review development applications located within identified habitat conservation areas and forward those that may pose a potential adverse impact to the appropriate agencies for review. Policy NS-54 Encourage developers to protect continuous corridors of native vegetation wherever possible, to disturb as little natural vegetation as feasible, and to enhance or restore wildlife habitat by transplanting or planting native vegetation in the developed landscape. Policy NS-55 Encourage redevelopment of areas within the city that were previously developed but that are now underutilized or vacant, to promote the highest and best use of existing properties and minimize new environmental impacts. Policy NS-56 Encourage cluster development to protect fish and wildlife habitat and, where possible, plan cooperatively with adjacent property owners to provide maximum habitat potential. Restoration of native vegetation within undeveloped areas of cluster development should be a requirement of such development. Policy NS-57 Encourage best management practices in the use of herbicides and pesticides near wetlands, surface waters or drainage ditches. Goal 13. Maintain accurate and sound development regulations that preserve the biological diversity of Port Orchard and the Puget Sound. Policy NS-58 Improve mapping of critical areas and buffers throughout Port Orchard and the South Kitsap Urban Growth Area. Policy NS-59 Maintain a CAO and development regulations that protect habitat conservation areas and important habitat elements. Policy NS-60 Identify species of local importance within Port Orchard City Limits. Goal 14. Preserve the biological diversity of Port Orchard and Puget Sound using non -regulatory means as appropriate. Policy NS-61 Maintain a citywide inventory of existing plant, fish, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for all species of concern identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and make information available to the public. Policy NS-62 Map priority conservation areas based upon a synthesis of existing citywide assessments of aquatic habitat quality, terrestrial habitat quality, and groundwater recharge potential. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Work with appropriate state agencies, local tribal governments, and community organizations to refine and maintain thorough citywide assessments of habitat types and areas with important habitat elements. Based upon these assessments, develop a habitat protection plan that identifies areas most in need of protection and restoration, with special consideration for special status wildlife. Implement the habitat protection plan through the Parks Plan and other incentive- based, non -regulatory efforts. Where inventories are incomplete, make it a high priority to complete them. Policy NS-63 Minimize habitat fragmentation and maximize connectivity of open space corridors when implementing non -regulatory efforts. Policy NS-64 Work with other government jurisdictions to coordinate watershed management and habitat protection efforts for watersheds and corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Policy NS-65 Ensure that the City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan is consistent with habitat inventories and habitat protection plans. Policy NS-66 Minimize impacts to fish and wildlife species when siting trail systems through habitat conservation areas. Policy NS-67 Encourage public -private partnerships and voluntary efforts to protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Provide information about existing government and private programs pertaining to voluntary habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration. Goal IS. Protect anadromous fish runs in the City of Port Orchard using appropriate regulatory means. Policy NS-68 Give special consideration to the protection of anadromous fish species when determining land use and zoning designations, and when developing and applying development regulations. Consider the relative importance of a stream's fisheries resource. Goal 16. Protect and restore anadromous fish runs in the City of Port Orchard using appropriate non -regulatory means. Policy NS-69 Restore local salmon populations by participating in the West Sound Watersheds Council Lead Entity and the Puget Sound Partnership. Policy NS-70 Develop and implement recovery plans for anadromous fish and other listed species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Work with appropriate state and federal agencies, local tribal governments, and community organizations and adjacent jurisdictions to identify deficiencies in City programs and regulations. Policy NS-71 Work with resource agencies, tribal governments, the County, and others to inventory nearshore areas, prioritize and implement restoration projects. Policy NS-72 Work with resource agencies, local tribal governments, the County, and others to inventory, prioritize, and restore fish blockages, degraded stream reaches, and wetlands. Policy NS-73 Support and coordinate volunteer stream and wetland restoration and preservation efforts. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Goal 17. Update the Ross and Blackjack Creek watershed plans to improve water resource management and implement improvements for ground and surface water quality and quantity in cooperation with tribal governments and interested citizens. Policy NS-74 Implement plans created to improve water resource management and monitoring, including the recommendations of the proposed Kitsap Peninsula (WRIA 15) Watershed Plan and Kitsap County Groundwater Management Plan, using resources available to accomplish higher priority actions first. Use watershed plans as a means of identifying projects with a broad base of community support and coordinating with neighborhood jurisdictions. Policy NS-75 Coordinate with other jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners to reduce the impacts of non -point source pollution upon aquatic resources by implementing the recommendations of approved watershed action plans. Goal 18. Develop a funding strategy and financing plan that uses a mix of local, state, federal and private funds to achieve conservation and restoration priorities. Policy NS-76 Develop locally controlled long-term funding source(s) for natural resource protection and enhancement. Utilize these funds to the maximum extent possible to leverage grant funds. Policy NS-77 Coordinate with the State Department of Ecology, Kitsap Public Utility District, Kitsap County, area tribal governments, and other jurisdictions and government agencies to pursue funding for water resource management efforts. Goal 19. Comprehensively monitor and manage water resources through non -regulatory means to ensure their long-term viability. Policy NS-78 Ensure that local water resources are comprehensively monitored, paying special attention to aquifer recharge areas, groundwater levels, stream flows, and saltwater intrusion. Maintain a citywide water quality monitoring program. Policy NS-79 Adequately maintain groundwater quantity to avoid saltwater intrusion and to protect in - stream flows for anadromous fish populations. Utilize Best Available Science to determine desired streamflow and determine means of achieving those flows. Policy NS-80 Seek opportunities to use reclaimed water for wetland augmentation, irrigation, stream enhancement, and aquifer replenishment. Policy NS-81 Coordinate actions of the City of Port Orchard Public Works Department with other agencies and jurisdictions to improve runoff quality and reduce runoff flow rates to mitigate flooding and improve water quality. Utilize a basin approach to stormwater facility planning. "m Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Policy NS-82 Ensure all existing City -owned stormwater facilities, and all new private facilities and culverts are properly designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the occurrence of flooding, improve the quality of surface waters, and enhance aquifer recharge. Maintenance shall occur on a regular basis to ensure flood protection and water quality functions Policy NS-83 Employ best management practices in the City's use of herbicides and pesticides near surface waters or drainage ditches. Policy NS-84 Educate City residents and businesses about the natural environment and the benefits of healthy surface and groundwater resources. Policy NS-85 Incorporate best available science related to the effects of climate change on water availability and quality into future water resource planning. Ensure stormwater facilities meet or exceed requirements for managing peak flows as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of storm events. Shorelines and Aquatic Areas Goal 20. Encourage shoreline access and diversity by recognizing the distribution and location requirements of housing, commerce, industry, transportation, public buildings, education, recreation and natural resources. Policy NS-86 Encourage and support shoreline diversity through planned and coordinated development, which gives preference to water -dependent uses, maintenance of shoreline resource values, and continuing environmental protection. Policy NS-87 Ensure shoreline access for all Port Orchard residents and visitors. Goal 21. Water -dependent and water -related commercial uses should be encouraged when the shoreline can accommodate such development. Policy NS-88 Encourage and support water -related and water -dependent commercial uses that are environmentally compatible with the City's Shoreline Master Program and other shoreline and aquatic area protection policies and regulations. Policy NS-89 Land use activities shall be sited and designed to minimize conflicts with and avoid impacts to the shoreline environment. Policy NS-90 Encourage maritime dependent services and industry to remain and to improve their services while operating in an environmentally sustainable manner. Goal 22. Increase public awareness of the historical, cultural and environmental influences of Port Orchard's shorelines. Policy NS-91 Historical, cultural, educational or scientific areas should be identified, preserved and/or restored and shoreline development within them should be minimized. Policy NS-92 Waterfront historical districts (those identified now and in the future), cultural resource Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems areas and specific historic sites and structures should be integrated into zoning and planning maps and development regulations. Policy NS-93 Public awareness of the historical, cultural and environmental influences of Port Orchard's shoreline should be increased through educational and interpretive projects. Goal 23. When development or redevelopment of shoreline properties is proposed, the development proposal should include restoration of degraded shoreline habitat where feasible, consistent with the requirements of the City's shoreline master program. Policy NS-94 Shoreline development proposals should include an analysis of potential opportunities for restoration of degraded shoreline habitat, including but not limited to opportunities for: removal of shoreline fill, bank armoring and overwater structures; re-establishing intertidal and riparian vegetation; and restoring tidal processes. Policy NS-95 Shoreline development proposals should include an analysis of anticipated impacts to shoreline ecological functions and provide mitigation measures sufficient to ensure no net loss of such functions. Goal 24. Manage land use and water resources so that shellfish and finfish that utilize marine and freshwater in Port Orchard are abundant and fit for human consumption. Policy NS-96 Maintain or improve water quality such that shellfish within Port Orchard are safe to consume. Policy NS-97 Maintain or improve marine habitat such that there is no net loss of shellfish habitat quantity and quality within Port Orchard compared to a baseline of 1995. Policy NS-98 Maintain or improve fresh, estuarine, and marine habitat such that there is no net loss of fin fish habitat quantity and quality within Port Orchard compared to a baseline of 1995. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Figure 5-6. Port Orchard Environmental Map ew 0(% of Purl Orchard Emironmcntal Slip Legend 0 cn k..4.y Fie IW.e A_ M O A% , CFWa Nave ® FE1W Z—AE ® FEiA.—A w- FWO., —'omrcw+�• �ole�rt.',i.Ylnh 0.MOOc MUN Ann �ICanan M� Flnre Areas A�tl Ease W np'mM� Ner Vowo es W .E Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems Figure 5-7. Port Orchard FEMA Flood Zone Map � f I IOr L11rr■IfJIR II IILII F '. - - -�II..xIIInIY. I: I I �• LYI �LIYR.B Gil �! � -i�1 I��II114�1 � � Id , I. ■ J IC'�I1IljA 11��1�' t 1 � ��11 SF rill Ri �Y �i• _li r � it � ' r'•iai� � gffii . u� . • n lw��� MgTrill rAl �l. �� � 11I�II •3HG,J _ al lli�i� T�tn 110 xriI IR'ai Irl� ■ ■ �� R1' �n ■ 7Jh �t (Mlunp ��fl , I film// exII s,,,III�I��������,,,rrrrYrrrlwrr�rrrrrr: �IL11 U'I�i2n11�-. �'�■' �.-_cA rr1 �� ulliji�� •n+• iininmrlri� - - Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 5: Natural Systems igure 5-8. Port Orchard Shoreline Jurisdiction Map City of Port Orchard ShomAhae Jurisdiction �^ Shoreline Jurisdictim i7y Boundary roan Growth Area Feet 1,20@,400 4,5-0 7,200 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 6. Economic Development 6.1 Introduction The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to outline the City's goals and policies for types, intensity, and location of employment, commercial services for residents, and industrial businesses. Economic Development Vision Plan for a vital, sustainable economy with a diversity of jobs and businesses that create a healthy local employment and economic base, supported by an appropriate range of land uses. This chapter also outlines goals for balancing environmental protection and economic growth, creating connections with the business community, and improving the overall economic state of Port Orchard. In addition, this chapter will briefly discuss employment goals in Port Orchard and the potential benefits of the City as an employment hub within Kitsap County. The economic vision for the future of Port Orchard as a whole can be summarized by the following guiding principles: • Unify the business community. • Establish investment priorities. • Plan for a vital sustainable economy. • Work in concert with current plans and processes. • Promote, attract, and maintain a diversity of jobs and businesses to create a dynamic, diverse, and vigorous employment and economic base. • Honor and value Port Orchard's unique maritime past. • Create opportunities for small businesses, women -owned businesses, and minority -owned businesses to locate in the City. • Continue to identify and support centers within the City where job growth opportunities and infrastructure investments can be prioritized. • Maintain a balanced mix of residential and commercial land uses and adjust the future land use map as economic conditions change over time. This Element provides goals and policies to guide development, identify key goals and opportunities, and designate appropriately zoned land for development of primary employment. The Comprehensive Plan promotes economic development by designating a diverse mix and appropriate range of commercial, office, and residential land uses that, in turn, will provide opportunities for businesses to locate within proximity to residents and create living wage jobs that contribute to a healthy local economy. Local economic policy also plays a strong role in balancing the needs of growth and protection of our environment. Areas designated for economic development must have easy access to necessary public facilities such as utilities and highways yet have a limited impact on environmentally sensitive areas such as the Puget Sound, streams, and wetlands. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 6.2 Economic Conditions 6.2.1 Geographic Setting Port Orchard is well located. It is only a 10-minute ferry ride or 20-minute drive from the county's largest city, Bremerton, and the Naval Shipyard (part of Naval Base Kitsap). From Bremerton, a one -hour WSDOT ferry provides a connection to downtown Seattle, the economic and cultural center of the Pacific Northwest. Additional Kitsap Transit operated passenger -only ferry services (fast ferries) are available from both Bremerton and Southworth, with each providing an approximate 30-minute travel time to downtown Seattle. Among cities in Kitsap County, Port Orchard is the closest to international export terminals at the Port of Tacoma. Port Orchard is a one -hour drive (without traffic) from the region's main international airport in SeaTac and is also near Bremerton National Airport and the surrounding industrial center. Port Orchard has taken advantage of its many miles of waterfront. Water -dependent businesses include boat maintenance, sales, and moorage in several public and private marinas. 6.2.2 Population Port Orchard has steadily grown since its incorporation in 1890. As of 2020, Port Orchard's population was 15,587 according to the U.S. Census, and the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates the 2024 population at 18,300. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council's Countywide Planning Policies have allocated the City a share of the Puget Sound Region's expected 20-year growth, amounting to an increase of 10,500 people between the 2023 and 2044 planning horizon. This is not a population growth projection, but rather informs the City how many new residents it must plan for by way of zoning regulations and infrastructure capacity. The County's total allocation is established in Vision 2050 using population estimates derived from the U.S. census. Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report estimates that Port Orchard has an additional population capacity of 16,250 residents as of 2020. This is greater than the City's planning target (10,500 additional residents) as found in the Countywide Planning Policies and means that the City has surplus capacity for an additional 5,750 residents. Technically, this surplus means the City is not bound to implement any significant changes to its land use and zoning regulations to accommodate its allocated growth. However, it is prudent to begin planning now so that the City grows responsibly and uses its developable land efficiently. Another consideration is the population of the South Kitsap Urban Growth Area (UGA), the land around the City that has been designated for eventual annexation into Port Orchard. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report shows the UGA population in 2012 was 14,505, and the County has allocated it an increase of 3,552 people by 2044. The Buildable Lands Report shows the UGA has a capacity of 3,552 people through the planning period, which identifies adequate housing capacity within the UGA to meet the UGA's population allocation. Based on the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the total population capacity for the City of Port Orchard and the UGA would amount to a total population of 41,173. This has significant implications for the City's economic development policies and its provision of public services. Even if the City doesn't annex these areas, many of the residents living in the UGA work, shop, recreate, and travel in Port Orchard. As such, the City must consider the proximity of these areas and impacts to the City from this population when making decisions. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 6.2.3 Employment As of 2022, the Puget Sound Regional Council reports that Port Orchard hosts 7,722 jobs. This data is derived from the Washington State Employment Security Department. Like recent Comprehensive Plan Updates, the largest employment share continues to be service jobs, a broad category that includes jobs in technical and scientific services, health care and social assistance, arts and entertainment, and accommodations and food services. Retail jobs make up the second largest share with government jobs ranking third, which is attributable to Port Orchard being the county seat. Overall, job growth has been primarily confined to the service and retail sectors, with some growth in construction jobs over the past decade, likely reflecting the large amount of homebuilding occurring in the community. Port Orchard has a notably smaller share of technology and information jobs compared to Seattle and other parts of the Puget Sound region. The Washington State Employment Security Department estimates that as of summer 2023 up to 25 percent of workdays nationally are worked from home, and this trend has potential implications for the City, particularly if technology and other knowledge industry workers in the region choose to live in Port Orchard due to lower costs of living. The sector breakdown is shown below in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1. Port Orchard Employment Sectors 3,500 Services 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 Soo Retail � Government Warehousing.Transoort. r)-,, Education 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ Covered Employment Port Orchard has also been allocated a set amount of employment growth by the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. As required by the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, Appendix B- 2, between 2020- 2044 the City must plan for an additional 5,400 jobs, with 2,571 of those being commercial jobs and 560 being industrial jobs. Almost two-thirds of the allocated employment growth is based on increased jobs in finance, insurance, real estate, and services. The City must also plan for manufacturing jobs to nearly quadruple, though the actual number is relatively small. Residents have voiced support for enabling light industrial activities in Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 established commercial areas, while there is less support for locating new heavy industrial businesses in Port Orchard. The City should strike a balance between being open to new industries and encouraging them to locate in the Puget Sound Industrial Center- Bremerton, a nearby industrial park within the City of Bremerton. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report found that Port Orchard currently has the capacity for 5,243 additional jobs, which is slightly less than the allocation. This indicates Port Orchard needs to add 153 jobs worth of employment capacity to support future employment growth targets, which is resolved by making minor adjustments to the zoning maps and by adding capacity within the Bethel Lund and Bethel Sedgwick subareas. Jobs capacity is determined by calculating the amount of additional commercial and industrial square footage that can be accommodated within the City. Additionally, the Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) publishes medium- and long-term forecasts of employment growth by region. Figure 6-2 shows forecast new jobs by sector in Kitsap, Clallam, and Jefferson Counties through 2030. Many of Port Orchard's prominent sectors, including government, leisure and hospitality, and retail trade, are expected to see significant regional growth in the coming decades, some of which should be captured by Port Orchard. On the other hand, there are also expected to be a significant number of new professional, business, and health care jobs in the region as well, which Port Orchard may wish to consider strategies for attracting. Figure 6-2. Forecasted Jobs by Employment Sector GOVERNMENT OTHER SERVICES - 2020-2025 ■ 2025-2030 LEISURE and HOSPITALITY EDUCATION and HEALTH SERVICES PROFESSIONAL and BUSINESS SERVICES - FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES ■ INFORMATfON ■ TRANSPORTATION, WAREHOUSING AND UTILITIES . RETAIL TRADE - WHOLESALE TRADE ■ MANUFACTURING . CONSTRUCTION - NATURAL RESOURCES and Mining 0 Source: Washington Employment Security Department 6.2.4 Wages 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Forecast New Jobs Wage data for Port Orchard is not directly available, but the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does collect data for all of Kitsap County. While this can be generally applied to Port Orchard, it should be noted that these numbers may not account for local differences and that wage and employment conditions change overtime. However, many Port Orchard residents work outside of the city in Bremerton and other job centers in the county, including numerous military installations. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 The county has higher than average concentrations of those working in: • architecture and engineering • life, physical, and social sciences • community and social service • healthcare support • food service • construction and extraction • installation, maintenance, and repair The median household income (MHI) in Port Orchard in 2020 was $71,719, while the MHI for Kitsap County was $78,969 and the MHI for Washington State as a whole was $77,006. Port Orchard's MHI in 2020 represents a 21 percent increase since 2010 when adjusted for inflation, which is significantly higher than the 12 percent increase in Kitsap County and 14 percent increase in Washington State during the same timeframe. 6.2.5 Businesses Port Orchard has a variety of businesses that serve residents from throughout the greater South Kitsap region. Most shopping and service areas are characterized by large and recognized chains. Key commercial areas include the Bethel corridor, Mile Hill, and the Sedgwick/SR-16 corridor, where national retailers and grocery stores make up a large part of the City's tax base. Port Orchard is also home to several business clusters. There are several healthcare facilities along the Tremont corridor that include medical centers and assisted living facilities. Located in the industrial park are manufacturers of building furnishings, electronics, and aerospace parts. The Kitsap County campus south of downtown has a large concentration of government jobs, which attracts private firms specializing in engineering, land development and law. There are also a variety of small businesses throughout Port Orchard. Many residents take pride in that fact nearly all the businesses on the core stretch of Bay Street are small and locally based. They include restaurants and eateries, a theatre, antique shops, bail bondsmen and several boutiques. Creating an economic environment that encourages small, local businesses has been identified as an important consideration by the community. Port Orchard also has many self-employed residents in home businesses. 6.2.6 Tax Structure The City operates on an annual budget of approximately $128 million in 2024, with operating funds representing approximately $47.6 million of the budget. The budget is divided into multiple accounts that have dedicated funding sources, and each must have balanced revenues and expenditures each year. Much of the budget pays for Port Orchard's streets, water system, sewer system, and stormwater system, which are vitally important to maintaining quality of life and the local economy. The "Current Expense" fund is perhaps the most visible to the public, as this fund is supported by property and sales taxes and primarily pays for the operations of each City department. The sales tax rate in Port Orchard is 9.3% and breaks down as follows: State: 6.S% City of Port Orchard: 0.94% Criminal Justice: 0.10% Kitsap County: 0 .3S% Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Kitsap Transit: 1.10% Emergency Communications: 0.20% KC Mental Health Treatment Services: 0.10% State Administration Fee: 0 .01% Figure 6-3. Taxable Retail Sales in Port Orchard 2012-2022 Taxable Retail Sales in Part Orchard $1,000,000,000 $900,0w,we $700,000,0W $600,0ffl,wo $500,00o,wo S400,M0,W0 $300,0w,cw $20G,000,W0 $100,0w,wo $0 As of 2024 the City's annual property tax is 1.072 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Other property taxes levied by a number of other local governments combine for a total rate of 8.42 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. For a residential property assessed at the area's median value of $469,750, the rate is equivalent to $3,044 per year. 6.3 Challenges VISION 2050 calls on local governments to address the obstacles and special needs related to economically disadvantaged populations, particularly through a housing lens. The City is committed to improving the economic conditions of its residents by providing opportunities for living -wage businesses to locate and grow within Port Orchard, by supporting educational and vocational training opportunities, by promoting efficient land use with housing, jobs and mass transit in proximity to each other, and by encouraging development and maintenance of affordable, adequate housing options to serve a variety of household types. Emphasis is placed on providing these services within designated local centers where a need for revitalization, infill development, and/or improvements to transportation facilities have been identified. 6.4 Goals and Policies This Plan addresses Economic Development in several categories, each with associated goals and policies which provide the primary foundation for this Economic Development Element, supporting both the overall vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the needs and desires of the community. MMiiiiiiiPort Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Goal 1. Support a diversified economy that provides primary living wage jobs for residents, supported by adequate land for a range of employment uses, and which encourages accomplishment of local economic development goals. Policy ED-1 The City should maintain an adequate inventory of land to accommodate targeted employment growth. Policy ED-2 The City should enable the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses through fair, consistent, and timely permitting processes. Policy ED-3 Encourage new economic development opportunities that utilize regional infrastructure, including highway, rail, aviation, and marine links between Port Orchard, the Puget Sound Industrial Center -Bremerton, the Port of Tacoma, Naval Base Kitsap, and the greater region. Policy ED-4 Promote business opportunities that utilize and attract the availability of a highly skilled workforce and within geographic proximity to military facilities. Policy ED-5 Promote business opportunities that provide on-the-job training, educational opportunities, and other means of assistance for disadvantaged populations to achieve living -wage employment. Goal 2. Encourage new commercial development to occur within designated centers near housing, multi -modal transportation connections, and urban services. Policy ED-6 The City should encourage residential and commercial growth in centers where job opportunities and a diverse mix of retail and professional/technical office activities are concentrated. Policy ED-7 The City shall prioritize economic development and redevelopment in local centers. Policy ED-9 The City shall encourage the continuation and marketing efforts of downtown events and holiday festivals. Policy ED-10 The City shall continue to implement a citywide wayfinding system that directs residents and visitors to civic and commercial centers of local importance. Goal 3. Encourage growth and diversification that maximizes employment and improves the opportunity for residents to both work and live in Port Orchard. Policy ED-11 The City shall implement long-term economic policies that support the needs of employers while meeting diversification and employment objectives and improving the City's tax base. Policy ED-12 The City should improve economic competitiveness by developing incentives for business growth, expansion, and relocation, and by utilizing tools such as tax incentives and modernization and streamlining of development regulations. Policy ED-13 The City shall strive to ensure its future employment allocation is met with primary jobs, which produce goods or services principally sold to clients outside of the City, to support Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 the creation of secondary jobs, which produce goods or services principally sold to clients within the City. Policy ED-14 Attract a variety of retailers, services, and light industry to provide diverse shopping and service opportunities. Policy ED-15 Identify and eliminate disparities in access to economic opportunities by gathering and incorporating community feedback in future land use planning activities. Policy ED-16 Establish relationships with community stakeholder groups to better understand how local and regional policies affect City residents, particularly as they relate to people of color and people with low incomes. Goal 4. Promote and support a healthy, diverse economy that provides for a strong and diverse tax base, maintains an industrial base, and encourages the retention, attraction, and expansion of business in Port Orchard. Policy ED-15 Recognize the arts as a contribution to the economic diversity of Port Orchard. Prefer local, qualified artists for public art commissions. Policy ED-16 Recognize and encourage tourism as a growing contribution to the economic diversity of Port Orchard. Policy ED-17 Encourage small business enterprises and cottage industries. Policy ED-18 The City shall allow traditional home occupations as permitted by local regulations, including live -work units. Policy ED-19 Maintain Port Orchard as a unique and significant waterfront destination with recreation and retail opportunities for tourists and residents. Policy ED-21 The City shall support the full utilization and build out of industrially zoned properties in the Port Orchard Industrial Park. Explore streamlined permitting processes for future development. Goal S. Increase residents' ability to enjoy a high quality of life and access to healthy living opportunities, such as locally produced food, nearby grocery stores, parks and open space, and safe streets for all users. Policy ED-22 The City shall ensure its land use code permits urban agriculture and community gardens within compatible zoning districts. Policy ED-23 Encourage the continuation and expansion of the Port Orchard Farmer's Market into a year-round event and identify other sites around the City that could be used for additional farmer's markets. Policy ED-24 Support the local food economy and its capacity to grow, process, and distribute food within Port Orchard and throughout the South Kitsap area and encourage local restaurants and food retailers to buy and sell local products. Policy ED-25 The City shall ensure that centers allow for neighborhood scale grocery stores and restaurants to ensure that the City's residents have access to healthy food options. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy ED-26 The City shall prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facility improvements that connect grocery stores, healthcare facilities, and general commercial centers to surrounding residential areas. Goal 6. Provide a diverse mix and appropriate range of commercial, industrial, and business park uses within Port Orchard and South Kitsap area that will provide living wage jobs. Policy ED-27 The City shall encourage mixed use developments within centers and other areas designated for mixed -use development that will enhance the visual, economic, and environmental quality of these areas and improve the transition between commercial and residential districts. Policy ED-28 The City shall require pedestrian orientation for non-residential uses and office or residential uses above ground floor retail uses within centers. Policy ED-29 The City should encourage the redevelopment of strip commercial areas through changes to the land use code, landscaping code, and signage code. Goal 7. Balance business and industrial development with environmental protection and continue to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Port Orchard as growth occurs. Policy ED-30 The City should encourage new heavy industrial uses to locate in the Puget Sound Industrial Center -Bremerton. Policy ED-31 The City should encourage the use of "green" materials and techniques in all types of construction by adopting the US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard for public projects. Policy ED-32 The City should remove barriers that prevent innovative low -impact development strategies consistent with the adopted stormwater manual. Allow for multiple uses of landscaping and reduction in impervious surface areas, such as bioswales, porous paving, and vegetated roofs. Policy ED-33 The City should encourage solid waste reduction by residents and businesses. Policy ED-34 The City should ensure that development standards and regulations are permissive of modern technologies that mitigate potential environmental impacts and provide environmental benefits, with regular review and updating as new technologies emerge. Policy ED-35 The City should pursue ongoing actions and policies that are consistent with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's targets for local emission reductions in an effort to address and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Goal 8. Coordinate economic expansion so that it is concurrent with capital facilities, multi -modal transportation networks, and urban services, especially within centers. Policy ED-36 Encourage the full utilization and development of designated commercial and industrial areas. Promote revitalization and redevelopment within existing developed areas to Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 take advantage of investments in existing buildings and infrastructure. Policy ED-37 Further explore ways to reduce long-term and commuter parking on the City's downtown waterfront, such as the addition of a parking garage. Policy ED-38 Support increased Kitsap Transit bus and foot ferry service during evenings and weekends year-round. Policy ED-39 Encourage the provision of high-speed Internet service citywide, including implementation of fiber optic infrastructure and wireless internet, and require that new development and redevelopment allow fiber optic cable to locate in utility corridors and easements where feasible. Policy ED-40 Encourage and incentivize the undergrounding of utilities where feasible. Goal 9. Foster and facilitate partnerships and cooperation among government, private corporations, and nonprofit entities to promote the economic development goals and policies of Port Orchard. Policy ED-41 As appropriate, work with other jurisdictions, state and federal agencies, tribes, Port of Bremerton, Kitsap Economic Development Alliance (KEDA), Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce, Port Orchard Bay Street Association, and the Kitsap County Public Utilities Districts, in marketing and developing the City of Port Orchard. Policy ED-42 Work in association with community business groups, economic development groups/agencies, and residents to create branding opportunities that identify and promote economic development opportunities throughout the City. Policy ED-43 Work with local community business groups to support growth and participation in the organization, including supporting efforts to receive certification/accreditation with other local, regional, state, and national economic development organizations. Goal 10. Attract and encourage expansion of educational and medical institutions to assure a highly skilled work force. Policy ED-44 Encourage the maintenance and expansion of public and private schools within Port Orchard to serve a growing population. Policy ED-45 Encourage the development of higher education institutions within Port Orchard to provide vocational, technical, and postsecondary programs. Policy ED-46 Encourage the development and expansion of medical institutions that serve a growing local and regional population while utilizing and attracting a highly skilled workforce. Goal 11. Ensure adequate land use capacity for job growth needs in commercial, retail, and industrial employment sectors. Policy ED-47 Encourage commercial land uses on the ground floor of mixed -use buildings within zoning districts in areas designated as centers for growth. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy ED-48 In association with future Comprehensive Plan updates and zoning amendments related to commercial, retail, and/or industrial uses, review the City's land use capacity needs and projections to ensure consistency with growth targets. Goal 12. Support and recognize the contributions of the region's culturally and ethnically diverse communities, institutions, and Native Tribes. Policy ED-49 Coordinate with Tribes in local and regional planning and economic development efforts, recognizing the mutual benefits of coordinated growth. Policy ED-50 Recognize Tribes' contributions to local and regional economic prosperity, land and resource management, placemaking, and cultural enrichment. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 7. Utilities This Utilities Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update provides direction and guidance, based on consultant research and analysis of the City's Water System Plan', General Sewer Plant, and Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan', in collaboration with City staff, to improve and maintain the City's existing utility system and develop additional utility infrastructure and capacity to meet the City's growth needs. The Element also draws from the system plans prepared by outside agencies such as West Sount Utility District, Bremerton Water, and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). This Element is based on 2023 data, facilities, population and Utilities Vision projected growth patterns, with a planning horizon projected to 2044. Develop and maintain public and private utilities to meet the needs of a growing population and a 21s' century economy. Services are efficiently provided and available to the entire community. Utilities are sited, designed, and operated in a manner that is consistent with surrounding land uses and maintains community character. The state Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that comprehensive plans include a utilities element that indicates the general location of existing facilities, the proposed location of future facilities, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities. The GMA also requires that public utilities shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. Over the next 20 years, the City expects that utilities will need to be provided to approximately 26,087 residents of the incorporated City and urban growth area (UGA). Public and private utility providers must plan for the necessary infrastructure to rehabilitate aging systems, respond to growth, and adapt the changing technology and consumer behavior. Although the City does not control non -City managed utilities, such as water within the City of Bremerton's water services area, water and sewer in West Sound Utility District's service area, telecommunications, natural gas, and electrical service, it does regulate how non -City owned utilities are developed and managed within Port Orchard. The Utilities Element, in conjunction with the City's functional plans for water, sewer, and storm water management, is the guiding or strategy document that the City will use to achieve its goals of providing utilities at the appropriate levels of service to the City's existing and future residents and businesses. The Utilities Element serves as a policy guide for general maintenance and improvement of the utility system while the City's functional plans include more detailed inventory, analysis, and specific recommendations for utility maintenance, improvement, and future development. The City's regulatory and non -regulatory decisions and programs, as well as budget decisions related to utilities, should be consistent with this Element and with the City's functional plans. Additionally, this Element works in tandem with the Land Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element to ensure that Port Orchard will have adequate utilities available for projected growth concurrent with the impacts of growth and development. Policies in this Element also address environmental impacts, 1 https://Portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-plan/ Z https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2017/10/General-Sewer-Plan-Update- FINAL1.pdf s https://Portorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port-orchard-stormwater-and-watersheds-comprehensive-plan/ Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 facilities siting and construction, economics, and design aesthetics. 7.1 City -Managed Utilities Sewer The City of Port Orchard owns, operates, and maintains wastewater collection and conveyance facilities serving portions of the City that collects and delivers wastewater to the South Kitsap Water Reclamation Facility (SKWRF). The City has an interlocal agreement for wastewater treatment with the West Sound Utility District (WSUD), which operates the SKWRF. WSUD also provides sewer collection and conveyance to the eastern portion of the City and the City's UGA. There are approximately 70 miles of sewer lines within Port Orchard's sewer utility ranging from 2 to 24 inches in diameter. These lines include approximately 49 miles of gravity sewers, 8 miles of force mains, and 14 miles of septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) mains. There are 17 pump stations within the system. The City also maintains a telemetry system to monitor the operating conditions of system components. The City's current service area is approximately 2,100 acres, with a population of about 17,480. Over the next 20 years, the City's sewer service area is expected to grow to approximately 5,700 acres to serve the estimated population of about 26,087. Water The City provides drinking water within portions of the city limits and selected adjacent areas within its retail service area, supplied primarily by six active wells. There are two interties with the City of Bremerton's water system and an emergency intertie with the WSUD. Eight reservoirs provide 4.8 million gallons of storage. There are three booster pump stations, and over 300,000 feet of pipe ranging from 4 to 18 inches in diameter. Other water suppliers within Port Orchard include Berry Lake Manors, which serves a 30-unit mobile home park, the City of Bremerton serves areas north of Old Clifton Road in the western parts of Port Orchard, and the WSUD, which serves selected areas on the eastern boundary of the City outside the City water service area. Stormwater The City manages stormwater conveyance facilities that collect runoff and provides treatment and discharge in accordance with federal and state requirements for water quality protection. As detailed in the City's 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, much of the City's stormwater system discharges to Sinclair Inlet through a system of more than 50 outfalls alongthe waterfront thatvary from 5 to 24 inches in diameter. The piped and ditched portions of the system are primarily within the older, more commercial areas of Port Orchard, while the outlying, more residential areas are largely composed of the remaining elements of the region's original natural drainage system (i.e., lakes, streams and wetlands) and are supported by a widely distributed system of culverts, ditches, pipes, and ponds. 7.2 Non -City Managed Utilities The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates the services and defines the costs that a utility can recover, to ensure that the utility acts prudently and responsibly. Under the GMA, both the WUTC and the City of Port Orchard have jurisdiction over the activities of electric, gas, and telephone utilities within the City. The City has the authority to regulate land use and, under the GMA, the requirement to consider the locations of existing and proposed utilities and potential utility Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 corridors in land use planning and permit decisions. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established the role and responsibilities of the Federal Communications Commission in licensing wireless communication providers. The licenses allow the right to use a block or blocks of the radio frequency spectrum to provide wireless services. The Act recognizes the authority of state and local governments over decisions regarding siting of wireless communication facilities, subject to certain limitations. Sewer Residents within the City that are outside of the City's sewer service area are served by the West Sound Utility District (WSUD). Water A small portion of the City is served by the West Sound Utility District (formerly known as Annapolis Water District), whose service area lies east of Port Orchard and includes portions of the City's eastern potential annexation, or urban growth area. An interlocal agreement is in place to ensure coordination and compatibility with the City's water service. The City's 260 Pressure Zone water supply is augmented during high demand or emergency conditions through an intertie with the City of Bremerton. Solid Waste and Recycling Solid waste and recyclable materials collection is contracted to Waste Management Northwest. Electrical Service Puget Sound Energy (PSE) builds, operates and maintains the electrical system serving Port Orchard. Natural Gas Service Cascade Natural Gas builds, operates and maintains the natural gas distribution system that serves Port Orchard. Cascade Natural Gas has indicated that their service area covers all of Port Orchard and its UGA. Telecommunications Telecommunications is the transmission of information in the form of electronic signals or similar means. Telecommunications services generally include the following categories: • Landline telephone. CenturyLink and Astound provide landline telephone service to Port Orchard. Wireless communications (cell towers or antennae). A variety of cellular communication and wireless data services are available in Port Orchard (Verizon, Sprint, etc). Currently, these services rely on ground -based antennae located on towers or buildings. Cable television and broadband internet. There are several providers that serve Port Orchard, such as Astound, CenturyLink, KPUD and DIRECTV. 7.3 Existing Conditions Asset Management In 2024, the City of Port Orchard will begin the initial implementation of a comprehensive Asset Management Program (AMP) to enhance utility infrastructure longevity. Through rigorous assessments, the City will develop a strategic plan prioritizing preventive maintenance, capital improvements, and replacements. Asset management software and staff training will improve predictive maintenance. This program implementation will assist in providing a resilient and sustainable future, ensuring utility infrastructure would endure and efficiently serve the growing community. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Sewer The condition and capacity of the City's wastewater collection system, including gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations, was analyzed by the City's consultant in association with the General Sewer Plan's September 2020 Amendment. The conveyance system was analyzed using the InfoSWMM computer modeling platform. This hydraulic model simulated the performance of the major collection system components, including all pump stations and the major sewer mains within the City's collection system. The General Sewer Plan' identifies minor capacity issues under existing flow conditions in areas throughout the City which will be addressed through implementation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The General Sewer Plan identifies some necessary upgrades to the Bay Street Lift Station Replacement, Marina Pump Station, Tremont Place Diversion, and Golden Pond Lift Station. Additional new facilities, including South Sidney Lift Station and Sidney Second Force Main, have been identified to provide adequate capacity in the City's wastewater system as future development occurs. These improvements are included in the General Sewer Plan's 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and are described in more detail in the adopted General Sewer Plan Update. Water The City's water supply and distribution system is examined on a regular basis, as required by State and Federal requirements. The City's adopted Water System Plans, indicates that the water system meets the City's domestic drinking water requirements, although capacity analysis will remain an ongoing effort as the City continues to see additional development activities. Water supply needs are met through utilizing City wells, and an intertie with the City of Bremerton water supply. There is an emergency intertie with the City of Bremerton to the 260 pressure zone that can be activated in the event that additional fire flow is needed. The City has drilled additional wells and is pursuing water rights through the Foster Pilot Project6 for future demand. The analysis also determined that continued treatment of current and future well supplies will be required, primarily for disinfection and removal of naturally occurring compounds. Larger size pipelines will be needed both to replace existing and aging water mains, primarily in older sections of the City, and to improve the flow of water during projected fire events. Port Orchard purchases water from Bremerton through a 16-inch transmission main. A recent Interlocal Agreement (November 2019) includes selling assets like the 580 Zone tank to Bremerton. Bremerton will supply 750 gpm until Port Orchard meets specified conditions, allowing both systems to operate independently. Port Orchard, part of a pilot project under Section 301 of ESSB 6091, is demonstrating water resource mitigation sequencing per RCW 90.94.090. To update aging wells, the City has applied for water right changes and new water rights for Wells 12 and 13, targeting a deep sub -sea level aquifer to minimize impacts on local streams. The Foster Pilot Mitigation projects aim to mitigate water resource impacts within the City's service area. More information on this project can be found by following the link referenced in footnote 6. Stormwater The City is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II 4 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2017/10/General-Sewer-Plan-Update- FINAL1.0 s https://Portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-plan/ 6 https://ecology.wa.gov/water-shorelines/water-supply/water-rights/case-law/foster-decision Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Municipal Permit, which is a federal Environmental Protection Agency permit program administered by the State Department of Ecology (Ecology). As part of compliance measures, the City is required to develop and administer a stormwater management program that reduces discharge of both point source and nonpoint source pollution carried by stormwater. One requirement of this program is the adoption of the minimum stormwater design standards outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and apply these standards to all new permit applications. The SWMMWW maintains the required use of Best Management Practices to reduce pollutant discharges and encourage low -impact development measures that minimize creation of impervious surfaces and disturbance of native vegetation and soils. Additionally, the SWMMWW provides guidance for development project review to ensure that water quality standards are maintained during construction and operation phases of development proposals, and that receiving waters are protected from adverse impacts of stormwater. In order to comply with the NPDES Phase II Municipal Permit requirements and implement stormwater quality goals, the City has developed and adopted the 2023 Stormwater Management Program Plan and the 2023 Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan. In addition to NPDES Phase II Municipal Permit compliance, these policy documents address the City's goals for flooding and water quality concerns, infrastructure maintenance and management, resources needed to implement the goals of each Plan, and capital improvement list identifying major infrastructure upgrades and necessary funding. Historically, the Sinclair/Dyes Inlet water bodies have had reduced water quality, partially due to longstanding discharges of industrial, agricultural, and septic system discharges within the contributing watersheds. The City is required to monitor water quality for fecal coliform bacteria and respond to any illicit discharges, including accidental spills, illegal connections, and illegal dumping into the storm sewer system, with the long-term goal of complying with the NPDES and eliminating these discharges to prevent further degradation of these Puget Sound Inlets. 7.4 Relationship to Centers In accordance with VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies, several centers have been established within the City. Centers serve important roles as sub -regional hubs and secondary concentrations of development, with a dense mix of housing and services such as stores, medical offices, and libraries. Additional information regarding centers locations throughout the City, and specific goals and policies for those centers, are contained in Chapter 2: Land Use of this Comprehensive Plan. One purpose of centers is to enable the City to deliver services more cost -efficiently and equitably within a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound. Through subarea planning, the City will designate desired development types, locations, and patterns within each Center. Provision of utilities and improvements to utility services within Centers should be a City priority. 7.5 Future Needs Sewer Future needs for the City's sewer collection system primarily arise from a need to address deficiencies that have been identified in the City's existing wastewater system, generally due to aging and insufficient capacity. If not corrected, these deficiencies will be exacerbated as the City continues to grow. In addition, future needs include the provision of the needed infrastructure to accommodate future growth. In the near -term future (0-6 years), the focus of the CIP for the sewer collection system is the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 replacement and/or retrofitting of key components for several pump stations. Long-term improvements (7-20 years) will be required for conveyance pipelines throughout the City, including the McCormick Woods Drive SW, Bay Street, and Port Orchard Boulevard gravity sewer lines. These issues are discussed in the City's Sewer Plan in greater detail. Table 7-1provides an overview of the near -term future improvements. Water The primary challenge for future water service in the City of Port Orchard is meeting the needs of future development while maintaining sufficient yield from its permitted ground water supply. Both short and long term needs of the City regarding water utility services are primarily oriented around the ability to withdraw, treat, and supply water to the increasing development pressures the City faces. The initial planning and analysis efforts have identified a series of projects that will be required to maintain and strengthen the performance of the City's water supply system. To improve the water supply system reliability, the City intends to develop additional well supply(ies) to provide sufficient capacity for the City to become self-sufficient, thus using the Bremerton intertie as a standby/emergency source of drinking water rather than a continuous source of water supply. New pipelines will also be installed to improve the system's capability to move water throughout the system. In addition, new storage reservoir(s)will be needed to optimize system performance and provide water to meet operational and firefighting capacity requirements. Providing an intertie between the City's existing upper water pressure zone (660pz/580pz) and the existing lower water pressure zone (390pz/260pz) will also enhance system redundancy, improving overall service and reliability. Beyond 2025, additional water rights may be required, however, the City will want to keep detailed water use records and monitor peaking rates. With reductions in water use due to conservation, type of development changes, or lifestyle changes, it is possible that the existing system could support future development without additional improvements. However, there are multiple projects programmed in the near -term future, as detailed in the Capital Facilities Element. Stormwater The City's CIP identifies five capital projects for stormwater that are intended to address localized flooding, stabilize stream bank erosion, protect habitat and water quality, resolve conveyance capacity issues, and protect public and private roads and other infrastructure from flood damage These planned improvements and priority rankings are accurate at the time of issuance of this Plan but may be revised as facility conditions and other situations change. Non -city utility providers will experience increased demand for services as the City grows and will need to plan for new or improved facilities. As new technologies for Internet, wireless telephone, and other telecommunications systems are implemented, these improvements will further the City's goal of economic growth and competitiveness. Through its land use regulation and permitting authority, the City should ensure that these utilities are broadly available to residents and businesses throughout the City, and that there are not excessive visual impacts within existing neighborhoods and local centers. 7.6 Goals and Policies Goal 1. Ensure utilities are provided in a timely manner to meet the needs of Port Orchard's future population. Policy UT-1 Facilitate planning for utility improvements by providing utility purveyors with population and employment projections on a regular basis. Policy UT-2 Improvements and additions to utility facilities shall be planned and Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 constructed so that utility services are sufficient to serve anticipated growth. Policy UT-3 Encourage the designation and development of utility corridors and facilities in a manner consistent with the needs and resources of the City. Policy UT-4 Coordinate provision of utilities with future development by designating appropriate sites for utility facilities and ensuring their availability and consider future annexations in developing coordinated strategies for supplying future utilities to the City. Policy UT-5 Coordinate provision of utility services with planned development by improving mechanisms to process development permits and approvals in a fair and timely manner. Policy UT-6 Consider impacts and timing of future phases of development when permitting large utility projects. Policy UT-7 Ensure that development regulations allow timely development of utility facility additions and improvements. Policy UT-8 Establish capacity and levels of service for City managed utilities. Policy UT-9 The City shall not allow for the extension of municipal utilities outside City limits, except extensions in specific circumstances that are necessary to protect public health and safety, the environment, and when they are financially supportable at rural densities that do not permit urban development. Policy UT-10 Prioritize the provision of utilities and improvements to existing utilities within designated centers importance. Ensure utility services are provided in an efficient, coordinated, and comprehensive manner. Policy UT-11 City decisions regarding utility corridors and facilities should consider regional utility needs as well as City interests. Policy UT-12 Enhance efficiency of planning for utilities by facilitating coordination between the City of Port Orchard, City of Bremerton, WSUD, WUTC, and utilities regulated by the WUTC during development of comprehensive utility plans. Policy UT-13 Coordinate collection, integration and maintenance of Geographic Information System (GIS) utility data among utility providers to ensure consistent and up-to-date information on facility locations and capacities. Policy UT-14 Enhance efficiency by coordinating the implementation of utility facility additions and improvements affecting multiple jurisdictions. Policy UT-15 Coordinate land use, transportation, and utility planning and development. Policy UT-16 Ensure that utility policies and regulations are consistent with, and complementary to, utility public service obligations. Policy UT-17 Ensure that utilities are provided consistent with applicable rules, regulations, and prudent utility practice. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy UT-18 Ensure all chapters of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (and implementing development regulations) are consistent with, and do not otherwise impair the fulfillment of, public service obligations imposed upon the utility provider by federal and state law. Policy UT-19 Utilize software and technology that facilitates effective and efficient utility data collection and analysis. Policy UT-20 Encourage reductions in the per capita rate of water consumption through conservation, efficiency, reclamation, and reuse. Goal 2. Maintain and enhance utility service quality. Policy UT-19 Encourage utility providers to protect and enhance the performance, reliability and stability of their utility systems. Policy UT-20 Encourage utilities to incorporate new and improved technologies to enhance the quality and cost effectiveness of their services consistent with the provider's public service obligations. Policy UT-21 When stormwater BMPs are deemed ineffective due to site -specific conditions, explore and apply appropriate site -specific BMPs. Goal 3. Minimize environmental and aesthetic impacts of utility facilities. Policy UT-22 Place utility facilities along public rights- of -way and encourage underground distribution lines in accordance with state rules and regulations. Policy UT-23 Encourage siting of large, above ground utilities (e.g.; antennas, towers) in industrial or commercial areas or along appropriate transportation and utility corridors. Policy UT-24 Minimize the visual impact of utility facilities on view corridors, vistas, and adjacent properties by developing design guidelines for cellular towers, antennas, and other types of utility facilities. Policy UT-25 For new development, retrofitting and major remodels, including upgrades to site utilities, the City shall require the undergrounding of future or existing utility lines including gas, cable television, electric distribution lines, and telephone as appropriate during the design review process and in accordance with local, regional, and state rules, regulations, and tariffs. Policy UT-26 As new development occurs and creates additional demand for public services, assess the potential to conserve/upgrade existing utility facilities before developing new facilities. Goal 4. Support and promote energy conservation. Policy UT-27 Encourage and support development of renewable energy projects and technologies. Policy UT-28 Establish and support renewable energy incentives for businesses and residents. Policy UT-29 Encourage programs to educate utility users on the benefits and means of conservation. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Goal S. Support the extension of fiber optic cable in the City of Port Orchard. Policy UT-30 Recognize broadband's influence and importance to economic diversification in Port Orchard. Policy UT-31 Encourage installation of broadband infrastructure in all new residential subdivisions, economic development projects, and arterial improvements. Policy UT-32 Partner with broadband and fiber optic service providers within the City to ensure coordination efforts for enhanced access to high-speed internet for new development proposals. Goal 6. Enhance community resilience to natural hazards through effective siting, design, construction, and operation of public services and infrastructure. Policy UT-33 Identify challenges resulting from natural hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, wildfires, and sea level rise as they relate to the siting and design of new public services and infrastructure. Policy UT-34 Recognize historical disproportionate impacts to vulnerable populations, who tend to have greater exposure to natural hazards and the resulting impacts on public services. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Chapter 8. Transportation 8.1. Transportation Element Context The Transportation Element identifies future system improvements derived from the analysis completed in the Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements of this Comprehensive Plan, as well as County and Regional plans and policies. In addition to roadway improvements, this element also identifies ways to provide more opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and all road users. The policy direction within this element provides new nonmotorized transportation system links between residential areas and nearby employment and shopping areas. The objective of these policies is to reduce automobile dependence within the City and to minimize the need to widen roads to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. This requires a change in priorities from moving as much traffic as quickly as possible, at the expense of other transportation modes and adjacent land uses, to provide choices, balance, and connections between driving, transit, walking, and bicycling. The purpose and vision of the Transportation Element is to provide a safe, dependable, properly maintained, as well as fiscally- and environmentally responsible multi -modal transportation system that is consistent with and supports the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation system should respect community character, environment, and neighborhoods; improve mobility and safety; minimize impacts from regional facilities; and promote increased use of transit and nonmotorized travel. The transportation system needs to be both locally and regionally coordinated and connected, adequately financed, and community supported. The goals and policies identified in this element are based upon a technical analysis which utilizes a methodology consistent with regional planning efforts, including the draft 2024 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan update and the 2018 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study, as well as prior Port Orchard planning efforts including the 2018 Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan and the 2021 Downtown Subarea Plan. This document also incorporates the data, analysis, and updates provided in the Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 2020 Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (Ordinance 007-21). This element is also consistent with county and regional planning efforts, including the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050, and the planning requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.2. Transportation Vision The transportation network of the City of Port Orchard is meant to serve the land use of the community and seek to achieve the most efficient means of transporting people and goods. The City's transportation network shall support the land use of the community. However, the transportation network should not be the sole justification to increase land use densities. Therefore, to make consistent and sound land use decisions, the City must evaluate traffic modifications attributed to each land use change. Transportation improvements are extremely expensive and time-consuming. Unlike other public works improvements, there is normally not an identifiable revenue gain that can be attributed to a road's completion. Road construction planning must accommodate the future needs of the community without the cost of excessively overbuilding the project. Constructing a road to accommodate the ultimate build -out of a neighborhood is normally not economically feasible. When a project is proposed, the City needs to evaluate the immediate traffic needs, the needs after project completion and the ultimate anticipated volume. Financial constraints may call for phasing the project to allow immediate relief and allowing for future improvements as land use demands increase. The City has and is experiencing significant growth placing additional demand on its street system, particularly its arterial corridors including Bethel Road, Tremont Street, Sedgwick Road, Sidney Road, and Old Clifton Road. Both motorized improvements at intersections and nonmotorized improvements such as bicycle facilities and sidewalks are necessary for an effective and equitable transportation system. Other investments are needed to preserve and upgrade infrastructure in older neighborhoods. Investments are needed to preserve and upgrade existing sidewalk networks to ensure accessibility and maximize connectivity. Ongoing road maintenance is needed annually to maintain service levels in older neighborhoods and ensure repair costs do not escalate over time. Our vision for Port Orchard is a community which offers an inviting, attractive, and pedestrian - friendly atmosphere that provides a full range of retail and recreational activities while ensuring coordinated City and County regional Land Use Plans which promote an efficient multimodal transportation system. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.3. Transportation System Inventory 8.3.1. Existing Roadway Network 8.3.1.1. State System Port Orchard lies along Sinclair Inlet across from Bremerton in the heart of the Kitsap Peninsula in Kitsap County, WA. The major north -south route within the County is SR 3 which passes through the community of Gorst, about a mile north of the City of Port Orchard. SR 16 connects with SR 3 at Gorst and passes through Port Orchard ending ultimately in Tacoma by way of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. SR 16 is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) that passes through the Port Orchard Planning Area. SR 16 is functionally classified as a freeway by WSDOT, and the highway is rated on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) as a T-1 facility carrying an estimated 12,530,000 tons in 2021 from the Pierce/Kitsap County line to the Gorst area. SR 16 serves freight, commuter, neighborhood, business, and recreational travelers. Within the planning area, interchanges with SR 16 are located at Tremont Street SW, and at SW Sedgwick Road (SR 160). SR 16 is primarily a four -lane divided highway providing major regional access between Kitsap County and the transportation network of the Central Puget Sound area. SR 16 is a limited access full control highway within Kitsap County and links South Kitsap with Pierce County, eventually connecting to Interstate 5 in Tacoma. Near Gorst, after SR 166 (Bay Street) joins SR 16, SR 16 becomes six lanes for a distance of 1.15 miles. Where SR 16 joins SR 3 at Gorst, the number of lanes on SR 3 drops to four. SR 160 (Sedgwick Rd) is the primary route from SR 16 to the Southworth Ferry Terminal. SR 160 is the east/west ferry commuter route, connecting Port Orchard with the Southworth Ferry Terminal, SR 16, and eventually with SR 3. This highway has two lanes with minimum access spacing of 330 feet. SR 160 includes two signalized intersections at the SR 16 interchange. SR 166 (Bay Street) runs from SR 16 along the City of Port Orchard waterfront to the east city limits. The road was previously designated SR 160, but in 1992, SR 160 was moved to its present location on Sedgwick Road and SR 166 was formed. The route includes Bay Street from SR 16 to Bethel Avenue, Bethel Avenue from Bay Street to SE Mile Hill Road, and SE Mile Hill Road from Bethel Avenue to the east city limits. SR 166 (Bay Street) is the City of Port Orchard's "Main Street" and is a primary arterial serving the main street community and the Downtown Port Orchard waterfront. Bethel Road is an arterial corridor that links SR 160 to SR 166 forming a business loop parallel to SR 16. The Bethel corridor provides access to much of the retail commercial services for Port Orchard and South Kitsap County and is vital to the local and regional economy. Bethel Road is designated SR 166 from Bay Street to Mile Hill Drive. 8.3.1.2. Kitsap County Roads Kitsap County arterial roads serve as key elements in the transportation system surrounding Port Orchard. County roadways link together state routes or connect the state route system to Port Orchard, to other major centers, and to the ferry system. For example, Mile Hill Drive is a two lane east/west road located to the east of Port Orchard which connects the city to Southworth Drive and Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation the Southworth Ferry Terminal to the east. The technical analysis described in this Transportation Element included major Kitsap County roadways in the vicinity of Port Orchard and utilized a methodology generally consistent with the draft 2024 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Update. 8.3.1.3. City Street Network A City's functional classification system provides a planning guide for the development of a transportation network which will serve the needs of a community's growth for the future. Streets within a transportation network must be managed for specific roles in moving people and goods through the city and surrounding region. The functional classification system identifies the role of each street and provides a simplified vision of management needs for each type, including safety, adjacent land uses, multimodal travel demands, and other connecting transportation systems. Ultimately, the functional class of each street determines the typical roadway design, cross -sectional parameters, and design speed, while providing a basis for management practices to minimize conflicts between travel modes. The City of Port Orchard has defined its functional classification system to be consistent with the Federal Functional Classifications (FFC) provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the arterial functional classifications defined in the Kitsap County Revised Road Standards. These arterial streets qualify for financial assistance under federal or state programs. Table 8-1 identifies the City's functional classes and includes a short description of each classification. The City's existing arterial network and associated functional classifications are shown in Figure 8-1. Table 8-1. Street Functional Classifications Functional Classification Description Freeway High capacity, high speed, regional connections. Maximum mobility with full access control. Principal Arterial Provide connectivity between different areas of a region. High mobility with partial access control. Minor Arterial Provide connectivity between different areas of a region. Moderate mobility w/partial access control. Collector Collect traffic from local streets and other collectors. Connect neighborhoods to each other and to arterials. Local Access Provide direct access to properties in residential, commercial, or industrial areas Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Functional Classification Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector s _I City Limit Outline Urban Growth Area j I 1 - i R Fj LO ON R SN 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 I Transportation Solutions , e 1 a w 1 1 SW EERRy LANE Ro � � f 1 I r 1 I1 _r r - I N 1 sb„(iQFRRO 0 0.5 Figure 8-1. 2024 Street Functional Classification I N A 1 SEBIELMEISRRl.5 2 mi Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.3.2. Transit Service 8.3.2.1. Routed Buses Kitsap Transit operates seven routed buses within Port Orchard. All seven routes provide weekday service, while Routes 4, 5, 8, and 9 also provide Saturday service. Routes 81 and 86 provide scheduled service during weekday peak commute hours, and the Purdy Connector provides on -demand service during the weekday peak commute hours. Existing routed bus service is summarized in Table 8-2. Table 8-2. Fixed -Route Bus Service Route Route Name / Service Area Service Hours Headway Tremont: PO Ferry, Kitsap Courthouse, Givens Comm. Ctr, M-F 5:30AM-6:55PM; M-F 60 min.; 4 Harrison Medical Ctr, Work Release/Youth Services Ctr Sa 10:OOAM — 5:55 PM Sa 30 min. Sidney: PO Ferry, Kitsap Courthouse, Givens Comm. Ctr, M-F 5:10AM-7:25PM; 5 60 min. Cedar Heights Jr HS, Sedgwick Landing Sa 10:00 AM-5:25PM Bethel: PO Ferry, Bethel Ave, Walmart, Fred Meyer, Mitchell M-F 5:OOAM-7:52PM; 8 30 min. Ave, South Kitsap High School Sa 10:OOAM-5:25PM South Park: PO Ferry, Albertson's, Town Square, Walmart, M-F 6:50AM-8:15PM; 9 60 min. Jackson Ave, Center, Veterans Home on Bay Dr Sa 10:30AM-5:15PM 81 Annapolis Commuter: PO Ferry, Annapolis P&R, Towne M-F 5:15-7:15 AM; 15 Square, Armory P&R, Mitchell, Jackson, Lund, Madrona M-F 3:00-5:49PM min. Southworth Shuttle: PO Ferry, Armory P&R, Mile Hill, M-F 4:35-10:25AM; 86 30-70 min. Manchester, South Colby, Southworth Ferry M-F 2:00-8:18PM Purdy Connector: PO Ferry, Mullenix P&R, Purdy P&R M-F 6:00-9:OOAM; PC On -demand M-F 3:00-6:OOPM 8.3.2.2. Ferry Service Port Orchard is connected to the Seattle metropolitan area by the Washington State Ferry system. The Southworth Ferry Terminal is located to the east of Port Orchard and connected to the City via SR 160 and Kitsap County roads. The Bremerton Ferry Terminal is connected to Port Orchard by SR 304, SR 3, SR 16, and SR 166. Kitsap Transit Fast Ferries operate passenger -only ferry service between Kitsap County and Seattle on weekdays year-round and on Saturdays from May through September. Kitsap Fast Ferries launched service on the Bremerton -Seattle route in 2017 and the Southworth-Seattle route in 2021. Kitsap Transit local foot ferries operate two passenger -only routes in Sinclair Inlet. The Bremerton - Port Orchard service runs daily, and the Bremerton -Annapolis service runs on weekdays only. Foot ferry service is timed to meet the Seattle/Bremerton Ferry. 8.3.2.3. Other Transit Services Kitsap Transit operates several alternative transit services in the Port Orchard planning area: Worker/Driver buses are driven by employees at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)-Bremerton and NBK- Bangor. The buses operate like a large vanpool where the driver boards the bus near home in the morning and picks up coworkers on the way to work. Kitsap Transit has 32 Worker/Driver routes, = ' . I I Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation including several in the Port Orchard Planning Area. ACCESS is a demand -response paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ACCESS provides door-to-door transportation for eligible riders who are unable to use the fixed -route bus system. The service is available in Port Orchard and the surrounding area. VanLink is a shared -cost ACCESS -alternative program which provides local social service agencies with vans to transport their clients. The program gives agencies the ability to schedule client outings, work programs, daycare, and training as their schedule demands. The vanpool program allows groups of three to 14 commuters to share a ride to and from work using a Kitsap Transit van. Kitsap Transit also registers carpools, which allow commuters to share a ride in a privately -owned carpool vehicle. The carpool program allows vehicles access to reserved parking spaces, including free spaces at the Annapolis Ferry Dock. SCOOT is a car -sharing program for commuters who work in targeted areas in Kitsap County, including the Kitsap County Courthouse and downtown Bremerton. 8.3.2.4. Park and Ride Lots Port Orchard currently has three park -and -ride facilities, which are summarized in Table 8-3. Each lot provides service to at least two bus routes in addition to the Kitsap Transit Worker/Driver bus program. Additional parking is available in Downtown Port Orchard. Three park -and -ride lots in Kitsap County outside city limits provide additional parking capacity and access to transit and ferry service, thereby influencing transportation in Port Orchard. Existing park -and -ride facilities in and near Port Orchard are summarized in Table 8-3. In addition to the existing facilities, the planned Ruby Creek Park -and -Ride on Sidney Road to the north of Sedgwick Road will provide 250 parking spaces and access to expanded transit service. Table 8-3. Park -and -Ride Lots Name Location Parking Spaces Routes Served Within City of Port Orchard Annapolis Ferry Terminal 1076 Beach Dr E 81 #9, #81, Worker/Driver First Lutheran Church 2483 Mitchell Rd SE 40 #8, #81, Worker/Driver Port Orchard Armory 1950 Mile Hill Dr 105 #9, #81, #86, Worker/Driver Outside City of Port Orchard Burley Bible Church 14687 Olympic Dr SE 20 Worker/Driver Harper Church Sedgwick Road & Wilson Creek Road 462 #85, #86, #184, Worker/Driver Mullenix and Highway 16 SR 16 & Mullenix Rd 92 #85, Worker/Driver Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.3.2.5. Long -Range Transit Planning The Kitsap Transit Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-2042' (LRTP) defines the long-range vision for public transit service in the Port Orchard planning area. It identifies several major projects which will improve transit access and service in Port Orchard: • Three new local fixed routes: o Port Orchard — McCormick Woods o Southworth — Port Orchard o Southworth —Sidney Road Park & Ride • New Bremerton -Tacoma Express Route, including a stop at Sidney Road Park & Ride • New High -Capacity Transit Route from Port Orchard Ferry Transit Center to Bethel Rd and SR 160 • McCormick Woods On -Demand Transit Zone • New SR 16 Transit Center near Sedgwick Road interchange • Expanded Port Orchard Transit Center in downtown Port Orchard • McCormick Woods Multimodal Hub • Tremont Street Park & Ride • Upgraded weekday headway on Kitsap Transit Routes 4, 5, and 9 8.3.3. Airport and Aviation Services Port Orchard is served by two airports. One is a privately -owned general aviation facility about five miles southwest of the City called the Port Orchard Airport (4WA9). The second is the Bremerton National Airport (KPWT), owned and operated by the Port of Bremerton. The Port Orchard Airport is a small privately -owned airport which serves small private aircraft via one operational runway (18136). No services are provided. Bremerton National Airport (KPWT) is a general aviation facility serving the communities on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas. As of 2022, there were 104 aircraft based at the Bremerton National Airport, ranging from gliders to multi -engine planes. One fixed base operator provides various but limited training, fuel and convenience services. Total annual operations for 2022 were 66,000, or an average of 181 per day. KPWT serves beginning amateurs as well as professional pilots and flights. The Bremerton National Airport Master Plan forecasts 276 KPWT-based aircraft by 2032, an increase of 165 percent from 2022. Total annual operations are also expected to increase. from 66.000 to 90,000. This forecast assumes that the airport will continue its role as the only FAA -funded airport in Kitsap County and support most of the FAA -registered aircraft in the county. The airfield consists of one operational runway (02/20) that is oriented north-northeast/south- southwest. Runway 2/20 is 6,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. KPWT has extensive lighting and instrumentation and a taxiway system that provides access to all areas of the airfield. KPWT's former crosswind runway (16/34) is closed to aircraft and currently serves as the Bremerton Motorworts Park facility. 1 https://bit.ly/3wDNSZG 00 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Transit Routes Route 4 Route 5 Route 8 Route 9 Route 81 Route 86 Purdy Connection -- Port Orchard Foot Ferry — Annapolis Foot Ferry OTransit Center OPlanned Transit Center a Park & Ride City Limit Outline Urban Growth Area �jssw 1 �s r , a 1 L� 0 II SW 6ERRY LAKE RD OHR9 i f Y+ � r1 OLD CLIFTON RD SIN 7.4 — - , T 1 -1 1 I � I` II✓� 1 !t Transportation Solutions Figure 8-2. Existing Public Transit Facilities '1 SE BIELMEgR R 0.5 \\\ 1 9.5 2 mi Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Until 2004, KPWT was a Part 139 Certified Airport authorized to serve US Department of Transportation -certified commercial air carriers with more than 30 passengers. The airport could seek to renew this certification in the future if demand requires. For planning purposes, the future operations are forecast to continue to be dominated by business -oriented flights, private planes, flight training or other forms of noncommercial activity using single- and multi -engine piston aircraft. The Bremerton National Airport Master Plane recommends an expanded taxiway system to accommodate new aviation -related development. It also identifies locations for future hangar expansion and other aviation -related development, including the redevelopment of the former crosswind runway (16/34). 2 https://bit.Iy/3R3'fJB 00 Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.3.4. Freight and Rail Services Freight and goods are transported within the Port Orchard area on SR 16, SR 166, SR 160, as well as on City and County roads. The BNSF Railway provides rail service to Kitsap County. Freight use is restricted to the U.S. Military by agreement. The U.S. Navy owns the rails from Shelton to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and on to Bangor. The railroad is maintained as Federal Railway Administration Class 3 on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). Burlington Northern Railroad provides one train per day service. At its closest point, the railroad right of way passes through the community of Gorst, about one mile northwest of Port Orchard. In Washington State, the highway and roadway system is rated according to the amount of freight and goods that are carried by truck on the system. The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) is a ranking of roads in Washington State by annual gross freight tonnage carried. The FGTS classification system is as follows: • T-1: Over 10 million tons per year • T-2: Between 4 and 10 million tons per year • T-3: Between 300,000 and 4 million tons per year • T-4: Between 100,000 and 300,000 tons per year • T-5: At least 20,000 tons carried in a 60-day period and less than 100,000 tons per year The FGTS system is affected by changes in the economy, international trade, and the transportation industry such as changes in truck travel patterns, cargoes, and tonnages. Revisions to the FGTS routes and tonnage classifications are developed by the agency having jurisdiction over the roadway segment. The following freight routes are designated within the Port Orchard planning area: a. SR 16 (Pierce/Kitsap Co. line to Gorst) is designated a T-1 facility carrying 12,530,000 tons annually in 2021; b. SR 160 (Sedgwick Road between SR 16 and Bethel Road) is designated a T-3 facility, carrying an estimated annual 2,470,000 tons in 2021; c. SR 166 is designated a T-3 facility, carrying an estimated annual 1,640,000 tons in 2021. d. Designated T-3 routes include: 1. Bethel Road from South City Limits to North City Limits 2. Glenwood Road from South City Limits to SW Sedgwick Road 3. SE Lund Avenue from Sidney Avenue to East City Limits 4. Mitchell Road SE from Bethel Road to East City Limits 5. Old Clifton Rd from SR 16 to West City Limits 6. SW Sedgwick Road from Glenwood Road to SR 16 7. Sidney Avenue from Tremont Street to SR 166 8. Sidney Road from SW Berry Lake Road to South City Limits 9. Tremont Street from SR 16 to Sidney Avenue e. One designated T-4 route is Port Orchard Boulevard from Tremont Street to SR 166. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.3.5. Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Nonmotorized transportation systems include facilities that provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. These include sidewalks, crosswalks, off street trails, bike routes, and bicycle facilities. In rural areas, nonmotorized facilities can also include roadway shoulders when they are of adequate width. Some portions of nonmotorized routes can be used for commuting purposes to reduce potential vehicular traffic volumes. If properly located, designed and maintained, nonmotorized trails can accommodate a meaningful portion of local resident travel between residential areas and shopping centers, schools, and places of employment. Nonmotorized facilities can also provide access to public transit and in this way can help decrease the reliance on single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. When properly planned and constructed, nonmotorized facilities are shown to increase the desirability of a city as a place to live and work. Safe walking and bicycling environments within Port Orchard are a major concern of citizens, whether they are avid or casual recreational walkers or cyclists or bicycle commuters. In many cases, pedestrians and cyclists must share narrow high -volume streets with motor vehicles of all sizes. They cross busy intersections with multiple conflict points. The City can take measurable steps with this Transportation Element toward the goal of creating a safer walking and biking environment. This plan proposes a strategy for implementing a priority system for physical improvements through private ventures, capital projects, grants, and competitive funding sources. The facilities map in Figure 8-3 illustrates the extent of the nonmotorized transportation system and the type of facility that each segment supports. It also shows existing community centers, parks, and schools. The adoption of this plan does not preclude the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on other streets. The plan acknowledges fiscal constraints and challenges associated with building new sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and other improvements on every street in Port Orchard. Routes designated here should be prioritized due to their potential to fulfill the needs of the community and the citywide connections they will provide. 8.3.5.1. Existing Pedestrian Facilities There is an assortment of pedestrian facilities located throughout Port Orchard and its UGA. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, trails, and designated crosswalks. Most sidewalks are located along commercial corridors and in some neighborhoods. Sidewalks and designated crosswalks are also provided in some residential subdivisions. The initial construction of these pedestrian facilities is typically the responsibility of the developer and are provided as part of plat development, while the ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner as outlined in Port Orchard Municipal Code 12.12. Sidewalks are generally promoted throughout the commercial areas such as the Bethel Corridor, creating a grid -system for pedestrians, although many of the streets outside the commercial area have paved or gravel shoulders rather than sidewalks. The nonmotorized network has missing links around some elementary and secondary schools. Many Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation of the schools are in residential neighborhoods. Continuous sidewalks would improve the safety and utility of the pedestrian environment for elementary and secondary school children to walk to and from school. In the past, many of the roads in Port Orchard were constructed to a rural standard with no curb or sidewalk improvements or provisions for safe pedestrian travel. Recent roadway reconstruction projects have provided storm drainage, curbs, and sidewalk improvements, particularly along major streets providing access to schools, parks, and the downtown business district. Sidewalks have also been constructed on many local streets in concert with new development within the city. Curb ramps to allow barrier -free access to sidewalks at street crossings have also been installed at many locations. The City's 2017 ADA Transition Plan included an inventory of existing mobility barriers on sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveway pads. Between 2016 and 2021, ADA deficiency removals and upgrades included 4.8 miles of new ADA sidewalks, 39 curb ramp upgrades, 26 driveway apron upgrades, and 2 pedestrian signal upgrades. As of 2021, the City's remaining ADA barriers include 556 deficient curb ramps and 130 deficient driveway aprons. The City will continue to mitigate these ADA deficiencies in the public right-of-way, per the adopted Transition Plan, through regular maintenance and preservation programs, through oversight/permitting of developer improvements, and through the capital improvement protects identified later in this Transportation Element. Removal of ADA barriers will increase accessibility for youth, older adults, disabled persons, and other people with special transportation needs. 8.3.5.2. Existing Trails Nonmotorized transportation systems include separated or off -road recreational trails. A portion of these trail corridors can also satisfy local access needs between residential areas and parks, schools, commercial and employment areas depending on the trail locations. There are currently two public separated trails in the City: the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway and the McCormick Multimodal Path. The Bay Street Pedestrian Path is a 0.9-mile-long paved trail which runs along the Sinclair Inlet waterfront from the Port Orchard Boat Launch Ramp to Bay Street approximately 500 feet northeast of Mitchell Avenue. From the Port Orchard Marina to its east terminus, the pathway consists of a 10- foot-wide paved section with centerline striping. The McCormick Multimodal Path is a 1.85-mile-long, eight -foot -wide paved trail which connects McCormick Woods with McCormick Village. It begins at Gleneagle Avenue SW west of McCormick Woods Drive and runs parallel to Gleneagle Avenue SW, Telford Way SW, and McCormick Village Drive. The Kitsap Peninsula Water Trail includes launches and amenities at the Port Orchard Marina, Water Street Boat Launch, and Port of Bremerton Marina Park. Port Orchard is also part of the Cascadia Marine Trail, which is a National Recreation Trail and one of only 16 National Millennium Trails designated by the White House. 8.3.5.3. Existing Bicycle Facilities The Port Orchard street network currently includes marked bicycle facilities on the following routes: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation • Tremont Street: Bike lanes on both sides from SR 16 interchange to Port Orchard Blvd. • Lippert Drive: Bike lanes on both sides from Sidney Avenue to Pottery Avenue. • Sidney Avenue: A 600-foot-long bike lane along the east side of Sidney Road at the Haven Apartments frontage, approximately 1,500 feet north of Sedgwick Road. • Melcher Street: Shared Lane Markings ("sharrows") from Heron Ridge Ave to Sherman Ave. • SW Yarrow Street: Sharrows from McCormick Village Drive to Feigley Road SW. The 2018 Kitsap County Non -Motorized Facilities Plan (KCNMFP) identifies three bike routes within the Port Orchard planning area. The County -designated routes do not cross into the city limits, but the bicycle facilities they carry are incorporated to the nonmotorized system vision described in this Element. The designated Kitsap County bike routes include: Route 25 — Begins on Sedgwick Rd just west of Sidney at the city limit. The route runs southwest along Glenwood and turns at Lake Flora, continuing along Glenwood Road to the south of the planning area. Route 30 — Begins on Mile Hill Dr at the east city limit and continues to the east along Mile Hill Dr/Southworth Dr to the Southworth Ferry Terminal. • Route 37 — From Bethel Rd south of Sedgwick Rd extending south to the county line. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.4. Nonmotorized System Vision 8.4.1. Planned Nonmotorized Routes This section describes the City's vision for a nonmotorized transportation network to improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the City while also completing regional connections identified in the Kitsap County Non -Motorized Facilities Plan (KCNMFP). Planned nonmotorized routes are described below and shown graphically in Figure 8-3. Nonmotorized Facilities Existing Shared -Use Path Existing Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Existing Sidewalks (both sides) Existing Sidewalk (one side) Existing Paved Shoulder - - - - Planned Shared -Use Path -- Planned Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Ir School ' Park Community Center OTransit Center O Park & Ride City Limit Outline p Urban Growth Area J. r_____� 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 r I 1 T / m a+ r + m+ 1 ♦ ♦ >1 1 1 r + �+ 1 r1r+ 1 � 1 � 1 G ♦ .-L10ND W. 1 SE �S 1 L 1 1 � ► 1 + 1 + 1 1 1 r1 1 1 w I i i I o 1 sW GOF 1q--_—_-1 —_ 1 ao Transportation Solutions 1 r--' 1 ■ r 1 w 3E R,LLME�ER R 1 9.5 2 mi Figure 8-3. Existing and Planned Arterial and Collector Nonmotorized Facilities Map The following sections summarize existing and planned shared right-of-way and separate right-of- way nonmotorized facilities in and near Port Orchard. Shared right-of-way nonmotorized facilities run parallel to roadways within the public right-of-way. They may include sidewalks, bike facilities, and shared -use paths or trails. Off -right-of-way facilities generally exist outside public street right-of-way Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation but may cross public streets. These facilities include shared -use paths and other nonmotorized transportation infrastructure such as pedestrian/bicycle freeway overpasses. In this element, bike facilities are defined as an element of transportation infrastructure that is designed to convey bicycle travelers. This may include bike lanes, cycle tracks, shared lanes, and shared multi -use paths. The selection of bike facilities for a given route may be influenced by contextual factors such as roadway volume, traffic speeds, sight distance, right-of-way width, and the character of the surrounding built environment. More information about bicycle facilities and their applications may be found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 8.4.2. Arterial and Collector Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road) This 2.62-mile route will be the core north -south connection through Port Orchard and its busiest commercial centers. Anyone traveling east or west across the city crosses Bethel Road because it stretches from the northern waterfront to the southern city limits. Bethel Road carries 11,500 to 16,900 Average Weekly Daily Traffic (AWDT). The street has been programmed for improvements, described conceptually in the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Study, which will include bike lanes and sidewalks. The reconstruction of Bethel Road will provide an opportunity to ensure nonmotorized facilities better meet the spirit of this plan. The route is a designated nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. Feigley Road (Old Clifton Road to Lone Bear Lane) This 0.35-mile trail is a paved pathway on the east side of Feigley Road. Improvements may be needed to bring this trail into compliance with City design standards and to accommodate nonmotorized traffic generated by future development along Feigley Road. Glenwood/Sedgwick Road (McCormick Woods Drive to Long Lake Road) This 4.0-mile route will connect the commercial centers of Ruby Creek and Sedgwick-Bethel, SR 16, and residential neighborhoods in the southeastern part of the Urban Growth Area. It is partially outside of city limits and is mostly designated as a state highway, requiring collaboration with Kitsap County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It is a designated nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. McCormick Woods Drive (Old Clifton Road to Glenwood Road) This 4.0-mile segment consists of a wide road shoulder throughout the McCormick Woods neighborhood. It is already a popular route for bicycling and walking. However, it does not currently meet City nonmotorized design standards. Further study is necessary to identify roadway design, engineering, and enforcement measures which may be required to reduce vehicle speeds and to improve nonmotorized safety and access. McCormick Village Drive/Telford Way (North City Limits to McCormick Woods Dr) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation A 1.6-mile route has partially been constructed along McCormick Village Drive. This trail will be extended pursuant to a development agreement as additional phases of McCormick West (McCormick Trails) is constructed. The trail is expected to reach about 1.6 miles in length upon completion and will create a loop where it intersects with the Telford Way SW trail. Mile Hill Drive (Bethel Road to Whittier Ave) This 1.4-mile route will connect the Mile Hill center with residential neighborhoods to the east. It will provide a route to school for students at Orchard Heights Elementary School and Marcus Whitman Junior High School. Mile Hill Drive has 13,400 to 15,200 AWDT. It is partially a state highway, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County and WSDOT. The route is a designated nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. WSDOT has programmed several improvement projects which will provide nonmotorized improvements along the corridor, including a new roundabout at Wolves Road and new culvert adjacent to Veterans Park. Mitchell Avenue (Bethel Avenue to Bay Street) This 1.16-mile route will connect the central portion of Port Orchard and neighborhoods outside of the city to the high school. It partially passes through unincorporated territory within the Urban Growth Area, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County for completion. Roundabout improvements at Bethel/Lundberg/Mitchell and Lincoln/Mitchell will see the Mitchell Y intersection eliminated except for non -motorized connectivity. Old Clifton Road (Feigley Road to SR 16) This trail will connect the McCormick Village local center with the site of a future high school, enabling students to safely walk and bike to class. The trail will also extend along Old Clifton Road to connect with the Old Clifton Industrial Park, a local center. Special consideration will be needed for how the trail merges with bike lanes and sidewalks on Tremont Street. Locating the trail on the north and west sides of Old Clifton Road may minimize conflicts with driveways and intersections. Old Clifton Road serves up to approximately 7,500 AWDT. Typical right-of-way width is 60 feet. A portion of the trail passes through unincorporated Kitsap County and an area not within the Port Orchard Urban Growth Area. Port Orchard will need to collaborate with Kitsap County to complete this trail segment. It is identified as a nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. Port Orchard Boulevard (Tremont Street to Bay Street) This 1.06-mile arterial segment currently serves approximately 2,500 AWDT. It will provide a connection between the Tremont Medical Center and Downtown Port Orchard via Port Orchard, a relatively low -volume roadway bound by greenbelt. The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway West Situation Study identifies plans for complete street improvements along Port Orchard Boulevard. Pottery Avenue/Sidney Road SW (Tremont Street to South City Limits) This 1.91-mile route will connect the Tremont Medical Center with the Ruby Creek Center and provide a safe route to school directly adjacent to Cedar Heights Junior High School and Sidney Glen Elementary School. The 2024-2029 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a complete Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation streets improvement project for the Pottery Avenue portion of this corridor. A small portion of the route is outside of city limits and within the Urban Growth Area, requiring collaboration with Kitsap County or ROW acquisition for completion. The route carries between 4,500 AWDT (south of Tremont St) and 9,000 AWDT (north of Sedgwick Rd) and is a nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. Salmonberry Road West (Ramsey Rd to city limit) This route will be an east -west connection through residential neighborhoods, connecting the Bethel commercial corridor with Jackson Avenue. Salmonberry Road serves 2,300 AWDT. About half of this route is outside of City limits but still within the Port Orchard Urban Growth Area, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County for completion. The City is designing improvements for a portion of Salmonberry Road West as part of the Bethel Phase 1 project. Sidney Avenue (Tremont Street to Fireweed Street) This 0.97-mile route will primarily connect residential areas and multi -family developments to Paul Powers Jr. Park, Van Zee Park, Cedar Heights Junior High School (via Lippert), and to the nonmotorized facilities on Tremont Street. Sidney Avenue serves 5,000 AWDT. This project requires the construction of a regional stormwater facility at the end of Sherman Ave to facilitate the build -out of the nonmotorized improvements within this corridor. Property was acquired for a regional stormwater facility and park in 2022. St. Andrews Drive (McCormick Woods Dr to McCormick Woods Dr) When completed, this 1.6-mile segment will provide a nonmotorized loop within the McCormick Woods community. The north 1.0-mile portion of St. Andrews Drive currently begins at McCormick Woods Drive and terminates just north of Hawkstone Avenue. A future 0.6-mile section will extend to the southeast, connecting to McCormick Woods Drive at SW Dunraven Place. Funding commitments for the completion of this facility are provided in a development agreement with McCormick Woods. Nonmotorized treatments will include a 12-foot paved shoulder, consistent with the development agreement. Tremont Street/Lund Avenue (SR 16 to Jackson Avenue) This 2.63-mile route will be the main east -west connection across Port Orchard. It passes through two local centers and connects Van Zee Park and South Kitsap Regional Park. It also intersects with a planned connection at Port Orchard Boulevard. It has the most traffic of any street in Port Orchard: Between SR 16 and Bethel Road, Tremont serves approximately 23,000 vehicles AWDT; east of Bethel, Lund Avenue serves 16,000 AWDT. A 0.65-mile portion of this route from SR 16 to Port Orchard Boulevard was constructed as part of the Tremont Street improvement project. The next phase will extend the route from Port Orchard Boulevard to Sidney Avenue. The eastern end of the route is outside of city limits but within the Urban Growth Area, requiring collaboration with Kitsap County. The Kitsap County Transportation Improvement Program identifies four improvement projects on this corridor by 2028, including Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation sidewalks and bike facilities from the Port Orchard city limit to Jackson Avenue and three new roundabouts. This route is identified as a nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. 8.4.3. Residential Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Hawkstone Avenue (McCormick Woods Dr to St Andrews Dr) This 0.85-mile segment currently extends from McCormick Woods Dr to Tobermory Circle SW, terminating just southwest of St. Andrews Drive. In the future, Hawkstone Ave will connect with St. Andrews Drive to provide a connection to the St. Andrews Dr nonmotorized loop. The street currently provides a paved shoulder on one side. Ultimate nonmotorized treatments may include sharrows to designate shared -use travel lanes in both directions. Retsil Road (Mile Hill Drive to Bay Street) This 1.1-mile route will provide safe access through the City's most northeastern residential areas and connect directly to Veterans Park, the waterfront, and the Annapolis foot ferry dock. Retsil Road has 4,000 AWDT, which is relatively high for a residential street. Part of the route passes through an unincorporated area within the Urban Growth Area, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County. Ramsey Road (Sedgwick Road to Salmonberry Road) This 0.5-mile local street section provides an alternative north -south route to the Bethel Road corridor to the east. The construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide safe nonmotorized access to properties along Ramsey Road as well as a low -volume connection between Sedgwick Road and Salmonberry Road. Pottery Avenue (Tremont Place to Melcher Street) This 0.22-mile local street section provides access to residential development to the north of the Tremont Street corridor and west of Port Orchard Boulevard. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection between existing neighborhoods and Tremont Street. Melcher Street (Tremont Place to Melcher Street) This 0.4-mile east -west local street provides a connection between Tremont Street (via Pottery Avenue to the west) and Port Orchard Boulevard (via Sherman Avenue to the east). It provides direct access to single-family development as well as several residential streets. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection. Fireweed Road (Sidney Avenue to South Flower Avenue) This 0.25-mile local street provides a connection between Sidney Avenue and S Flower Avenue, providing access to single-family development in the area. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection for local residents. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Sherman Avenue (Fireweed Road to Terminus at SR 16) This 0.35-mile local street provides direct access to residential development to the south of Fireweed Road. It terminates in a dead-end north of SR 16. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection for local residents. Blueberry Road (Geiger Road to Bethel Road) This 0.4-mile local street provides a connection between Geiger Road and Bethel Road to the north of Sedgwick Road (SR 160). It also connects to Ramsey Road, a north -south corridor which parallels Bethel Road to the west. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection to the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road (via Geiger Rd). Geiger Road (Sedgwick Road to Blueberry Road) This 0.25-mile local street provides a connection from Blueberry Road to Sedgwick Road. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks on this section, in conjunction with similar improvements to Blueberry Road and Ramsey Road, will provide a safe nonmotorized alternative to Bethel Road from Sedgwick Road to Salmonberry Road. Sidney Avenue (Prospect Street to waterfront) This 500-foot street section provides access to properties in the downtown subarea and a connection to the Port Orchard waterfront. Existing sidewalks are substandard. Construction of full ADA- accessible sidewalk improvements on both sides will provide a safe and accessible connection to the waterfront for users of all abilities. Harrison Avenue (Bay Street to waterfront) This 350-foot street provides access to properties in the downtown subarea and a connection to the Port Orchard waterfront. The street currently includes a discontinuous non-ADA accessible sidewalk on the west side and no sidewalk on the east side. Construction of full ADA-accessible sidewalk improvements on both sides will provide a safe and accessible connection to the waterfront for users of all abilities. Fredrick Avenue (Bay St to waterfront) This 350-foot street provides access to properties in the downtown subarea and a connection to the Port Orchard waterfront. The street currently includes non-ADA accessible sidewalks on both sides. Construction of full ADA-accessible sidewalk improvements on both sides will provide a safe and accessible connection to the waterfront for users of all abilities. 8.4.4. Off -Right -of -Way Facilities Bay Street Pedestrian Path (Port Orchard Blvd to Annapolis Foot Ferry Dock) This path is envisioned as an off-street connection between Port Orchard's two Foot Ferry docks, one downtown and the other in the Annapolis neighborhood. Part of the path is complete and newly built as a modern shared -use path, with completion planned over the next several years (as of 2024). It MNWPort Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation will run through the downtown area and connect two waterfront parks and a public boat ramp. It will also connect to a future nonmotorized facility along Port Orchard Boulevard, providing a connection to the Tremont Street/Lund Avenue corridor to the south. The vision for this facility is summarized in the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway West Situational Study. This pathway is identified by Kitsap County as part of the Mosquito Fleet Trail, which will ultimately include approximately 100 miles of pedestrian and bicycle trails that will link open spaces throughout Kitsap County in an interconnected system. The Mosquito Fleet Trail Master Plan, completed in 2001, identifies the primary corridor through Port Orchard following SW Bay Street and Beach Drive. The existing boardwalk on the downtown waterfront and the sidewalk on the back of shoreline buildings are not consistent with the vision of this nonmotorized plan and of the Mosquito Fleet Trail. Completion of this path will require collaboration with Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and waterfront property owners. Blackjack Creek Trail An off-street multi -use pathway that generally runs parallel to Blackjack Creek providing connectivity between the Bethel/Lund and Sedgwick/Bethel Subareas. This trail, located east of Blackjack Creek, is approximately two miles in length and could be connected to several neighborhoods located between Bethel Road and Blackjack Creek. Opportunities for future connections to the west side of Blackjack Creek should be explored. SW Pendleton Way A 0.5-mile route has partially been constructed in Stetson Heights. This trail may be extended to McCormick East as part of a future development and could be connected to the trails in the McCormick Woods area. Ruby Creek Pathway A shared -use pathway along Ruby Creek from the Stetson Heights development to Sedgwick Road. Sidney -SR 16 Crossing (Sidney Road to Sidney Avenue) Creating a trail across SR 16 in this area could create a new connection between neighborhoods and promote better access to the nearby schools and Paul Powers Jr. Park. If a bridge or tunnel is cost - prohibitive, another option may be to extend SW Moorea Lane to Sidney Road via a series of switchbacks. Crossing SR 16 would require WSDOT approval, followed with an airspace trail lease agreement with WSDOT for ongoing maintenance and preservation of the trail facility. Telford Way SW A 0.85-mile trail has been partially constructed in McCormick West (McCormick Trails). This trail will be extended pursuant to a development agreement as additional phases of McCormick West (McCormick Trails) is constructed. The trail is expected to reach about 0.85 miles in length upon completion and will create a loop where it intersects with McCormick Village Drive at either end. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.4.5. Nonmotorized Improvement Projects Necessary to Achieve System Vision The following projects that include pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements are necessary to achieve the nonmotorized transportation network described above. Cost estimates were obtained from the City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program and adjusted for inflation using the National Highway Construction Cost Index. Cost estimates are not included for off -right-of-way facilities where conceptual alignments have not been identified at the time of this writing. Table 8-4. Nonmotorized Improvement Projects Necessary to Achieve System Vision Project Limits Description Length Cost Estimate (in $$$s)* Collector and Arterial Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Bethel Rd/Sedgwick Bethel Rd (Sedgwick Provide widening and nonmotorized Rd (Multi -phase Rd to Mile Hill Dr); improvements along Bethel Road and 2.1; 97,808 project) Sedgwick Rd (SR 16 to Sedgwick Road, consistent with 2018 0.7 Bethel Rd) corridor plan. Feigley Rd Old Clifton Rd to Lone Improve trail to satisfy City design 0.35 337 Bar Ln standards and ADA guidance. Sedgwick Rd West Glenwood Rd to SR 16 Complete streets improvements 1.4 8,285 consistent with 2018 corridor plan. McCormick Woods Old Clifton Rd to Analyze and implement nonmotorized 4.0 337 Dr Glenwood Rd safety and accessibility improvements. McCormick Village McCormick Woods Dr Complete paved shared -use path Dev. Dr to north citylimit (developer -funded improvement). 2.6 funded Mile Hill Dr Bethel Rd to Whittier Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike 1.4 3,534 Ave facilities. Mitchell Ave Bethel Ave to Bay St Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike 1.2 3,029 facilities. Old Clifton Rd Feigley Rd to SR 16 New shared -use path connecting McCormick Village with Old Clifton 2.7 4,543 Industrial Park and SR 16. Port Orchard Blvd Tremont St to Bay St Road diet3 with downhill bikeable shoulder and shared -use pathway. 1.1 14,395 Pottery Ave SR 16 to Lippert Dr Address sidewalk gaps and construct nonmotorized improvements, including bikeable shoulders and 0.45 7,067 safety improvements at Pottery/Lippert intersection. Salmonberry Rd Ramsey Rd to east Widen to two travel lanes with curb, 0.4 1,010 West city limits gutter, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. Sidney Ave Tremont St to Widen Sidney Ave to include 1.0 17,668 3 A road diet, or roadway reconfiguration, can improve safety, calm traffic, provide better mobility and access for all road users, and enhance overall quality of life. A road diet typically involves converting an existing four -lane undivided roadway to a three -lane roadway consisting of two through lanes and a center two-way left -turn lane (bit.ly/3UKn8Ea). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Project Limits Description Length Cost Estimate (in $$$s)* terminus sidewalks, bike lanes, and storm drainage. Sidney Rd SW Sedgwick Rd to Berry Design phase of a project to widen the Lake Rd 0.95-mile segment from Sedgwick Road to Berry Lake Rd to three lanes 0.85 10,537 with bike facilities, sidewalks, and traffic calming. St. Andrews Dr McCormick Woods Dr Complete St. Andrews Dr corridor, to McCormick Woods including pedestrian & bike facilities. 0.6 337 Dr Tremont St/Lund Port Orchard Blvd to Provide concrete sidewalks, bike Ave city limit facilities, and drainage improvements. 1.15 2,903 Residential Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Hawkstone Ave McCormick Woods Dr Pavement striping and signage to to St Andrews Dr designated shared -use lanes. 0.85 168 Retsil Rd Mile Hill Dr to Bay St Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike facilities. 1.1 2,776 Ramsey Rd Sedgwick Rd to Widen to two full travel lanes with Salmonberry Rd curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bicycle 0.5 4,207 facilities. Pottery Ave Tremont PI to Widen to two full travel lanes with Melcher St bike lanes, sidewalk, and stormwater 0.2 2,692 improvements. Melcher St Pottery Ave to Widen to include two travel lanes, bike Sherman Ave lanes, sidewalks, and a stormwater 0.4 1,010 system. Fireweed Rd Sidney Ave to S Widen to two full travel lanes with Flower Ave bike lanes and sidewalks. 0.25 631 Sherman Ave Fireweed Rd to Widen to two full travel lanes with Terminus bike lanes and sidewalks. 0.35 883 Blueberry Rd Geiger Rd to Bethel Widen to two full travel lanes with Rd curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 0.4 1,010 Geiger Rd Sedgwick Rd to Widen to two full travel lanes with Blueberry Rd curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 0.25 631 Sidney Ave Prospect St to Sidewalk and streetscape waterfront improvements. 0.1 2,524 Harrison Ave Bay St to waterfront Sidewalk and streetscape 0.05 1,683 improvements. Fredrick Ave Cline St to waterfront Sidewalk and streetscape 0.05 2,524 improvements. Off -Right -of -Way Facilities Bay St Pedestrian P.O. Blvd to Annapolis Multiuse pathway from Kitsap Transit Path Foot Ferry Dock station to Port Orchard Blvd. 1.6 16,761 Blackjack Creek Trail Bethel Rd to Blackjack Off-street shared -use path (alignment Crk TBD). TBD TBD SW Pendleton Way Fielder PI to Off-street shared -use path (alignment TBD TBD Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Project Limits Description Length Cost Estimate (in $$$s)* McCormick TBD). Ruby Creek Path Stetson Heights to Off-street shared -use path (alignment Sedgwick TBD). TBD TBD Sidney SR 16 Sidney Rd to Sidney Off-street shared -use path and SR 16 Crossing Ave over- or undercrossing (alignment TBD TBD TBD). Telford Way McCormick West Off-street shared -use path (developer- Dev. funded) 0.85 funded Total Estimated Cost 209,290 *Cost estimates are expressed in thousands of 2023 dollars Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.5. Level of Service Transportation Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of the operating performance of a given element of transportation infrastructure. It is typically expressed as a letter grade from LOS A, representing free flow operations with almost no travel delay, to LOS F, representing complete breakdown of flow and high delay. LOS establishes a basis for comparison between streets and intersections and helps guide the prioritization of improvement projects. Port Orchard's street network should maintain consistency with Kitsap County's network while accommodating the City's transportation needs and vision. To establish and maintain this consistency, the City's LOS standards must be suited to the needs of Port Orchard while retaining some similarity to LOS standards in the adjacent urban unincorporated area. This section describes the basis for the City of Port Orchard LOS standards. 8.5.1. Street Segment Level of Service Definition Port Orchard has adopted a system of planning -level street segment capacity standards for long- range planning and transportation concurrency management. The standards, which are based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) concepts and similar policies adopted throughout Western Washington, define a maximum allowable service volume based on functional classification and presence of left -turn lanes, access control, nonmotorized facilities, and on -street parking. The adopted street segment capacity standards are summarized in Table 8-5. Table 8-5. Street Segment Capacity Standards Functional Classification Base Capacity (vphpll) Capacity Adjustments (vph) Left -Turn Lane Access - Restricted Segment No Bike Lane No Sidewalk On -Street parking Freeway 2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State Highway 950 475 665 0 0 0 Principal Arterial 850 425 595 -85 -170 -45 Minor Arterial 750 375 525 -40 -75 -40 Collector 620 310 435 -30 -60 -30 vph: Vehicles Per Hour; vphpl: Vehicles Per Hour Per Lane Left -turn lanes are estimated to add the capacity equivalent of one half through lane by removing major approach left -turn delay. Similarly, segments with limited access, including physical or natural barriers, provide an increase of the equivalent of 70 percent of one through lane. Capacity reductions for lack of nonmotorized facilities are based on the principle that HCM capacity calculations assume complete urban street sections. Streets without sidewalk or bicycle facilities will force nonmotorized users into vehicle lanes, reducing vehicle capacity. Exceptions to these nonmotorized reductions can be made for freeways and state highways which are designed to emphasize vehicle mobility over nonmotorized traffic. The presence of on -street parking also reduces capacity slightly. Street segment LOS is based on the ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity, or v/c ratio. Port Orchard has adopted LOS thresholds consistent with the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Subarea Plan and Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation planning -level LOS thresholds defined in Highway Capacity Manual 1994. Adopted street segment LOS thresholds and descriptions are summarized in Table 8-6. Table 8-6. Port Orchard Street Segment LOS Thresholds and Characteristics Volume / LOS Capacity Description Facility accommodates all modes of transportation. Vehicles experience A <_ 0.60 free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. Stable flow, with traffic conditions beginning to restrict operating B 0.61-0.70 speeds. Drivers still have reasonable maneuverability between multiple lanes. All modes are accommodated. Fairly stable flow, but higher volumes more closely constrict speeds and C 0.71— 0.80 maneuverability. Approaching unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds and limited D 0.81-ago maneuverability. Facilities without nonmotorized facilities and heavy pedestrian/bike volume may experience unstable flow. Nonmotorized users in travel lanes will conflict with heavy vehicle E 0.91— 1.00 volume and cause breakdowns in flow. Vehicles experience unstable flow with reduced operating speeds. Facility is unable to accommodate all modes. Vehicles experience forced F > 1.00 flow, operating under stop -and -go conditions. Port Orchard has adopted an "ultimate street LOS policy' which provides a segment LOS exemption to streets which have been fully constructed to their respective design standard. This includes, for example, Tremont Street between the SR 16 interchange and Port Orchard Boulevard. Ultimate street design standards are based on the Port Orchard Public Works Engineering Standards and the street design classifications identified in Figure 8-4. 8.5.2. Intersection Level of Service Definition Intersection LOS is based on the average delay experienced by a vehicle traveling through an intersection. Delay at a signalized intersection can be caused by waiting for the signal or waiting for the queue ahead to clear the signal. Delay at unsignalized intersections is caused by waiting for a gap in traffic or waiting for a queue to clear the intersection. Table 8-7 shows the amount of delay used to determine intersection LOS measured in second per vehicle (sec/veh). The intersection LOS analysis completed for this Transportation Element was completed using Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6) methodologies for signalized and stop -controlled intersections. Roundabout delays and LOS were calculated using the Sidra capacity methodology, per WSDOT guidelines. For minor -approach stop controlled intersections, LOS is based on the turn movement with the worst (highest) delay. For all other intersection control types, LOS is based on average delay. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Street Design Standard Pri ncipal Arterial A --- principal Arterial B �- Mlnor Arterlal A - - - - Mlnor Arterkal B - - - Mlnor Arterlal C Corrector A -- Collector B Sedgwick-Bethel Corridor Study McCormick Cammunities City Limit O,tlin, Urba n Grcrwrth Afea 7_1Z, r r 1 i 7rur�spa�tuGvr� SaurGans Figure 8-4. Street Design Standards 1 r MQEft�,MEM Table 8-7. Intersection Level of Service Thresholds i r + r r r I rr i 1 � r L r s 1 -..1 � ! L_j t � I 1 a * SE drax+ElR 2 mi LOS Signalized and Roundabout Delay (sec/veh) Stop -Control Delay (sec/veh) A 1510 1510 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35 — 55 >25 — 35 E >55 — 80 >35 — 50 F >80 >50 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.5.3. Level of Service Standards and Concurrency Requirements The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to adopt local Level of Service (LOS) standards and ordinances that prohibit development if the adopted standard would be violated by development approval. Developments must be required to provide for necessary improvements within a six -year period with an additional extension of six years permitted on a case -by -case basis. GMA requires that a LOS standard be set but acknowledges the need for flexibility by providing for six years and extensions for the development of required improvements. Therefore, during that period, some portion of the facilities may be under development, design and construction. During that period, facilities may be experiencing congestion that exceeds the adopted standard. As facilities are completed, improvements may initially provide transportation service that performs better than the adopted standard. Port Orchard has adopted a minimum LOS standard of LOS D for the City's functionally classified (i.e. collector and arterial) street system. This represents a compromise between the theoretical "ideal" LOS A and the realities of travel demand, construction, and financial capabilities. At LOS A, people could travel anywhere anytime with no delay. LOS D represents the ability to travel the City's arterial and collector routes with only moderate congestion -related delays. As the City of Port Orchard grows and becomes more urbanized, some additional travel delay will become a reality, particularly during peak periods. Minimum LOS for intersections on State facilities are set by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). SR 16 is designated by WSDOT as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and is assigned minimum LOS D. SR 160 (Sedgwick Rd) is designated as a non-HSS route with minimum LOS D. SR 166 (Bay St/Bethel/Mile Hill Dr) is a non-HSS route with minimum LOS E Mitigated. This standard means that when the peak hour LOS falls below LOS E, congestion shoulder be mitigated through measures such as transit improvements. Port Orchard may, however, choose to monitor LOS and program improvements at intersections along WSDOT facilities, particularly if they introduce delay to City streets. 8.5.3.1 Level of Service Standards A. Pedestrian Safety and Mobility LOS. Developments will provide for pedestrian safety, including adequate connections to existing pedestrian facilities. Proximity to pedestrian oriented establishments, including but not limited to schools, parks, and commercial establishments shall be considered when evaluating pedestrian safety. Particular attention shall be given to school walk routes. 1. Ultimate Pedestrian LOS. The ultimate pedestrian facility design includes a sidewalk, curb and gutter section or other approved non -motorized vehicle facility. Specific requirements may identify the need for additional safety precautions. 2. Minimum Pedestrian LOS. A minimum pedestrian facility shall include one of the following: A six -foot -wide paved path separated from the paved roadway surface by either an unpaved ditch or swale, three feet wide; Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation b. An eight-to-12-foot-wide paved path constructed integral with paved roadway surface and including adequate delineation for safety; c. Other conditions may be considered equivalent to the minimum pedestrian safety facility at the sole discretion of the city engineer. B. Traffic Capacity LOS: Traffic Capacity LOS is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual and is based on PM peak hour vehicle capacity. 1. The City's functionally classified (collector and arterial) street system shall meet the following standards: a. Principal arterials — LOS D b. Minor arterials— LOS D c. Collector arterials — LOS C 2. Exemptions to Capacity LOS. The City Council, upon recommendation of the City Engineer may determine as follows: a. That it is not practical to improve specific intersections to achieve higher LOS standards; b. That other improvements may be considered as equivalent mitigation in lieu of achieving the capacity LOS standard stated in this section; c. That a street segment has been constructed to its ultimate design and to provide additional widening would not support the role and character of the street in the City's transportation network. d. Exempt specific intersections or street segments from the LOS standards set forth in this section for a specific period. C. Street Design LOS 1. Ultimate Design LOS. The street system will meet the geometric, right-of-way width, and street section standards for the classification defined in the Public Works Engineering Standards and Specifications, the subdivision code, the comprehensive plan, or other site -specific project requirements. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage, other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction. 2. Three -Quarter Street LOS. The street system shall consist of sidewalk, curb, gutter, all utilities, and appurtenances, and one-half of the ultimate pavement width on the development side of the right-of-way, plus a minimum 14-foot pavement width on the opposite side of the street. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation The total width shall not exceed the ultimate design width. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage and other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction. 3. Minimum Street LOS. A minimum 30-foot-wide paved street section centered on ultimate design cross section with sufficient traffic capacity to serve existing and project generated traffic. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk will not be required; however, pedestrian safety facilities would normally be required. Drainage may be in surface ditches or a subsurface conveyance. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage and other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with street construction. 4. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with city plans and policies, including the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off -site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for nonmotorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials, collectors, and school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development. 8.5.3.2. Concurrency Requirements All developments shall meet the minimum development standards for Pedestrian Safety and Mobility LOS. The criteria for determining the applicable standard for determining compliance with pedestrian safety LOS, traffic capacity LOS, and street design standard LOS concurrency requirements shall include, but not be limited to, the volume of traffic generated or to be generated on the arterial street system from a development at full build -out during the most critical or highest volume hour of the day hereafter referred to as the peak hour. The peak hour volume shall be determined by a traffic impact analysis. Compliance with the concurrency LOS standards will be based on the following criteria: A. Fewer Than 10 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates fewer than 10 peak hour vehicle trips, the City Engineer shall determine the necessity of the project to meet all or a portion of the concurrency LOS requirements. 1. Street Frontage. Minimum street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. The City Engineer shall consider the following when making this determination if nonmotorized safety of traffic capacity LOS is required. In no case shall the concurrency requirements exceed those of a Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation project with 29 or fewer peak hour trips. • Proposed developments in the area; • Proximity of adjacent ultimate, three-quarter street, and/or minimum LOS improvements; • Adequacy and condition of street frontage improvements; • Proximity to pedestrian oriented establishments such as, but not limited to, schools, parks, and commercial businesses; • Anticipated impacts of project; • Capacity of the affected arterial street system. B. Ten to 29 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 10 to 29 peak hour trips, the following LOS standards are necessary to achieve concurrency: 1. Street Frontage. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. 2. Adjacent Street System. a. Minimum Street LOS Improvements. Minimum street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system for a distance of up to 200 feet in the direction of an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. b. Minimum Pedestrian Safety LOS. Minimum pedestrian safety LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to or intersect with an arterial street that meets the three- quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. Improvements may be considered connected to adjacent improvements on the opposite side of the street, if the connection is made with an approved pedestrian crossing facility at a controlled intersection, providing protection to the pedestrians with a stop sign or traffic signal, at the discretion of the city engineer. 3. Traffic Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for capacity LOS standards. Intersections and segments on the functionally classified street system that are impacted by peak hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient facilities meet traffic capacity LOS standards. C. Thirty to 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 30 to 75 peak hour trips the following LOS standards are necessary to achieve concurrency: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 1. Street Frontage. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. 2. Adjacent Street System. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. 3. Traffic Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for traffic capacity LOS standards. Intersections and segments on the functionally classified street system that are impacted by peak hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient facilities meet traffic capacity LOS standards. 4. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with the nonmotorized component of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off -site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for non- motorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials, collectors, and school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development. D. More Than 75 Peak Hour Trips. 1. Street Frontage. Ultimate Design street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. 2. Adjacent Street System. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. 3. Traffic Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for traffic capacity LOS standards. Intersections and segments on the functionally classified street system that are impacted by peak hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards and street design standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient intersections meet traffic capacity LOS standards. 4—Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with the nonmotorized component of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element . Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off -site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for non- motorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials, collectors, school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation kw. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.6. Traffic Forecasting 8.6.1. Land Use Assumptions 8.6.1.1. Existing Land Use Traffic forecasting is based on the relationship of vehicle trips to development or land use. Land use can be organized into two general categories: households and employees. Residential land use forecasts are often expressed in terms of population, however for travel demand modeling it is helpful to convert population into trip -generating households. Current Port Orchard population and household estimates were obtained from Census 2020 data and are summarized in Table 8-8. Table 8-8. Port Orchard 2020 Population Estimate Total Population 15,587 Total Households I6,952 Existing Port Orchard employment is summarized in Table 8-9 and is consistent with the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report. Employment inventory is organized into six categories, consistent with the categories used in the Kitsap County transportation model which formed the foundation of the Port Orchard citywide transportation model. Table 8-9 identifies the modeled employment categories, corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, number of employees, and share of total citywide employment. Table 8-9. Port Orchard 2020 Employment Classification Sector (NAICS #) Number Percent Retail (44, 45) 3,097 36% Commercial Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (51-56, 61-62, 71-72, 81) 2,827 33% Government and Education (Public sector) 1,828 21% Construction and Resources (11, 21, 23) 458 5% Industry Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (22, 31-33, 42, 48-49) 405 5% Total 8,61 8.6.1.2. Development Forecast Long-range housing and development forecasts were obtained from PSRV VISION 2050 allocations and Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. The 2044 citywide population and housing forecasts are summarized in Table 8-10. The forecast includes a total of 10,396 households, an increase of 49 percent from 2020. Table 8-10. Port Orchard 2044 Population Estimate Total Population 26,374 Total Households 10,396 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 2044 employment forecasts are identified in Table 8-11 for each of five job sectors. Citywide employment is expected to reach 14,015 by 2044, an increase of 63 percent from 2020. Table 8-11. Port Orchard 2044 Emplovment Forecast Classification Sector (NAICS #) Number Percent Retail (44, 45) 4,987 36% Commercial Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (51-56, 61-62, 71-72, 81) 4,759 34% Government and Education (Public sector) 2,940 21% Construction and Resources (11, 21, 23) 691 5% Industry Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (22, 31- 33, 42, 48-49) 639 5% Total 1 14,015 Future housing and employment growth was geographically allocated throughout the City of Port Orchard based on a buildable lands analysis developed for the Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan. Housing and employment growth outside city limits was calculated using PSRC VISION 2050 forecasts for Kitsap County. 8.6.2. Traffic Forecasting Model 8.6.2.1. Background Port Orchard maintains a citywide travel demand model which is regularly updated and utilized for transportation planning, policymaking, and concurrency management. The Port Orchard model was initially developed in 2015 based on the Kitsap County travel demand model. It was updated in 2019 and most recently in 2022 for this Transportation Element update. The travel demand model calculates growth in units of weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips. This approach is consistent with the Kitsap County travel demand model. 8.6.2.2. Network Development The modeled transportation network was updated based on field review, aerial imagery, and signal timing data obtained from Kitsap County and WSDOT staff. The modeled street network includes all functionally classified roadways and most local streets within the City and UGA, in addition to regionally significant County and state routes in the vicinity. Turn capacities and volume -delay functions were modeled using Highway Capacity Manual 6`" Edition methodologies for signalized and stop -controlled intersections, and TRL/Kimber capacity methodology for roundabouts. Link capacities and volume -delay functions were modeled based on planning -level Highway Capacity Manual capacity concepts, consistent with the Kitsap County travel demand model. 8.6.2.3. Traffic Analysis Zone Structure Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) are the geographic units used by a travel demand model to represent land use and to generate trips into and out of the transportation network. Each TAZ's land Page 8-35 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation use determines the number of trips that the zene ,,d, ees er t-t-Fa .+s frA-r, theF T Zsgenerated by the TAZ. The travel demand model includes a total of 93 TAZs, including 76 "internal" and 17 "external" TAZs. The TAZ structure is shown in Figure 8-5. Internal zones are defined geographic areas which represent housing and employment in and near the City and UGA. Internal TAZ boundaries were defined based on Census 2020 block boundaries and refined based on city limits boundaries and zoning. Forty-four of the model's 76 TAZs are located within city limits. External zones represent trips entering and exiting the planning area via major access routes. The model's 17 external TAZs include major state routes such as SR 3 and SR 16 as well as smaller access routes such as Victory Drive and the Kitsap Transit Foot Ferry. In contrast to internal TAZs which are based on defined geographic areas, external TAZs represent vehicle trips crossing a specified point, typically determined via traffic count. A portion of the trips generated by an external zone connect with internal TAZs, while the remainder of the trips interact with other external zones outside the planning area. These external -to -external trips have neither an origin nor destination within the study area, yet they pass through the study area, impacting the transportation network. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Figure 8-5. Transportation Analysis Zones Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.6.2.4. Trip Generation The first step of the travel demand modeling process is to translate housing and employment into trip origins and destinations for each TAZ. The travel demand model includes five trip types: • Home -to -Work (HW) and Work -to -Home (WH): Trips with one end at the traveler's home and the other end at the traveler's place of employment. • Home -to -Other (HO) and Other -to -Home (OH): Trips with one end at the traveler's home and the other end at somewhere other than the traveler's place of employment, e.g. shopping trips. • Non -Home -Based (NHB): Trips without an end at the traveler's home. Modeled trip generation rates were initially based on PM peak hour trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual111h Edition. Rates were calibrated to more closely reflect volumes observed in traffic counts collected in January and February 2022. Modeled trip rates are summarized in Table 8-12. Table 8-12. Travel Demand Model PM Peak Hour Trio Generation Rates Land Use Units HWl WH' H01 OH' NHB' Total o2 DZ o2 DZ OZ DZ o2 DZ OZ D2 Single -Family Res. DU 0.025 0 0 0.078 0.441 0 0.011 0.226 0.056 0.008 0.845 Multi -Family Res. DU 0.012 0 0 0.047 0.291 0 0 0.137 0.018 0.005 0.510 RETAIL Emp 0 0.015 0.074 0 0 0.502 0.192 0 0.472 0.221 1.476 FIRES EMP 0 0.009 0.034 0 0 0.344 0.119 0 0.017 0.106 0.629 GOV EMP 0 0.004 0.022 0 0 0.31 0.066 0 0.022 0.128 0.552 E D U EMP 0 0.012 0.127 0 0 0.163 0.273 0 0.206 0.408 1.189 WTU EMP 0 0.017 0.048 0 0 0.211 0.119 0 0.071 0.194 0.660 MANU EMP 0 0.008 0.023 0 0 0.098 0.057 0 0.034 0.090 0.310 CONRES EMP 0 0.017 0.017 0 0 0.235 0.042 0 0.025 0.084 0.420 1HW: home to work; WH: work -to -home; HO: home -to -other; OH: other -to -home; NHB: non -home -based 20: origin trip rate; D: destination trip rate 8.6.2.5. Trip Distribution The trip distribution step consists of identifying an origin and a destination for each trip generated by each TAZ in the travel demand model. The trip distribution process uses a gravity model, based on the gravitational theory that the attraction between two bodies is directly proportional to the bodies' masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the bodies. A TAZ's "mass" is represented by the number of trips generated (produced by or attracted to) the TAZ while the distance factor is represented by route travel time. The result of the trip distribution step is an origin -destination matrix for each trip purpose in the travel demand model. The gravity model calculates the attractiveness between any two TAZs using the utility function: J(U) = a * (Ub) * (e`u) In the utility function, the independent variable U is defined as travel time between zones. The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation parameters a, b, and c are calibration factors which influence the weight of travel time in the gravity model. Gravity model parameters were calibrated with consideration for the Kitsap County travel demand model, NCHRP Report 716 (TRB 2012), and traffic count data. The calibrated gravity parameters are shown in Table 8-13. Table 8-13. Trip Distribution Gravitv Model Parameters Trip Purpose Model Parameter a b c Home -to -Work (HW) 28,507 0.400 -0.100 Work -to -Home (WH) 28,507 0.400 -0.100 Home -to -Other (HO) 139,173 -1.017 -0.791 Other -to -Home (OH) 139,173 -1.017 -0.791 Non -Home Based (NHB) 219,133 -0.791 -0.195 8.6.2.6. Traffic Assignment The traffic assignment step consists of finding the optimal route from origin to destination for each trip in the travel demand model. The model begins by calculating the shortest travel -time route from each origin to destination based on free -flow conditions. It loads trips into the network based on the initial solution, recalculates traffic delay based on the updated network volume, and recalculates shortest paths based on the updated delay results. This process is repeated until an equilibrium condition is achieved in which every trip has been assigned its shortest path based on congested network conditions. 8.6.2.7. Model Validation The base year model was calibrated to improve the relationship between modeled flows and observed traffic volumes. Traffic volume data was collected in January and February 2022 and included intersection turning movement counts at 56 intersections and tube counts collected at 6 road segments in and near Port Orchard. The base year model was calibrated based on guidance from FHWA's Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual Second Edition (FHWA 2010). Model inputs and parameters were adjusted iteratively to improve the correlation between modeled traffic volumes and observed traffic volumes. Calibration statistics and a scatterplot of assigned vs. counted traffic volume are shown in Figure 8-6. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 3000 — 2500 2000 3 NumObs= 426 ,0 %RMSE= 15 a 1500 RZ = 0.98 Slope = 0.95 Y-Int = 8.31 1000 . »'� T MeanRelError = 9% 500 •� 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Counted Volume Figure 8-6. Travel Demand Model Calibration Statistics 8.6.3. Long -Range Forecasting Assumptions The long-range (2044) traffic forecasts were calculated based on housing and employment forecasts identified in the Land Use Element. Traffic growth external to the planning area was calculated based on historical growth rates. Long-range forecasts included both "Without Improvement" and "With Improvement" scenarios. The "Without Improvement" scenario assumed no transportation capacity improvements would be constructed in the planning horizon. Transportation improvement strategies necessary to maintain minimum LOS standards were identified and modeled in the "With -Improvement" scenario. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.7. Transportation System Needs 8.7.1. 2022 Traffic Volumes and LOS Deficiencies An analysis of 2022 volume -to -capacity ratios on 59 functionally classified collector and arterial segments within city limits identified two street segments which currently operate below their respective minimum LOS standards. Both segments are located along the Bethel Road corridor, which is programmed for complete street improvements in the TIP. Existing street segment LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-14. Table 8-14.2022 Street Seement Level of Service Deficiencies Name Functional Classification PM Peak Hour Volume WC LOS Bethel Rd (Sedgwick Rd to Salmonberry) Principal Arterial 1,390 1.17 F Bethel Rd (Salmonberry to Lund Ave) Principal Arterial 1,350 1.13 F Five intersections within city limits operate below minimum LOS standards. Four of the five LOS- deficient intersections are located on WSDOT routes. 2022 PM peak hour intersection LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-15. Mitigation strategies for LOS deficiencies are described later in this section. Table 8-15. 2022 Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Intersection Control' PM Peak Hour Volume Delayz LOS Bethel Rd SE & Salmonberry Rd TWSC 1,630 48 E Old Clifton Road & SR 16 EB ramps TWSC 1,525 36 E Tremont Street & SR 16 WB ramps TWSC 2,020 158 F Sedgwick Rd (SR 160) & Geiger Road TWSC 1,760 36 E Bay Street (SR 166) & Port Orchard Blvd TWSC 1,450 42 E 1TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control; RAB = Roundabout; Signal = Signalized 2Average control delay for all movements, reported in seconds per vehicle. For TWSC, delay is reported for the movement with the worst (highest) delay. 8.7.2. 2044 Anticipated LOS Deficiencies Fives collector and arterial street segments within city limits will operate below their respective minimum LOS standards by 2044. These include two segments of Bethel Road and onetwe segments of Sedgwick Road, classified principal arterial roadways. 2044 street segment LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-16. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Table 8-16. 2044 Street Segment LOS Deficiencies Name Functional Classification PM Peak Hour Volume WC LOS Bethel Rd (Sedgwick Rd to Salmonberry) Principal Arterial 1,540 1.29 F Bethel Rd (Salmonberry to Lund Ave) Principal Arterial 1,7320 1.45 F S.,.Jgwiek Rd (West IiFnit to SR 16) Principal Arr., ri ,I �9 4-.5-2 city Sedgwick Rd/SR 160 (SR 16 to Bethel Rd) Principal Arterial 1,77660 0.93 E Sidney Ave (Sedgwick to Berry Lk Rd) Minor Arterial 2,50450 1.69 F Old Clifton Rd (City limit to Anderson Hill Rd) Collector 1,59600 0.95 E By 2044, 10-1 intersections within city limits will operate below their minimum LOS standard. In addition to the five existing LOS-deficient intersections which will persist through 2044, five&+* additional intersections on City collector and arterial routes will reach LOS-deficient status by 2044. 2044 intersection LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-17. Table 8-17. 2044 Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Intersection Control' PM Peak Hour Volume Delay2 LOS On City of Port Orchard Routes Bethel Rd SE & Salmonberry Rd TWSC 2,13559 >300 F Bethel Rd & Blueberry Rd TWSC 1,620 >300 F Old Clifton Rd & McCormick Woods Dr TWSC 1,7204-5 475 E Old Clifton Rd & Anderson Hill Rd TWSC 1,8404 >300 F Old Clifton Rd & Lloyd Parkway TWSC 1,750459962 F Pottery Avenue & S Kitsap Boulevard TWSC 1,-1090 35-7 E Peet FyAve Q. i i eFt D f T S 441 5-5 39 _E On WSDOT Routes Old Clifton Road & SR 16 EB ramps TWSC 2,605578 >300 F Tremont Street & SR 16 WB ramps TWSC 3,32549 529 F Sedgwick Road (SR 160) & Geiger Road TWSC 2,265 994-91 F Bay Street (SR 166) & Port Orchard Blvd TWSC 1,785 920 F 1TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control; RAB = Roundabout; Signal = Signalized 2Average control delay for all movements, reported in seconds per vehicle. For TWSC, delay is reported for the movement with the worst (highest) delay. Both intersections at the SR 16 Sedgwick Road interchange are expected to operate at LOS D overall through 2044, maintaining their minimum LOS D standard. However, both intersections will operate with a peak hour volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1.00 on the SR 16 off -ramps. This indicates oversaturated conditions, which may result in significant queuing and large variations in travel time. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Street Segment & Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Existing Deficiency p 2044 Deficiency e_ �I City Limit Outline A Urban Growth Area m W 6ELMFkVLLEVi� 3 F � 1 Lw s zw 1 Y � 1 1 x SE LAN AR VE L� I• i * � 2 � w s SE SRLI,..E,Ry sW BERRY LAKE RD Rp R ! s 1 � oLoc r 4 I 16 1 �■ 1 � I I - 1 1 � � I Irr— A� 1 SRO - —_-1 0 0.5 SF 31EL1{FAR � 1 2 mi Transportation Solutions .5 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Figure 8-7. Street Segment and Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.7.3. Actions Necessary to Maintain LOS Standards Mitigation strategies for LOS-deficient street segments and intersections were developed with consideration for prior planning and policy documents, including: • Port Orchard Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for 2024-2029; • Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program for 2030-2043; • Port Orchard Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study 2020 Update; • July 2020 update to the Transportation Element of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan; • Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan (2018); and • SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study (WSDOT 2018). The projects identified in Table 8-18 are necessary to support anticipated growth by maintaining minimum LOS standards through 2044. Several projects reference the multi -phase Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Improvement project. This project, described in the 2018 Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, will provide major capacity, safety, and accessibility improvements to the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road corridors, bringing both roadways up to urban design standards and supporting multi -model transportation for existing and future development throughout Port Orchard. Cost estimates for the projects were obtained from the Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program and Transportation Impact Fee Rate study and adjusted for inflation using the National Highway Construction Cost Index. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Table 8-18. Projects Necessary to Maintain LOS Standards ID Project Name Limits Description Cost Estimate (in $$$s) Projects Necessary to Mitigate Existing LOS Deficiencies 1 Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel Rd Complete street improvements Corridor Phase 3 (Sedgwick Rd to per the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor 10,283 Blueberry Rd) Plan. 2 Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel Rd Complete street improvements Corridor Phase 4 (Salmonberry Rd per the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor 15,445 to Lund Ave) Plan. 3 Bethel/Sedgwick Intersection New roundabout halfway Corridor Phase 2a improvements between SR 16 and Bethel Rd. 2,608 4 Port Orchard Blvd Tremont St to Bay Roundabouts at Bay St/PO Blvd & Improvements St (SR 166) Tremont St/PO Blvd; complete 17,977 street improvements on PO Blvd. 5 Old Clifton Rd & SR Intersection New roundabout or traffic signal 16 EB ramps improvements (coordinate with WSDOT). 2,608 6 Tremont St & SR 16 Intersection New roundabout or traffic signal WB ramps improvements (coordinate with WSDOT). 2,608 Projects Necessary to Mitigate 2044 LOS Deficiencies ..w ic-k Rd Wpr CD 9 G +.�, Ci.J ., .,.� Warien to 3 lane .w/ee nlete fitd i n+� 9—,71-7 street and new he -I.� r+ .,veF -,.- mDlL el. Creel . 87 Bethel/Sedgwick Sedgwick Rd (SR Second phase of the street Corridor Phase 2 16 to Bethel Rd) improvements per the 29,443 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. -98 Old Clifton Ped/Bike City limit to Separated pathway with lighting Improvements Anderson Hill Rd and shoulder improvements. 5,674 399 Bethel Rd & Intersection New roundabout Salmonberry Rd improvements886,894 4410 Bethel Rd & Intersection New roundabout. Blueberry Rd improvements 25.622 1411 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout. McCormick Woods improvements 2,692 Dr 1312 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout. Anderson Hill Rd improvements 4,072 47413 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout or traffic signal. Lloyd Parkway improvements 2,524 DetteFy Ave- Trernen+te CD 'IG \AA.den to A I-.ne .w/GE)MPl.,+., mr _ 1§4 Sidney Ave Sedgwick Rd to Widen to 3 lanes w/complete Berry Lk Rd street improvements. 13,158 1465 Pottery Ave & South Intersection New all -way stop contro l Improvements 100 Kitsap Blvd .I Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation ID Project Name Limits Description Cost Estimate (in $$$s) Total 121,708 *Cost estimates are expressed in thousands of 2023 dollars. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.8. Transportation Demand Management Travel Demand Management (TDM) is comprised of a broad range of programs, policies, regulations, and in some capital projects that are intended to reduce travel by automobile or to reduce travel in general. For instance, providing preferential parking and/or cost subsidies for carpool users reduces the number of automobiles on the road, while allowing employees to work from home eliminates travel altogether. Some TDM programs are mandated or implemented at the State level, such as Washington's Commute Trip Reduction Act and WSDOT's HOV/Toll Lane Program. Others are regional, including vanpool/rideshare programs administered by transit agencies such as Kitsap Transit. Larger cities have sufficient resources to implement bike share and other capital -intensive programs. Cities like Port Orchard can support state and regional efforts but can have more influence on travel demand through integrated land use and transportation planning that results in compact mixed -use centers with strong internal non -motorized connectivity and access to regional transit. The subarea plans for these centers that follow the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan should include consideration of nonmotorized connectivity standards, a balanced mix of housing, employment, and local services to minimize trips outside of the center. Parking regulations for the centers should consider establishing maximum parking ratios, rather than minimums. Design standards for businesses should include provisions for employees that commute on foot or bicycle and include bicycle storage, changing rooms, and shower facilities. These facilities could be shared in compact or urban village settings. Other TDM actions the City could consider are included in the following section on TDM effectiveness. There is no one size fits all approach, and for the City of Port Orchard, a combination of small actions at the individual development scale will likely be more cost-effective than citywide programs that may be effective in one part of the city and not in another. Large-scale City sponsored programmatic TDM measures should be considered with caution and partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions and regional partners should be pursued instead. 8.8.1. Overview TDM activities produce wide-ranging benefits to individuals and the transportation system as a whole, reducing traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and fuel consumptions while supporting physical activity and enhanced safety. TDM makes existing transportation investments perform better, extends the life of existing infrastructure, and can improve outcomes for new transportation investments (Regional TDM Action Plan, 2013-2018 — Puget Sound Regional Council). Before presenting some of the key references on TDM effectiveness, some general comments can be made about TDM effectiveness: One Size Does Not Fit All — TDM effectiveness is highly dependent on the application setting, complementary strategies, nature of the travel market segment being targeted, and even the "vigor" with which TDM is implemented and promoted. Unlike many physical improvements, TDM strategies require education and outreach. This is all to say that the transferability of TDM strategy effectiveness Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation is highly dependent on local conditions. Some of the more subjective evaluation findings on why a given TDM initiative was more successful in one location over another are issues such as the presence of a local advocate, a history of alternative transportation, and the appropriate selection of a target market of travelers. There is "no one recipe for success" when it comes to TDM effectiveness, but there are "ingredients" that are correlated to program success. However, correlation does not prove causality. TDM Impacts are Largely Localized —TDM effectiveness is most readily measured at a local level, and this appears to be where the greatest impacts can be found. TDM is applied to specific worksites, developments, employment centers, venues, or activity centers. Localities with well-defined travel markets tend to produce the most readily available and significant impacts. When the impact of TDM at a broader geographic level is sought, for example at the corridor, citywide, or regional level, the localized nature of TDM effectiveness diffuses the results at a broader scale. One study of implementing mandatory trip reduction programs in Minneapolis -St. Paul, MN, with strong parking management in a mixed -use setting, showed that the programs would reduce vehicle trips by 8 to 27 percent at affected worksites translating to only a 2 percent peak period traffic reduction on the adjacent interstate. However, small changes in demand (total demand or the spatial or temporal distribution of travel demand) can significantly affect traffic flow in congested locations and times. Likewise, the benefits of TDM accrue to both those who switch to sustainable modes as well as all travelers, including solo drivers (in terms of reduced delay, improved air quality, safety, etc.). Travelers Respond to Their Wallets — Most evaluation studies point to the overwhelming effectiveness of financial incentives and disincentives to manage demand. At one level, this makes sense as price influences demand in a classic microeconomic analysis. Cordon pricing in London and Stockholm have reduced traffic volumes entering the city center by as much as 20%. Parking pricing is another widely accepted demand management technique. Adding or increasing parking charges at worksites can produce dramatic mode shifts, as reported in Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking. However, these examples relate to key disincentives to car use. In the U.S., TDM programs focused on modest financial incentives have been highly effective in inducing a shift to more sustainable modes. These incentive programs are often in the form of "Try -It -You'll -Like -It" inducements. For example, the Atlanta Clean Air Campaign's Cash for Commuters offers drive -alone commuters a daily cash incentive ($3/day) for using an alternative mode (carpool, vanpool, transit, bike, walking) for up to 90 days. An independent evaluation showed that the incentive caused 1,800 commuters to switch modes, resulting in 1,300 fewer vehicle trips and 30,000 vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) on the region's highways. More importantly, over 70% of incentive recipients continued their new commute mode after the subsidy lapsed, and half were still using a non -drive alone mode one year later. In the Netherlands, congestion management efforts have resorted to paying commuters to stay off backed - up highways during the peak, so-called Rush Hour Avoidance. Financial levers, even modest amounts, can influence travel behavior in a very significant manner. Parking Influences Travel Choices — Parking management is another widely accepted strategy to effectively change travel behavior, especially mode shift, time shift, and location shift. Parking pricing was mentioned above, but parking supply management can be effective as well. If parking is tight, meaning that all cars cannot be accommodated if everyone drives alone, commuters will adapt by sharing rides, shifting to transit, or even bicycling or walking if the distance allows. One study of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation developer TDM requirements revealed an 11 to 21 percent reduction in parking demand among worksites with aggressive TDM programs. Travel demand can be influenced by time of day and short - vs. long-term parking rates to reduce travel, including cruising for parking, during congested periods. Packaging is Key — TDM strategies are most effective when packaged into logical, complementary packages to realize synergistic effects. On the other hand, some strategies do not complement one another. One example of an unintended consequence from traditional TDM is flex -time and carpooling. Some employers who implement flex -time strategies as an employee perk or to address congestion at parking entrances have found that this can also serve to discourage ridesharing arrangements, which tend to do better with set work hours. At the same time, flexibility could reduce peak period volumes and improve flow without changing mode split. Looking at some newer strategies, such as high -occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, efficiency improvements can also work to discourage some ridesharing arrangements. HOT lane projects which need to raise vehicle occupancy requirements from 2+ to 3+ to create sufficient capacity to sell may break apart existing two -person carpools who choose to drive alone in the mixed flow lanes rather than pay a toll or find a third rider. Complementary measures can lead to greater results than strategies implemented alone. The effect of many TDM strategies is multiplicative: the impact of any one measure of VMT reduction or mode shift might be modest, but the combined effects of several complementary measures can be substantial. For example, systems management improvements, such as ramp metering, can be complemented with provisions for high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) bypass lanes, employer trip reduction programs in the corridor, and traveler information that includes HOV time savings among the traffic statistics provided. One study concluded that employer TDM programs that combined incentives and improved commute alternatives experienced an average trip reduction of almost 25%, where those implementing incentives alone realized a 16.4% reduction and alternatives alone 8.S%. As one international TDM study put it: "packaged, complementary solutions are usually more effective than a single measure.114 TDM is Not a Solution to All Transportation Problems — TDM can be highly effective at a low cost (relative to capacity improvements) when applied in the right place, at the right time for the right travel market. However, TDM, in and of itself, is not adequate to solve congestion, air quality, energy, and other urban woes. Too often the expectations are unstated or disconnected from allocated resources and incompatible policies (e.g., developers are required to build a minimum number of parking spaces, often offered for free to employees and customers, that serves to generate even more driving). TDM is most effective, or at least most measurable, at the local level. The impact of TDM at a corridor or regional level is very hard to evaluate. Modeling and simulation, such as that done using employer trip reduction data to show the likely impact of TDM on 1-5 in Seattle, suggests that aggressive and relatively widespread TDM programs at a local level can have a measurable and significant impact on a corridor. However, it is very difficult to measure issues of multiple influences, externalities, and causality. This points to the need to combine TDM strategies with smart infrastructure enhancements such as Active Traffic Management (ATM). When efficiency improvements are combined with efforts to reduce peak demand, the greatest impacts can be realized. a OECD, Road Travel Demand: Meeting the Challenge, 2002. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Traditional TDM • HOV/HOT/ Managed Lanes • Employer Trip Reduction Programs • Alternative Work Arrangements • School -based Trip Reduction • Event -based Trip Reduction • Recreation -based Trip Reduction • Car -sharing • Vanpool Programs Land Use/Active Transportation • Developer Trip Reduction • Land Use Strategies • Car -free or Access -restricted Zones • Bicycle Facilities and Programs • Pedestrian Facilities and Continuity Transit • Transit Service Improvements • Transit Prioritization/BRT Parking • Parking Information • Parking Supply Management • Parking Pricing Pricing • Cordon Pricing • Congestion Pricing • General Financial Incentives • Vehicle -Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax Systems Management • Ramp Metering • Integrated Corridor Management • Traveler Information • Eco-driving • Traffic Light synchronization • Transit Fare Discounts • Park and Ride Lots Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.8.2. Other Impacts The sections above have discussed the documented impacts of TDM on travel behavior, traffic, and air quality. This section suggests that TDM can have a positive impact on other policy objectives, such as goods movement, land use, livability, and economic development. Unfortunately, very little empirical research exists documenting the impact of TDM strategies toward these policies in a comprehensive, systematic, and comparative manner. As such, individual case studies are summarized below: Goods movement — A strategy of consolidated deliveries has been shown to reduce the number of delivery vehicles, in places like Burgos, Spain, but other impacts have not been documented, such as congestion reduction. A delivery scheme in two French cities, using electric vehicles, reduced related CO2 by 58%. Pricing strategies, on the other hand, have been proven to be quite effective. Truck tolling in Germany has resulted in a small shift from truck to rail and a reduction in empty deadheading trips. Peak period fees at the Port of Los Angeles have reduced congestion in the terminal areas and have reduced midday truck volumes on 1-710. Land use —TDM is often used as a mitigation strategy to reduce the additional trips generated by new development, and success cases revealing trip reductions on the order of 10-25% are fairly abundant. Land use and design issues, as a longer -term strategy, have the potential to increase non -automobile modes, as revealed in comparisons of the mode split between towns with and without good bike, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. Livability— Measuring the impact of TDM on livability can be a subjective process. But livability might be seen as the product of several other effective roles for TDM, namely reduced congestion, increased safety, improved environment, and healthy economic conditions. Mostly, livability can be associated with increased travel choices, a fundamental purpose of demand management. Economic Development— In mitigating the negative impacts associated with growth (congestion, air pollution, energy consumption, reduced safety), TDM can improve the attractiveness of a region or city to prosper economically. As seen in cases such as Lund, Sweden, and the Sustainable Travel Town pilots in the U.K., economic growth can be decoupled from traffic growth. In Lund, the region grew substantially (population and employment) during a period when TDM was being implemented, reducing VMT by 1-2% overall. The growth in travel demand was met by increases in transit use and bicycling. FHWA-HOP-12-035, INTEGRATING DEMAND MANAGEMENT INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: A DESK REFERENCE, August 31, 2012 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.9. Financial Analysis and Concurrency The State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that a jurisdiction's transportation plan contain a funding analysis of the transportation projects it recommends. The analysis should cover funding needs, funding resources, and it should include a multi -year financing plan. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that each jurisdiction's transportation plan is affordable and achievable. If a funding analysis reveals that a plan is not affordable or achievable, the plan must discuss how additional funds will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed. The City of Port Orchard is including the financial element in this transportation plan in compliance with the GMA as well as to provide a guide to the City for implementation of this plan. 8.9.1. Federal Transportation Revenue Sources Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" (BIL) On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" (BIL) into law. The BIL authorizes $550 billion over fiscal years 2022 through 2026 in new Federal investment in infrastructure, including in roads, bridges, mass transit, water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband communications. This funding includes $350 billion for highway programs, including over a dozen new highway programs. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) The STBG provides flexible funding that may be used by States and local agencies for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal -aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. STBG-eligible projects may be located on any federal —aid highway system facility including the National Highway System (NHS), bridge projects not located on the federal -aid system ("off system bridges"), transit capital projects, modifications of existing public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regardless of whether the sidewalk is on the federal —aid system right of way, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. An apportionment of these funds is to be obligated to areas with population greater than 5,000 but no more than 200,000 (the Washington State Office of Financial Management' April 2023 report estimated the 2023 population of Sultan at 6,730). The State is to identify projects in these areas for funding in consultation with regional planning organizations. A portion of the funds are reserved for rural areas and may be spent on the federal -aid functionally classified system including Minor Collectors. Project eligible for funding include all City arterial and collector improvement projects recommended in this Plan. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/. Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) The BIL continues the Transportation Alternatives set -aside from the STBG program. Eligible uses of the set -aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under the Transportation Alternatives Program under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation (MAP-21). This encompasses a variety of smaller -scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/ta.cfm. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The BIL continues the HSIP to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non -State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The BIL maintains the previous FAST Act definition of highway safety improvement projects and adds under that definition several additional types of projects: • Intersection safety that provide for the safety of all road users, as appropriate, including multimodal roundabouts; • Construction and improvement of a railway -highway grade crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices or a grade separation project; • Construction or installation of features, measures, and road designs to calm traffic and reduce vehicle speeds; • Installation or upgrades of traffic control devices for pedestrians and bicyclists including pedestrian hybrid beacons and the addition of bicycle movement phases to traffic signals; • Roadway improvements that provide separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists, including medians, pedestrian crossing islands, protected bike lanes, and protected intersection features; and • Pedestrian security features designed to slow or stop a motor vehicle. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/hsip.cfm. Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The BIL reauthorized the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) for Federal fiscal years 2022 through 2026 as a set -aside of funds from the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set -Aside under STBG. The Recreational Trail Program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized travel. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational trails/ . Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) program is to provide K-12 students a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Organized by the USDOT and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), this federal program also includes a Washington state funded portion that provides funding for engineering and construction, education efforts and enforcement activities within two miles of schools. There is no match requirement. Projects are to be submitted as complete projects and fully funded. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business- wsdot/support-local-programs/funding-programs/safe-routes-school-program. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Bridge Investment Program (BIP) The BIL authorized the Bridge Investment Program, a competitive, discretionary program that focuses on existing bridges to reduce the overall number of bridges in poor condition, or in fair condition at risk of falling into poor condition. It also expands applicant eligibilities to create opportunity for all levels of government to be direct recipients of program funds. Alongside states and federal lands management agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and local and tribal governments can also apply directly to FHWA, making it easier to advance projects at the local level that meet community needs. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure- law/bip factsheet.cfm. Railway -Highway Crossings Program (RHCP) The BIL continues the Railway -Highway Crossings Program (RHCP), which provides funds for safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public railway -highway grade crossings. Funds may be used to install or upgrade protective devices at railroad crossings, including gates, pedestrian crossings, signal systems, and signing. Funds may also be used to eliminate grade crossings by closing them or providing grade separation. For more information, visit https://www.fhwa.dot.Pov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/nccp.cfm. 8.9.2. Washington State Transportation Revenue Services The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) provides funding to foster investment in quality local government transportation projects. The TIB distributes grant funding from revenue generated by three cents of the State's gas tax to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. TIB administers several funding programs, each with its own set of criteria used to facilitate project selection. The project selection process for all programs is completed annually. The TIB programs are summarized below. TIB Urban Programs The TIB provides funding to cities within federally designated urban areas with a population greater than 5,000. For jurisdictions of this size, four state -funded grant programs are administered through TIB: • Urban Arterial Program (UAP) for road projects for urban agency construction projects that address safety, growth & development, physical condition, mobility, sustainability and constructability criteria; • Active Transportation Program (ATP) for projects which improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, enhance pedestrian and cyclist mobility and connectivity, or improve the condition of existing facilities; • Arterial Preservation Program (APP) to address declining street conditions for medium sized cities through overlay of federally classified arterial streets; • Complete Streets Award is a funding opportunity for local governments that have an adopted Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation complete streets ordinance. TIB Urban Program projects require financial participation by the local agency. Minimum local match requirements range from 10% to 20% depending on the assessed value of the local agency. Local match is typically a mixture of private and public funds. Projects are selected annually using a rating system based on criteria developed by TIB. TIB awards more than $70 million to new projects each year. The Snohomish County Tomorrow 2023 Growth Monitoring Report identified Sultan as one of Snohomish County's 11 "Cities and Towns," with a 2023 population estimate of 6,727. The City is eligible to compete for TIB Urban Program funds. For more information, visit: http://www.tib.wa.gov/grants/grants.cfm. Several other programs are administered by TIB including: • Route Jurisdiction Transfer Program (RJT) reviews petitions from cities, counties or WSDOT for additions of deletions from the state highway system. • Route Transfer Program (RTP) provides funding to offset extraordinary costs associated with the transfer of state highways to cities. Local Bridge Program This local bridge program includes funding from the NHPP and STBG for both on- and off -system bridges. Its purpose is to improve the condition of bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance. In 2023, the program awarded approximately $150 million in funding. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding- programs/local-bridge-program. Move Ahead Washington Railroad Crossing Program The Move Ahead Washington Railroad Crossing Grant Program provides up to $5 million in state funds to match federal funds for city and county projects which eliminate at -grade highway -rail crossings. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local- programs/funding-programs/move-ahead-washington-railroad-crossing-program. County Safety Program The County Safety program provides funding for projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on county roads using engineering improvements/countermeasures. Projects are identified through each county's local road safety plan, that identifies and prioritizes projects based on the top crash type(s) in the county. Projects can be at intersection(s), spot or mid -block location(s), and/or on corridor(s) throughout a county or over wide areas within a county. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding-programs/highway-safety- im provement-program. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation City Safety Program The City Safety program provides funding for projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on city/town streets and state highways using engineering improvements/countermeasures. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding- programs/highway-safety-im prove ment-program. The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program was initiated to reduce the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. Similar to the federal Safe Routes to School Program, the purpose of the program is to aid public agencies in funding cost effective projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education and enforcement. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding- programs/pedestrian-bicycle-program. 8.9.3. Local Transportation Revenue Services Street Fund The Street Fund for the City is comprised of revenue from the motor vehicle excise fuel tax and a portion of property tax revenue. It is allocated to the City based on the number of residents within the corporate limits. These funds can be used only for road projects. Current Expense The City has supplemented the Street Fund with Current Expense money in previous years. Current Expense funds have many sources including business taxes, local retail sales and use tax, property taxes, and motor vehicle excise tax. Transportation Impact Fee Program In 2015 the City adopted a transportation impact fee, a financing tool which allows the collection of revenue to offset the traffic impacts of new development. The impact fee rate is based the net new PM peak hour trips generated by a development and is $6,063.94 per vehicle trip. Transportation Benefit District The City has established a Transportation Benefit District (TBD), an independent taxing district which is authorized to raise revenue for the preservation, maintenance, operation, and construction of transportation infrastructure. The TBD currently imposes a $20 vehicle license fee and a 0.1 percent sales tax. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.9.4. Revenue Forecast MLYMMMMU ---------------- adjusted based on a projected growth of 1% to a per year, depending on other known faaers that GE)Uld influeRee the spee+f a eategeFy of Tevewde—The projected revenues for the City's Street Operation and Street Capital funds are shown in Table 8-19. The Transportation Benefit District and Transportation Impact Fees are expected to fund approximately 40 percent of capital improvements. An additional 8 percent of Transportation Capital Facilities Plan improvement funding is anticipated to come from SEPA mitigation fees, developer contributions and transfers in from other funding sources. The remainder of the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan will be funded by through grants and appropriations as needed. This strategy ensures that the City can accomplish the transportation plan and use the available funding options efficiently. The revenue forecast described in this section was prepared by projecting historical trends from the City's financial records. Table 8-19. Transportation Revenue Forecast, 2024 to 2044 FundingSourc Descri tion Revenue Forecast, Revenue Forecast, 2025-2044 ($) 2025-2044 /j. Street Operating Fund - Unrestricted Transportation Benefit District (TBD) $20 license fee $12,174,000 17.9% Licenses & Permits Right of way encroachment 200 000 0.3% permit fees Intergovernmental City Share of motor vehicle 6 473 000 9.5% Revenue fuel tax (MVFT) Charges for Services Fees for services rendered by 440 000 0.6% transportation operations staff including plan review and construction inspection Miscellaneous Other sources of unrestricted $38,570,000 56.8% revenue (Property Tax Allocated Transfers/Other Transfers to support transportation operations, $10,000,000 14.7% maintenance and administration TOTAL - Street Operating Fund 67,857,000 100% Street Capital Fund - Restricted Transportation 1 0.1% sales tax 6 669 252 5.5% Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Fee per new vehicle trip $42,320,000 34.8% Intergovernmental Grants &direct appropriations $62,218,748 51.1% Revenue Miscellaneous SEPA Mitigation fees, developer contributions 500 000 0.4% Transfers In Transfers to support capital $10,000,000 8.2% rp oiects TOTAL - Street Capital Fund $121,708,000 100% Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.9.4. Capital Costs for Recommended Improvements Previous sections in this Element identified transportation capital improvement projects necessary to achieve the City's nonmotorized system vision and to maintain intersection and street segment Levels of Service through 2044, serving existing residents and businesses while supporting anticipated housing and employment growth. The total estimated cost of identified nonmotorized improvement projects is $209,290,000, and the total estimated cost of identified street segment and intersection capacity improvement projects is $438121,404708,000. These project lists contain significant overlap, with multiple projects serving both nonmotorized system vision and street segment or intersection capacity needs. The combined cost of the recommended transportation capital improvement projects, excluding duplicate projects, is $234238,63-2918,000. 8.9.5. Summary of Costs and Revenues Based on the revenues and costs listed above, the City's expected revenues are sufficient to support the protects required to maintain minimum street segment and intersection LOS standards through 2044. Additional revenue will need to be secured to fund proposed projects which provide nonmotorized improvements beyond maintaining minimum LOS standards. proposed tFanSpeFtatien . . ?nts are affeFdable within the City's expected revenues for transpaFtatiOR eapital cests. Table 8-20 summarizes the costs and revenues analyzed in the Transportation Element. it is important to note +h he revenue forecast described herein assumes no additional debt issuances. However, if federal and state grant revenues fall short of the stated forecast, additional debt may be necessary to fully fund the transportation capital improvement project list.e revenues portrayed inel de the necessary to fully fund the transportation program. The new debt is assurned to be pFeeeeds A-f af-if-iWA-R-Al debt i..r.rues. This 0S -h-psed upen aR assumption that addlitienal debt-vAll be made any assumptions related to grant funding or other low interest loans such as frern Federal e State PFE)ffams. The City has tFaditienally been able te tap these SE)Wees, and eentinuing to de se would reduce the need for new bond Ossues whoch similarly co-ld mere favorable terms fe the City's tFaRspeFtati n n Table 8-20. Summary of Capital Costs and Revenues Category Total, 2025-2044 Projected Revenues $130,401,000 Predictable sources $59,489,252 DphtGrant and other sources $70,911,748 Projected Expenditures $2- 238,632918,0 00 Street and Intersection Capacity Improvements $121,708,000 Nonmotorized-Only Improvements* $117,210,000 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation In the event of a revenue shortfall, Port Orchard will need to reassess its projects transportation expenditures. Reassessment strategies may include reducing Level of Service standards or imposing a development moratorium until adequate transportation funding can be secured to maintain adopted LOS standards. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.10 Intergovernmental Coordination The City of Port Orchard works to maintain positive relationships with neighboring jurisdictions, regional agencies and service providers, and state and federal governments. The City has a shared interest and concern in maintaining a vital local and regional economy, and a high quality of life for its citizens, which depend on transportation mobility across jurisdiction boundaries. The City has agreements in place that demonstrate its active commitment to working with Kitsap County, other regional partners and state and federal agencies to address transportation issues, share information and solve problems. The development and ongoing monitoring of the City's Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that commitment. The Growth Management Act requires that plans between neighboring jurisdictions maintain a level of consistency through coordination of planning efforts. Increasingly, Port Orchard's transportation system functions as an integral part of a larger regional system — of roadways, transit routes, park and ride lots, ferry routes, and non -motorized facilities that allow walking and/or biking the first and final mile and making connections in-between. The development of this Plan depended on land use forecasts provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Coordination efforts are expected to be ongoing with: • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on the recommended revisions to the City's Roadway Functional Classification System, the addition of new truck routes to the state Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS), and needed improvements on designated State Routes within the city; • Kitsap Transit on Transportation Demand Management activities by major employment sites, providing access to ferry and transit facilities and services, and on maintaining and expanding transit service quality within the City; • Kitsap County to address the needs of travel across jurisdiction limits, including mitigating the impacts of land use development outside the City, providing for needed street improvements in annexation areas, and furthering the expansion of the regional non - motorized trail system. Lastly, the City anticipates a certification review of this Comprehensive Transportation Plan Element by the Puget Sound Regional Council to ensure its conformity with the adopted regional VISION 2050 plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.1 I. Transportation Goal and Policies The transportation goal and policies described below establish the vision for this Transportation Element and support the overall vision of the Comprehensive Plan. These goals and policies are organized under the categories local and regional transportation planning, supporting the economy, protecting the environment, and facilitating innovation. These policies are consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies. Goal: The City of Port Orchard has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system that promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health. 8.1 I.I. Local and Regional Transportation Planning T-1 Maintain and operate transportation systems to provide safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people goods, and services. T-2 Protect the investment in the existing system and lower overall lifecycle costs through effective maintenance and preservation programs. T-3 Reduce the need for new capital improvements through investments in operations, pricing programs, demand management strategies, and system management activities that improve the efficiency of the current system. T-4 Improve the safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve the state's goal of zero deaths and serious injuries. T-5 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to, and promotes, human health. T-6 Pursue alternative transportation financing methods such as user fees, tolls, and other pricing mechanisms to fund the maintenance, improvement, preservation, and operation of the transportation system. T-7 Fund, complete, and operate the highly efficient, multimodal system described in the Comprehensive Plan. Coordinate with WSDOT, regional, and nearby local agencies, in collaboration with the state legislature, to build the multimodal system. T-8 Strategically expand capacity and increase efficiency of the transportation system to move goods, services, and people throughout Port Orchard. Focus on investments that produce the greatest net benefits to people and minimize the environmental impacts of transportation. T-9 Implement transportation programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. T-10 Ensure mobility choices for people with special transportation needs, including persons with disabilities, seniors, youth, and people with low incomes. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation T-11 Design, construct, and operate a safe and convenient transportation system for all users while accommodating the movement of freight and goods, using best practices and context sensitive design strategies. T-12 Emphasize transportation investments that provide and encourage alternatives to single - occupancy vehicle travel and increase travel options. T-13 Increase the proportion of trips made by transportation modes that are alternatives to driving alone by ensuring availability of reliable and competitive transit options. T-14 Integrate transportation systems to make it easy for people and freight to move from one mode or technology to another. T-15 Prioritize investments in transportation facilities and services in the urban growth area that support compact, pedestrian- and transit -oriented densities and development. T-16 Improve local street patterns — including their design and how they are used — for walking, bicycling, and transit use to enhance communities, connectivity, and physical activity. T-17 Promote and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian travel as important modes of transportation by providing facilities and navigable connections, including connected and protected bike and pedestrian pathways where contextually appropriate. T-18 Promote coordination with developers to ensure that mixed -use developments are designed in a way that improves overall mobility and accessibility to and within such development. T-19 Design transportation facilities to fit within the context of the built or natural environments in which they are located. 8.11.2. Supporting the Economy T-20 Make transportation investments that improve economic and living conditions so that industries and skilled workers continue to be retained and attracted to Port Orchard. T-21 Improve key facilities connecting Port Orchard to the regional transportation network to support the economic vitality of the city. T-22 Ensure the freight system supports the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. T-23 Maintain and improve the existing multimodal freight transportation system in the region to increase reliability, efficiency, and mobility, and prepare for continuing growth in freight and goods movement. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 8: Transportation 8.11.3. Protecting the Environment T-24 Provide infrastructure sufficient to support widespread electrification of the transportation system. T-25 Advance the resilience of the transportation system by incorporating redundancies, preparing for disasters and other impacts, and coordinated planning for system recovery. T-26 Reduce stormwater pollution from transportation facilities and improve fish passage, through retrofits and updated design standards. Where feasible, integrate with other improvements to achieve multiple benefits and cost efficiencies. 8.11.4. Facilitating Innovation T-27 Prepare for changes in transportation technologies and mobility patterns, to support Port Orchard with a sustainable and efficient transportation system. T-28 Be responsive to changes in mobility patterns and needs for both people and goods, and encourage partnerships with the private sector, where applicable. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 9. Capital Facilities 9.1 Introduction This periodic update to the Capital Facilities Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan provides information about the City's existing facilities and plans for future facilities needed to service the growing population. The Capital Facilities Element helps guide the City in providing appropriate facilities and desirable levels of service to its residents and businesses. The Capital Facilities Element reviews the general requirements and available funding, connects capital facilities planning to other functional plans, and reviews goals and policies that guide planning. It also provides an overview of the current capital facility portfolio and identifies future needs and investments for the next six years. The City of Port Orchard owns and manages a Capital Facilities Vision variety of capital facilities, which include roads, Provide outstanding capital facilities to parks, utility systems, police facilities, and serve a growing and changing city. administrative buildings. In addition to the facilities owned and managed by the City, there are publicly owned capital facilities managed by other entities. These include, but are not limited to, schools, library, sewage treatment, and public transit. Privately owned utilities (electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications) conduct their own planning processes and maintain their own system plans. The City influences private system planning through its authority to regulate land uses and its obligation to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Plan. The state requires the City to demonstrate comprehensive and coordinated planning for all capital facilities serving the City's residents, businesses, and community. The Public Facilities and Services Goal of the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate at the time of occupancy and use, without decreasing service levels below locally established minimum standards. Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies also require the City to have a plan that ensures adequate facilities and services are or will be available to serve the City's employment and population growth allocations. If limited funding or other circumstances would prevent the city from providing adequate facilities and services, the GMA requires the city to re-evaluate the Land Use Element and make sure that plans for capital facilities and land use are consistent. Ensuring that public facilities are available when growth occurs is critical to the quality of life for Port Orchard's residents, businesses, and visitors. The implementation of the Capital Facilities Element and related plans will help realize the community's vision for community facilities, as well as the vision and goals of the Land Use Element. This Element also functions in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan's Utilities, Parks, and Transportation Elements and functional system plans for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These are discussed in more detail in Section 9-3. Capital facilities and functional plans guide planning and budgetary decisions. A list of capital facility improvements planned in the next six years are described in Section 9-3. The functional plans provide a complete facility inventory, as well as needs, projected costs, and funding sources. ' Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 9.2 Financial Overview The City strategically manages community resources and carefully balances investments in new facilities and infrastructure with costs to maintain and operate existing facilities. Identifying costs and funding for capital projects planned in the next six years supports the development of the City's annual budget and provides a path toward implementing facility projects. The Capital Facilities Element uses many revenue sources to fund the capital improvement projects, including sales tax, business and occupation tax, utility rates, state revenues, bonds, and grants. Impact fees and other specific revenues allowed under the Growth Management Act also offer potential funding sources. A partial list of capital facilities funding sources and financing tools is included below: Tax Revenue • Property Tax • Retail Sales and Use Tax • Business License Fees • Real Estate Excise Taxes • Utility Tax (Electric, Water, Sewer, Refuse, Stormwater, Natural Gas, Telephone) • Other tax revenue may include lodging excise taxes, admission tax, liquor tax, transportation benefit district (TBD), and motor vehicle fuel taxes. Impact Fees • Transportation Impact Fees • Park Impact Fees • School Impact Fees (Transferred to South Kitsap School District pursuant to Interlocal Agreement) Enterprise Activities • System Development Fees (Capital Facility Charges, General Facility Fees, etc.) • Water User Fees/Rates • Sewer User Fees/Rates • Stormwater Utility Fees/Rates Bonds • General Obligation Bonds • Revenue Bonds • Levy Lid Lift Federal Funding Programs • Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) • Highway Bridge Program (HBP) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Safe Route to School Program (SRTS) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 • Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program • Recreational Trails Program • Community Development Block Grants • Energy Retrofits for Public Buildings — Department of Commerce • Public Works Board funding — Department of Commerce • Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Washington State Funding Programs • Washington State Transportation Improvement Board • The Pedestrian Bicycle Safety Program • Public Works Board funding — Department of Commerce 9.3 Planning Connections Capital improvement recommendations are drawn primarily from City leadership and the functional plans specific to each City department or facility type. Water, sewer, and stormwater have specific requirements according to state and federal law and planning for parks and recreation facilities is included in a parks focused functional plan. Each plan contains a system inventory and a forecast of demand and capacity based on population and regulatory mandates. The functional plans identify capital investments that replace or maintain existing facilities for continued service required to meet future demand for at least a 20-year period. The plans also define the customer service level for each facility and provide system - specific operating policies. Planning for capital facilities also coordinates with other agency efforts. For example, Port Orchard's capital facilities plan considers Kitsap County's plans to redevelop the governmental campus, invest in transportation infrastructure, etc. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 9.4 Functional Plans The Capital Facilities Element highlights recommendations from the City's functional plans in the table below. These plans are adopted into the Capital Facilities Element by reference. Table 9-1. Functional Plan Update Schedule FUNCTIONAL PLAN UPDATE FREQUENCY Water System Plan (2021) 10-year cycle, as needed Provides a basis for six -year capital improvement planning and forecasts 20-year needs General Sewer System Plan (2016) 6-10-year cycle, as needed Addresses aging infrastructure and system expansion to accommodate development; updates policies and practices, data, finances, and growth forecasts; Recommends improvements for the City's wastewater system Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan (2023) 6-10-year cycle, as needed Establishes the city's storm and surface water policy Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan (2022) 6-10-year cycle, as needed Recommends 20-year capital project projects to guide growth and development of Port Orchard's parks and open space system. Transportation Improvement Program (2023) every 1-2 years, as needed Identifies improvements to the City's transportation network planned for the next six years as well as within a twenty-year horizon 9.5 Future Needs While there are unique challenges in each functional area, aging infrastructure, compliance with new laws and regulations, and increased demand for services impact all Port Orchard's capital facilities plans. Aging Infrastructure. Some of Port Orchard's capital facilities are aging or inadequate for current service needs and will require repairs and replacement over the next 20 years. The costs of replacing utility infrastructure, roads, and municipal buildings can be substantial and take years to plan and implement. To get an accurate picture of capital facility needs, Port Orchard will conduct a comprehensive facility condition assessment (FCA). The FCA will highlight current deficiencies at the systems and facility level and projected repairs needed over the long term. It could include recommendations to prioritize preventative maintenance and develop a feasible schedule to address capital facility needs. The FCA is a critical first step to improve the way Port Orchard manages, maintains, and funds its capital facilities to be more resilient and cost-effective. New Laws and Regulations. Changing state and federal mandates governing capital facilities systems require the City to monitor and review its systems to ensure compliance. For example, requirements for implementing projects, programs, and maintenance continue to evolve and are more stringent than in 2007 when the City received its first National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES), a Federal Clean Water Act mandate that affects programs citywide. The City operates in accordance with the 2024-2029 General Permit (Ecology 2024). The 2024 General permit Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 includes numerous requirements including but not limited to the adoption of the 2024 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington; updates to the City's development regulation, operations, mapping, and public outreach; and a source control, inspection, and reporting program. The City intends to comply with all 2024 General Permit conditions in accordance with the timelines specified therein. Increased Demand. Capital facility investments will also be needed to ensure the City continues to deliver the high -quality municipal services customers expect and keep pace as the community grows and changes. Increased demand for services will also require investing in capital facilities across all functional areas. To plan to meet future service demands, the City should conduct a citywide facilities study. Building on findings from the facility condition assessment, this plan will assess current and future space needs, recommend investments to address critical near -term deficiencies, and develop an implementation strategy to provide facilities needed to serve the Port Orchard community into the future. This plan will consider facilities investments to better serve the community that could potentially include expanding the downtown civic campus, investing in appropriately sized public works and police facilities, and increasing investments in maintenance and operations of City parks and throughout the portfolio. Partner Efforts. The Port Orchard community benefits from its proximity to centers for recreation, open space, and sports fields outside City limits and/or owned and managed by other agencies or groups, such as the South Kitsap School District and Kitsap County. Creating and strengthening regional partnerships enable Port Orchard and its partners to provide greater facilities and opportunities than would be possible alone. The City should coordinate with and support these non -city service providers, such as school districts, libraries, and solid waste processors, as they plan for new or improved facilities, for example Kitsap County's campus redevelopment. The City of Port Orchard is already working with Kitsap County and other nearby jurisdictions to implement the 2001 Mosquito Fleet Trail Master Plan to expand a regional water trail including shoreline access with launch points, rest areas, and parking facilities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 9.6 Goals and Policies The goals and policies for Port Orchard's capital facilities align with the Comprehensive Plan vision and build on the goals and policies in each Element. Goal I. Ensure that infrastructure, facilities, and services are adequate to meet present and future needs. Policy CF-1 Establish minimum levels of service (LOS) and regularly monitor and update standards for staffing and public facilities to reflect community preferences for quality -of -service delivery and align with functional plans. Correct LOS deficiencies through capital improvements. Policy CF-2 Require that urban level facilities and services are provided prior to or concurrent with development. These services include, but are not limited to, transportation infrastructure, parks, potable water supply, sewage disposal, stormwater and surface water management, and solid waste management. Policy CF-3 Facilitate adequate planning for services and facilities by coordinating with utility providers on annual updates of population, employment, and development projections. Encourage providers to improve accessibility to public services by making information available, convenient, and complete. Policy CF-4 Address disparities in historically underserved populations by ensuring transportation, utilities, telecommunications, and other infrastructure are equitably distributed and maintained, and that siting or expansion of essential public facilities does not unduly affect any one group of people or geographic area. Policy CF-5 Maintain an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities. Policy CF-6 Acquire property sufficient to provide capital facilities at established levels of service, according to the deficiencies and needs provided in the City's functional plans. Policy CF-7 Ensure that new growth and development pay a fair, proportionate share of the cost for facilities needed to serve such growth and development. Seek to reduce the per unit cost of facilities and services by coordinating improvements such as utilities and roads and encouraging urban intensity development within the City and Urban Growth Areas. Goal 2. Leverage facilities investments to efficiently use public resources and improve quality of life. Policy CF-8 Direct growth within the community where adequate public facilities exist or can be efficiently provided when feasible. Policy CF-9 Encourage the joint use of utility corridors for open space and non -motorized pathways and trails, provided that such joint use is consistent with limitations prescribed by applicable law -and prudent utility practice. Coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions to encourage cooperative planning of future facilities, reduce redundancy, and implement multijurisdictional utility facility expansions and improvements. Policy CF-10 Explore opportunities to acquire land to serve the public and municipal purposes. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy CF-11 Consider developing multi -use facilities that can serve more than one public need. Explore opportunities for public/private partnerships and funding sources that could provide a mix of public facilities and other uses such as commercial and residential within the same development, where appropriate. Policy CF-12 Consider investing in sidewalks, trails, and other capital facilities that enhance walkability in an effort to reduce health disparities and improve well-being and quality of life. Policy CF-13 Design and locate capital facility improvements to reduce crime risks and optimize public safety through increased visibility at joint use facilities (e.g., streets, public buildings, etc.). Policy CF-14 Ensure that site selection, construction, operation, and maintenance of capital facilities is environmentally sensitive, safe and reliable, aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses, economical to consumers, and does not adversely impact marginalized communities. Goal 3. Equitably engage with the community around capital facilities planning. Policy CF-15 Provide meaningful inclusive opportunities for community involvement in the planning of capital facilities, prioritizing the inclusion of historically underrepresented populations. Policy CF-16 Coordinate with local Tribes in planning capital facilities, especially in areas with cultural significance. Policy CF-17 Encourage public awareness and consult public input when considering the need for and proposed locations of new public facilities. Goal 4. Develop and maintain adequate and convenient parks, recreation, and open space areas and facilities for all age groups to serve both the existing and future population of Port Orchard and surrounding areas. Policy CF-18 Encourage private property owners and developers to donate public trail access and parcels for park development in areas identified for future municipal parks and trail connections. Policy CF-19 Increase the size and number of parks and open spaces by providing input on development plans for public parks within Port Orchard's Urban Growth Boundary. Policy CF-20 Reevaluate the City's park impact fee at least every four years to ensure that the fee is appropriate based on the City's LOS for parks acquisition, improvement, and maintenance. Policy CF-21 Collaborate with Kitsap County to explore forming a Municipal Parks District to help fund and develop community and neighborhood scale parks throughout the city and Urban Growth Area. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy CF-22 Encourage implementation of the 2022 PROS Plan that outlines a citywide system of trails that will serve park, recreation, and open space needs. Link a system of trails between neighborhoods and parks, school sites, and other public property. Utilize public lands and existing rights -of -way for trail purposes whenever feasible. Policy CF-23 Place interpretive signs along trails to encourage community, historical, and environmental awareness, and place distance markers along the trail for walkers and runners. Policy CF-24 Create new parks in recently annexed areas and update existing parks within newly annexed portions of the City. Policy CF-25 In conjunction with partners, develop the Port Orchard Community Events Center as a recreational and civic amenities hub for Port Orchard and the South Kitsap region. Goal S. Ensure that an adequate water supply is available to support the level of population growth and land development projected within the City. Policy CF-26 Maintain water system facilities and drinking water quality in accordance with State and Federal standards to ensure the high quality of drinking water and level of service is provided to all customers while maximizing the life of facilities to protect the investment of ratepayers. Policy CF-27 Provide adequate water for high quality domestic and fire protection service within the retail service area. Policy CF-28 Utilize City -owned and operated sources of supply to maximize efficiency and cost effectiveness of the water system. Policy CF-29 Construct new facilities as required to serve the existing and future populations of the established water service area and South Kitsap Urban Growth Area. Policy CF-30 Interconnect the City's main water system with the independent facilities serving the City's 580 and 660 Pressure Zones (McCormick Woods System). This will allow for combining the two existing systems under one water system identification number. Policy CF-31 Encourage, implement, and maintain land use and water use efficiency and conservation programs to discourage water waste, promote the prudent use of water resources, and support protection of habitat and the environment. Policy CF-32 Work with neighboring water utilities, participate in regional water planning efforts to establish common goals of uniform water system standards, and facilitate coordination of efforts toward the adequate provision of water service throughout the region. Policy CF-33 Revise water service boundaries in cases where the designated water service provider cannot provide timely or reasonable service. Policy CF-34 Ensure that land uses permitted in aquifer recharge areas do not lead to contamination of water resources. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy CF-35 Encourage new developments adjacent to properties with private wells or existing septic systems to connect to the City's water system or, if not feasible, ensure that adverse impacts to existing wells or septic systems from new development is avoided or mitigated. Goal 6. Provide safe, reliable, and timely sewer service to consumers at a fair and reasonable price. Policy CF-36 Coordinate construction of sewage improvements with other utilities. The City shall require all new development to connect to public sewer and water systems, unless physically or financially infeasible. Goal 7. Ensure that all utility and transportation infrastructure expansion provides an adequate level of public service to support new development and is consistent with current land use plans and development regulations. Policy CF-37 Utilize best construction methods and practices and innovative techniques in the design and construction of utilities. Policy CF-38 Evaluate, monitor, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the construction and operation of capital facilities. Policy CF-39 Whenever possible, utility construction should be scheduled to minimize disruption of access to area residences and businesses. Policy CF-40 Schedule utility construction activities to avoid sensitive times in the lifecycle of fish and wildlife, such as spawning, nesting, and migration. Goal 8. Minimize development related impacts to existing hydrologic conditions and functions and strive to correct current deficiencies resulting from past development practices such as stormwater- related flooding. Policy CF-41 Identify areas within and adjacent to the City and its UGA which are highly sensitive to changes in hydrologic conditions and functions. Within these highly sensitive areas, establish standards that provide for near zero change in hydraulic and hydrologic function on a property, such as no net increase in the peak flow or volume of runoff or erosion products leaving a site post- development. Policy CF-42 Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) strategies for stormwater management through incentives and flexibility in application of regulatory requirements. Policy CF-43 Utilize new inventories of flood hazard -prone properties in the decision -making process to prioritize stormwater system improvements. Policy CF-44 Coordinate the basin planning process with the community planning process to address surface water runoff and flooding issues. Policy CF-45 Integrate public regional stormwater detention and retention facilities into the natural environment. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Policy CF-46 Recognize that regional facilities can provide aesthetics, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat in a community park -like or open space setting. Goal 9. Support provision of adequate, timely, and efficient fire protection and emergency medical service within the City. Policy CF-47 Coordinate with South Kitsap Fire and Rescue on planning for the location of new fire stations to ensure that they are dispersed throughout the City and located near areas of high population concentration. Policy CF-48 Encourage consolidation of duplicate services between fire districts and other entities to use resources more effectively. Goal 10. Coordinate land use and school district capital facilities planning. Policy CF-49 Recognize that schools provide a unifying social and physical amenity that are a key focus for successful neighborhoods. Encourage elementary schools to be located in or near neighborhood centers and middle schools, junior high schools and senior high schools to be located near community centers, including the McCormick Village Center. Policy CF-50 Support the South Kitsap School District School Board in maintaining and funding individual school levels of service as adopted and encourage proactive coordination around growth trends to support the district's demand forecasting (e.g. sharing permitting application data), in accordance with the City's intent to provide adequate school facilities for the community. Policy CF-51 Coordinate with the South Kitsap School District to develop strategies to ensure that students are not forced to attend a school outside their neighborhood. Policy CF-52 Review annual reports and update school impact fees as needed. Policy CF-53 Explore opportunities to develop joint use facilities with the South Kitsap School District, such as recreational and community center facilities. Develop neighborhood parks adjacent to school sites whenever possible to promote facility sharing. Facilities on the neighborhood park site should supplement uses that the school does not provide such as trails, open space, picnic areas, playground equipment, and multi -purpose paved sport courts. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 9.7 Capital Facilities This section addresses capital facilities in the following four categories: 1. Administration and Community Facilities 2. Public Safety Facilities 3. Public Works Facilities 4. Parks Facilities Each section contains a capital facilities inventory, summarizes key context and issues, recommends improvements, and proposes projects for the next six -year planning period, with estimated costs and potential funding sources. 9.7.1 Administration and Community Facilities This section first covers the facilities supporting City administration and the overall community. It also briefly covers the Fire Protection and Schools, community facilities that are owned and maintained by partner agencies. Inventory City Hall (includes Police Station & Municipal Court) LocationFacility 216 Prospect St . 28,370 720 Prospect Street Facility (DCD) 720 Prospect St 2,925 Library 87 Sidney Ave 8,586 730 Prospect Street Facility (Kitsap County Prosecutor) 730 Prospect St 8,028 Employee Parking Lot (Gravel) 213 & 215 Prospect Street 6,500 Existing Conditions City Hall City Hall has served as the primary municipal building for Port Orchard's administrative functions since it was built in 1999. The building is approximately 28,370 square feet with three stories and a partial fourth floor. The first floor is occupied by the Police Department and the second floor by the Mayor's Office, City Clerk, Public Works Administration, and Finance. The City Council Chambers and Municipal Court are located on the third floor. Public Works operations staff are located in the Public Works Shop. Refer to Public Works Facilities and Public Safety Facilities sections for more information. City Hall is in good condition for its age and was renovated in 2024 to address needed repairs, security, and ADA accessibility, and improve the first floor. Condition and improvement information for the first floor is discussed in the Public Safety Facilities section. Even with these Figure 9-1. City Hall Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 improvements, functional issues remain, including security concerns, challenging wayfinding, and limited parking. There is also not enough work and support space; for example, breakrooms have been repurposed as workspace and the Community Development Department was relocated due to space limitations. Municipal Court is rightsized to accommodate future growth. Planning for City Hall should consider the space needed to accommodate future growth and the operational efficiency gained by co -locating all departments. In response to a need for a new community event center and aligned with Policy CF-25, the City is in the process of designing the new Port Orchard Community Event Center. This new facility would have rentable event space for community programming. Designs also include space for the library to relocate. The City's Council Chambers could also be relocated if supported by leadership, which would free up space for use in City Hall. See the Library section below for more information on existing conditions and needs. 720 Prospect Street Facility The Department of Community Development (DCD) is in two facilities, one located adjacent to City Hall at 720 Prospect Street with Building, Code Enforcement, and Parking Enforcement functions (as well as the City's IT department), and one at 600 Kitsap Street with Planning functions. The Kitsap Street facility is leased. The Prospect Street facility is undersized for current and future operations and in fair condition, requiring maintenance to address age -related needs such as upgrades to the HVAC system. The division of staff between two buildings and separation from City Hall creates communication and operational inefficiencies. There is limited parking and City vehicles are parked at City Hall. The public interface also requires patrons to go between the Prospect Street facility and City Hall to complete applications. For pedestrians passing between these two buildings, there are no crosswalks and limited ADA compliance. A downtown government campus master plan is needed to plan the long-term use of this site. Library Built in 1960, the City -owned library building houses the local branch of the Kitsap Public Library. The building is nearing the end of its useful life, is costly to maintain, and requires upgrades or relocation of the library functions. A 2020 site selection process identified a site for the new library and community events center. 730 Prospect Street Facility In 2024, the City purchased the building located at 730 Prospect Street that includes 20 surface parking spaces and houses the Kitsap County Prosecutor Family Support Division. The Kitsap County Prosecutor plans to relocate to the new County Courthouse Campus in the long term, and this building can be repurposed to support the City's staffing and employee parking needs as it grows. A downtown government campus master plan is needed to plan for the long-term use of this site. Figure 9-2. Kitsap Regional Library's Port Orchard branch Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Future Needs As Port Orchard's population has grown, City staffing has increased to maintain service standards and meet basic functional requirements. The following investments are needed: • In accordance with Policy CF-14, perform required maintenance at all administrative and community facilities. Consider conducting a facilities condition assessment to document current conditions and near- and long-term maintenance needs for all capital facilities. Develop a downtown government campus master plan to plan for the long-term use of the City's downtown offices and property. • Invest in the following near -term projects: o Improve wayfinding at City Hall by installing a centralized reception kiosk and improved signage. o Increase security by adding lighting and safety features around exits and limiting publicly accessible areas. o Aligned with Policy CF-10, consider paving gravel lots, acquiring property, or constructing structured parking to increase available staff and public parking. Provide ADA-accessible parking near public entrances. The block that includes 640 Bay Street should be considered for this purpose, consistent with the Downtown Subarea Plan. o As space becomes available, add staff work and support space, including workstations, break rooms, and a lactation room. • As part of a citywide facilities plan, estimate future staff and operational space needs to guide near -term improvements and property acquisition as well as longer term investments. Encourage public awareness and input as stated in Policies CF-15 and CF-17. Endeavor to accommodate future needs, consolidate staff to improve operational efficiency, address accessibility, and other functional challenges. Aligned with Policy CF-11, consider developing multi -use facilities and partnering opportunities to meet public need. Consider Police Department needs and coordinate with plans; see the Public Safety Facilities section. • As the City designs the Port Orchard Community Event Center, consider relocating the Council Chambers as an interim or long-term solution to free up space at City Hall and improve security. Relocate the library to the event center and determine the best use for the current property. Priority Investments Maintaining and strategically planning for Administration and Community capital facilities are the priorities for the next six years. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Funding Project City Source Grant Unfunded 6-Year Total City Hall Renovations 11,300,000 11,300,000 Facility Condition Assessment 100,000 100,000 730 Prospect Street 2,000,000 2,000,000 Citywide Facilities Plan 200,000 200,000 Downtown Government Campus Master Plan 100,000 100,000 Acquire Property for Government Campus 500,000 500,000 Downtown Parking Structure (including property acquisition) 2,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL 13,300,000 2,900,000 16,200,000 Expenditures Prior Years 2024-2030 Expenditures Total City Hall Renovations 3,577,775 7,722,225 11,300,000 Facility Condition Assessment 100,000 100,000 730 Prospect Street 2,000,000 2,000,000 Citywide Facilities Plan 200,000 200,000 Downtown Government Campus Master Plan 100,000 100,000 Acquire Property for Government Campus 500,000 500,000 Downtown Parking Structure (including property acquisition) 2,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL 3,577,775 12,622,225 16,200,000 9.7.2 Fire and Schools Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Fire Protection The City of Port Orchard formerly maintained its own Municipal Fire Department. In 1998, that department was merged with Kitsap County Fire District 7, which served the greater South Kitsap area. In 2005, Kitsap County Fire District 7 was renamed South Kitsap Fire and Rescue to better represent the communities it serves. There are currently two staffed fire stations located within the City of Port Orchard: Station 17, located at 7990 McCormick Woods Drive SW, and Station 31, at 200 Tremont Street. Figure 9-3. Tremont Fire Station More information on Fire Protection levels of service can be found in South Kitsap Fire and Rescue's Strategic Positioning Plan 2021-2023. Schools The South Kitsap School District provides public education to Kindergarten through 121" Grade for the residents of Port Orchard and the South Kitsap area. It serves 9,112 students. The facilities include ten elementary (K-5) schools, three middle schools Figure 9-4. Aerial view of South Kitsap High School (6-8) schools, one high school, one alternative high school, and an academy that encourages family involvement. One elementary school, Sidney Glen, is located within Port Orchard City limits, as is one middle school (Cedar Heights), and South Kitsap High School and Explorer Academy. The School District owns property at the northwest corner of Old Clifton Road and Feigley Road in the McCormick Village Center that was acquired for future school facilities. The site is large enough to accommodate two schools, including a second high school and a middle or elementary school. The South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan can provide more information on the facilities and plans to improve them. It is adopted by reference as a part of this document. Inventory Facility Location Size City Hall Police Station 216 Prospect St 5,500 SF Police Shooting Range & Storage 1278 Lloyd Parkway 113.2 acres Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 In addition to the facilities above, Fire Station #7 operates as the operations center in case of an emergency. This facility is owned by the City and leased and operated by South Kitsap Fire and Rescue. Existing Conditions City Hall The Police Department occupies 5,500 square feet of the first floor of City Hall. While 2024 renovations will maximize space use and improve some operations, they will not address many critical needs or add space to accommodate long-term growth. To alleviate the severely limited space in the near term, some staff are located in a secure off -site leased space. Like the administrative department, most support space has been converted to offices or workspace. Storage space is also inadequate; many areas have been repurposed as storage, such as the sallyport. Police officers have take-home vehicles, but there is no secured parking area for staff vehicles and inadequate parking for department meetings. Figure 9-5. Police offices on ground floor of City Hall +` A In addition to City Hall, the Police rent a 3,000 square foot warehouse for tactical training and storage. This facility is also used to process vehicles for evidence prior to moving them to long-term storage. Police Shooting Range & Storage The police shooting range provides a safe location for officers to train and practice using firearms. The range is aging, in poor condition, and in need of maintenance investments, including lane resurfacing and roof replacement. There is a Conex box on -site that offers limited storage, but the site lacks bathroom facilities. There is also concern the outdoor range may cause increased noise disturbance as the surrounding residential areas grow. Long-term storage is located in a fenced area on the same parcel adjacent to the Public Works Operations Yard. Figure 9-6. Shooting range Future Needs The Police department has grown a lot in recent years and expects to increase staff aligned with the City's population growth. Many Public Safety facilities are aging with most not sized to accommodate current staff or future growth. Continued operations to meet Port Orchard's needs rely on the following steps: Review operations and establish level of service standards, where appropriate to assess current and future needs. The plan should consider workload, geography, and Port Orchard community Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 needs. Once current and future staffing goals are in place, space needs can be assessed in accordance with Policy CF-13, to determine the facility space needed to support the Police department into the future. • Incorporate plans to construct a Public Safety facility to accommodate future staff and operations into the citywide facilities plan. Provide secure fleet parking, co -locate large vehicle evidence storage, and determine the future use of the long-term evidence storage property. If possible, include tactical training space and an indoor shooting range. Consider building in a central location free from natural hazards. Purchase property when feasible or use existing City property for a new facility as outlined in Policies CF-6 and CF-14. Encourage public awareness and input as stated in Policies CF-15 and CF-17. • If unable to include in a new Public Safety facility, modernize the existing range by covering and resurfacing lanes and upgrading parking; install sanitation, water, and electric utilities; and add secure storage, classroom space, and a firearm cleaning station. Priority Investments Funding and expenditures for the needs assessment, facilities plan, and Police Station renovations are included with financing for City Hall renovations; refer to the Priority Investments chart in the Administration and Community Facilities section. There are no other major investments budgeted for Public Safety in the six -year planning period. 9.7.3 Public Works Facilities The City of Port Orchard and the Public Works Department owns, operates, and maintains infrastructure to provide drinking water, sewer, stormwater, and surface water services to its residents and businesses. Investment in this infrastructure is necessary for continued delivery of utility services that are critical for human health and safety, economic development, as well as supporting a sustainable, healthy environment. Capital facility investments help to ensure that the City can continue to deliver the high -quality municipal utility services customers expect. This section first covers the general facilities supporting staff and then briefly covers the individual utilities. See the Utilities Element or individual functional plans for more detailed utility information. Inventory Facility Address Size (acres) Public Works Shop 1535 Vivian Court 1.82 South Shed Storage 2051 Sidney Ave 3.77 Operations Yard 1278 Lloyd Parkway 14.46 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Existing Conditions Public Works Shop The Public Works Shop houses Public Works operations crews and the City's maintenance vehicles and equipment. The main building is in fair condition and provides space for crew support, shops, and storage. Materials storage is severely limited, often forcing crews to obtain supplies from local vendors. Transportation signage is purchased as needed as the existing shop space does not include an area for sign fabrication. Limited crew space is unable to support growth in staff and operations. Figure 9-7. Public Works Shop Staff and fleet parking space is limited and unable to accommodate growth. There are also two adjacent structures providing covered parking for fleet and equipment. Fleet requiring heated parking can be stored in the main building's shop space as well as in one bay at the South Shed. The rest of the site is significantly undersized with limited yard material storage and no room for expansion. The facility is located on the west side of Highway 16, making it well located near the McCormick Woods development, but separated from a large portion of the City, staff, and facilities, including City Hall. This location may provide operational challenges in the event of a natural hazard. South Shed The South Shed Facility is located on a 3.77-acre site located at 2035 Sidney Avenue with 2,000 square feet of warehouse for material and equipment storage. Most of the land at this location is utilized as a park. Originally a fire station, the South Shed was repurposed for Public Works storage in addition to seasonally providing heated parking for equipment such as sweeper and vactor trucks. This aging facility is in poor condition but could be rehabilitated to provide staff workspace and storage. Expanding outdoor storage will require the relocation of parks amenities, access, and parking. Operations Yard Figure 9-8. South Shed The Operations Yard is located near the Shop and contains a decant facility and materials laydown storage. The decant is in good condition but is at capacity as it is used as a regional facility. Spoils frequently do not have adequate time to dewater, requiring the City to add wicking materials that increase weight and cost Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 when taken to the Kitsap transfer station. The site has limited materials storage but is large enough to accommodate additional crew space and materials bins. Future Needs Public Works is anticipating an estimated staffing increase in the next ten years, growing from 25 to 32-40 or more staff to meet the needs of the rapidly growing community. The City will need to expand Public Work facilities to accommodate needed staff and equipment. Major needs for this planning period as identified by Public Works leadership include: • In accordance with Policy CF-14, perform required maintenance at all public works facilities. Conduct a facilities condition assessment to understand the current conditions and near- and long- term maintenance needs for Public Works and other capital facilities. • In accordance with Policy CF-1, conduct a citywide facilities plan to review current and future level of service standards, add staff where needed, and increase operational space to accommodate current and future staff and operations. • Provide a new public works annex at the industrial center public works yard to house operations utility staff. The proposed facility should include crew support space (offices, bathroom, showers, etc.); a heated warehousing for plumbing, electrical, and other materials storage; employee parking; heated and covered storage bays for equipment and materials; and expanded yard areas for laydown and materials storage. • Upgrade the existing Public Works Shop facility to better utilize vertical storage. • Upgrade the decant facility to increase capacity and add a new composting facility. • Provide a new Operations East satellite streets facility west of SR16, preferably near the intersection of Bethel and Lund, and include a crew room and restroom facilities, heated bays for snowplow equipment, and material storage yard. • Upgrade the south shed facility to provide additional storage and work space. Priority Investments Financial information to support the facility condition assessment and citywide facilities plan can be found in the Administration and Community Facilities section. Investments for the next six years have not been Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 identified for the general Public Works capital facilities. Please see the Utilities section below for priority infrastructure investments. Funding Source Project City Unfunded 6-Year Total Public Works Annex 5,000,000 5,000,000 Decant Facilities and Yard Improvements 1,750,000 1,750,000 PW Operations East Station (Property Acquisition) 5,000,000 5,000,000 PW South Shed Upgrades 2,400,000 2,400,000 TOTAL 14,150,000 14,150,000 Expenditures Prior -Total Public Works Annex 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 Decant Facilities and Yard Improvements 0 1,750,000 1,750,000 PW Operations East Station (Property Acquisition) 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 PW South Shed Upgrades 0 2,400,000 2,400,000 TOTAL $0 $14,150,000 $14,150,000 9.7.4 Utilities and Transportation Port Orchard's Public Works Department operates and maintains the City's utilities and transportation systems. Some of Port Orchard's capital facilities are aging or inadequate for current service needs and will require repairs and replacement over the next 20 years. The costs of replacing utility infrastructure and roads are substantial and take years for planning and implementation. The City is working to address substandard infrastructure and comply with changing state and federal mandates governing capital facilities. In accordance with Goal 1, the City should ensure that all utility infrastructure expansion provides an adequate level of public service to support new development consistent with the City's policies, criteria, and standards. In addition, utility expansion should also be consistent with current land use plans and development regulations of the State of Washington, Kitsap County, and appropriate local planning agencies. The following sections list priority projects for Transportation, Stormwater, Sewer, and Water between 2025-2030. More information on these facilities is provided in the Transportation and Utilities Elements as well as the individual functional plans. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Transportation Port Orchard is responsible for City roads and other aspects of the City's transportation system. Details on all City transportation systems can be found in the Transportation Element as well as the Transportation Improvement Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Funding Source City E=Grant Unfunded Annual Street Preservation 61800,000 6,800,000 Projects Citywide Street Lighting 210,000 1,100,000 1,310,000 Bay Street Pedestrian 6,675,000 2,000,000 8,675,000 Pathway Segments 6-11 Bethel Phase 1 11,808,000 3,000,000 14,808,000 Bethel Phase 4a: Lund RAB 101,250 648,750 300,000 1,050,000 Bethel Phase 4b; Vallair Ct 1,000,000 1,000,000 Connector Bethel Phase 5a: Bethel/Lincoln/Mitchel 3,006,507 2,485,493 5,492,000 RABs Old Clifton Non -Motorized 600,000 2,700,000 3,300,000 Improvements Old Clifton/Anderson Hill Intersection Improvements 2,300,000 2,300,000 Pottery Ave Non -Motorized 837,183 644,000 1,481,183 Improvements Sedgwick Rd W Study 300,000 300,000 Sidney Rd Non -Motorized 1,005,000 1,395,000 2,400,000 SR 160/Sedgwick Phase 2a 550,000 695,000 1,245,000 SR 166/Bay St Reconstruction 3,532,000 3,000,000 1,746,000 8,278,000 SR166/Port Orchard Blvd Intersection Improvements 2,100,000 2,100,000 Tremont Phase 2 & 3 732,000 4,125,000 4,857,000 TOTAL 37,424,940 13,005,243 14,966,000 65,396,183 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Expenditures Project Annual Street Preservation Projects Prior Years N/A 2024-2030 Expenditures m�� 6,800,000 Total 6,800,000 Citywide Street Lighting N/A 1,310,000I 1,310,000 Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway Segments 6-11 3,900,000 4,775,000 8,675,000 Bethel Phase 1 368,120 14,439,880 14,808,000 Bethel Phase 4a; Lund Int 1,050,000 1,050,000 Bethel Phase 4b; Vallair Ct Intersection and Connector 1,000,000 1,000,000 Bethel Phase Sa: Bethel/Lincoln/Mitchel RABs 1,500,000 3,992,000 5,492,000 Old Clifton Non -Motorized Improvements 150,000 3,150,000 3,300,000 Old Clifton/Anderson Hill Intersection Improvements 151,000 2,149,000 2,300,000 Pottery Ave Non -Motorized Improvements 185,000 1,296,183 1,481,183 Sedgwick Rd W Study 300,000 300,000 Sidney Rd Non -Motorized 2,400,000 2,400,000 SR 160/Sedgwick Phase 2a 1,245,000 1,245,000 SR 166/Bay St Reconstruction 200,000 8,078,000 8,278,000 SR166/Port Orchard Blvd Intersection Improvements 2,100,000 2,100,000 Tremont Phase 2 & 3 4,857,000 4,857,000 TOTALI 6,454,120M58,942,063 65,396,183 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Stormwater Port Orchard owns, maintains, and manages its stormwater collection system. Goal 8 states the City should minimize development related impacts to existing hydrologic conditions and functions and strive to correct current deficiencies resulting from past development practices such as stormwater-related flooding. Details on the City's stormwater system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Funding Sources Project City Johnson Creek Estuary Unfunded 6-Year Total Restoration 4,171,550 2,828,450 7,000,000 Annual Stormwater Preservation 600,000 600,000 Sidney Regional Storm 563,492 3,479,841 4,043,333 Sidney Rd. SW Fish Pass Culvert 3,300,000 3,300,000 Sedgwick Balancing Culvert 600,000 600,000 Pottery Non -Motorized Improvements 80,000 80,000 Annapolis Creek Culvert 43,333 4,000,000 4,043,333 Downtown Retrofit 21860,000 1,350,000 Bay Street Stormwater Improvements 600,000 600,000 TOTAL 1,286,825 4,171,550 17,668,291 23,126,666 Expenditures Project Johnson Creek Estuary Restoration* 7,000,000 7,000,000 Annual Stormwater Preservation N/A 600,000 600,000 Sidney Regional Storm 563,492 3,479,841 4,032,333 Sidney Rd. SW Fish Pass Culvert 3,300,000 3,300,000 Sedgwick Balancing Culvert 600,000 600,000 Pottery Non -Motorized Improvements 80,000 80,000 Annapolis Creek Culvert 43,333 4,000,000 4,043,333 Downtown Retrofit 2,860,000 2,860,000 Bay Street Stormwater Improvements 600,000 600,000 TOTAL 606,825 22,519,841 AL 23,126,666 *WSDOT Lead Agency Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Sewer The City is tasked to provide safe, reliable, and timely sewer service to consumers at a fair and reasonable price, as seen in Goal 6. Port Orchard owns, operates, and maintains existing wastewater collection and conveyance facilities. As of 2016, the City's sewer service area was approximately 2,100 acres and was expected to grow to 5,700 acres. Details on the City's sewer system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2016 General Sewer Plan Update. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Funding Source City/DeveloperProject .. Annual Sewer Preservation 300,000 400,000 700,000 Marina Lift Station 3,300,000 13,000,000 16,300,000 Bay Street LS Cap Upgrades 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Lift Station Controls (6) & Generator (1) 25,000 800,000 825,000 Johnson Creek Sewer Lift Station 1,000,000 (WSDOT) 1,000,000 Sidney 2"d Force Main (Pottery Section) 731,000 731,000 Sidney 2nd Force Main (Ruby Creek to Pottery) 1,231,838 1,231,838 McCormick Lift Station #3 (Developer Funded) 1,000,000 (D) 1,000,000 Sidney South Lift Station Design 800,000 (D) 800,000 TOTAL 7,387,838 14,800,000 1,400,000 23,587,838 Expenditures PriorProject - Total Annual Sewer Preservation 700,000 700,000 Marina Lift Station 3,100,000 13,200,000 16,300,000 Bay Street LS Cap Upgrades 2,000,000 2,000,000 Lift Station Controls (6) & Generator (1) 125,000 700,000 825,000 Johnson Creek Sewer Lift Station 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 Sidney 2nd Force Main (Pottery Section) 0 731,000 731,000 Sidney 2nd Force Main (Ruby Creek to Pottery) 0 1,231,838 1,231,838 McCormick Lift Station #3 (GFF Credit) 0 1,000,000 $1,000,000 Sidney South Lift Station Design 0 800,000 $800,000 TOTAL 3, 00 21,362,838 24,587,838 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Water Port Orchard Public Works Department maintains and manages the City's water system. With two systems serving the City (City System) and McCormick Woods (McCormick Woods System), Port Orchard serves over 4,000 connections. Goal 5 and its related policies state the City will ensure that an adequate water supply is available to support the level of population growth and land development projected within the City. Details on the City's water system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2020 Water System Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Funding Source Old Clifton Transmission Main (Reservoir to McCormick Woods Drive) City/Developer.. 40,000 1,000,000 1,040,000 Annual Water Preservation 300,000 400,000 700,000 Well #13 600,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 11,600,000 Well #12 7,000,000 (D) 7,000,000 Well #11 (#3) 465,000 8,500,000 8,965,000 Melcher PS Rebuild (#10) 750,000 500,000 1,250,000 Well #7 500,000 1,015,000 1,515,000 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station 750,000 (D) 750,000 390-580 Booster Pump (Glenwood) 725,000 725,000 390-580 Transmission Main (Glenwood) 515,624 (D) 515,624 660 Zone Storage (CFC Credit) 2,850,000 (D) 2,850,000 Foster Mitigation 7,200,000 7,200,000 390-580 Intertie and booster (Old Clifton) 5,000,000 5,000,000 TOTAL 13,995,624 16,000,000 19,115,000 49,110,624 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Expenditures Project Prior Years -,,----S-024-2030 Expenditures Total Old Clifton Transmission Main (Reservoir to McCormick Woods Drive) 11040,000 1,040,000 Annual Water Preservation N/A 700,000 700,000 Well #13 6,100,000 5,500,000 11,600,000 Well #12 (CFC Credit) 7,000,000 7,000,000 Well #11(#3) 2,100,000 6,865,000 8,965,000 Melcher PS Rebuild (#10) 114,000 11136,000 1,250,000 Well #7 1,515,000 1,515,000 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station (CFC Credit) 750,000 750,000 390-580 Booster Pump 725,000 (Glenwood) (CFC Credit) 725,000 390-580 Transmission Main (CFC Credit) (Glenwood) 515,624 515,624 660 Zone Storage (CFC Credit) 2,850,000 2, 850,000 Foster Mitigation 7,200,000 7,200,000 390-580 Intertie (Old Clifton) 5,000,000 5,000,000 TOTAL 8,314,000 39,281,624 49,110,624 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 9.7.5 Parks Facilities The Parks Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan, supplemented by the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, outlines the goals, expectations, and community vision for the City's Parks. This section draws from those plans with a concentration on capital facilities. Inventory Port Orchard owns 89.7 acres of parkland, with a ratio of approximately six acres per every 1,000 residents. This includes conservancies, resource parks, trails, athletic parks, community centers, special use facilities, and support facilities. Parks capital facilities that include structures are listed below; refer to the PROS Plan for a full inventory of parks. Facility Blackjack Creek Multi -Modal Bridge Address 1301 Area Bay St Site Size (acres) Boat Ramp -Launch 533 Bay St 0.82 Central Park (Clayton Park/Dwight Park) 915 Dwight 1.4 Dekalb Pier 467 Bay St 4.1 Etta Turner Park/Blackjack Creek Park 1301 Arena Bay Street 0.16 Givens Field/Active Club 1025 Tacoma Ave 0.6 Marina And Observation Deck 707 Sidney Pkwy McCormick Village Park 3201 SW Old Clifton Rd 28.6 Van Zee Park 300 Tremont St 8.3 Existing Conditions According to the PROS Plan, the City has adequate outdoor park and recreational facilities to serve the population during the 20-year planning horizon; however, playground, picnic, sports court, and field sites are not evenly distributed within a 5- or 10-minute walk of all residential areas, creating a need for more neighborhood parks. There are also deficits in indoor recreation facilities, community gardens, and multipurpose trails. Additional information on the City's parks and more detailed planning strategies can be found in the City's PROS Plan and in the Parks Element of this Comprehensive Plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Future Needs The City is committed to providing parks that are safe and well -maintained, enhance residential neighborhoods, encourage shoreline access, and activate downtown areas. Considering existing level -of -service for Port Orchard owned parks, the City's projected population growth will create a need for an additional 61.4 acres of land and 15,661 facility units (square feet of courts, fields, etc.) by the year 2040, requiring an estimated expenditure of $32,326,076. This does not account for any maintenance, operation, or repair costs. See the PROS Plan for more information on existing -level -of - service standards. The PROS plan highlights the following investments that update and expand existing park facilities. • In accordance with Policy CF-14, perform required maintenance at all parks and recreation facilities. Conduct a facilities condition assessment to understand the current conditions and near - and long-term maintenance needs for all capital facilities. • As part of a citywide facilities plan, develop a space needs analysis to determine and justify staff growth and investments needed to achieve the Parks goals. Aligned with Policy CF-11, consider developing multi -use facilities and partnering opportunities to meet public need. • Continue plans to design and construct the Port Orchard Community Event Center. The center will be located at 619 Bay Street on the downtown waterfront and include 7,600-8,600 square feet of event space and meeting facilities, as well as a 7,000-9,500 square foot library facility with outdoor decks and an activities area. Consider also relocating the Council Chambers to consolidate community functions. • In accordance with Goal 4, perform required maintenance at all parks facilities. • Protect existing open space and conservancies and acquire and develop parks and trail systems. • Designate and conserve cultural and historic resources located within park properties; seek joint funding partnerships with local jurisdictions to create wayfinding and educational signage, artworks, streetscapes, and gateways. • Develop a master plan for Givens Park and assess condition, repurposing, or removal of the Active Club. • Develop a master plan for expanding Etta Turner Park to the west side of Blackjack Creek. Install lighting on the bridge and enhance Blackjack Creek. • Develop master plans for Ruby Creek Regional Park and Sherman Ave Stormwater Park. • Create and strengthen regional partnerships to enable the City and its partners to provide greater facilities and opportunities than would be possible alone. • Acquire property for future park use in areas of need as identified in the Parks Plan, with an emphasis on the Bethel/Lund and Bethel/Sedgwick Centers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Priority Investments Details on current and planned investments in the next 20 years can be found in the PROS Plan. Financial information to support the facility condition assessment and citywide facilities plan can be found in the Administration and Community Facilities section. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Funding Source Port Orchard Community ity Impact.. Fee Credit Fees Grant Grant Unfunded Total Event Center 927,430 283,900 18,729,963 6,500,000 1,658,707 28,100,000 Waterfront Plaza Shoreline Restoration/Enhancement 278,920 352,300 500,000 1,376,780 2,508,000 Orchard St Plaza 792,000 500,000 3,008,000 4,300,000 Givens Park Sport Court Remodel 253,600 176,400 55,000 485,000 McCormick Village Park Phase 3 1,250,000 1,250,000 Telford Way Multimodal Pathway 979,012 979,012 McCormick Village Dr Multimodal Pathway 1,468,518 1,468,518 Sherman Ave Stormwater Park 300,000 1,861,039 2,161,039 Paul Powers Park Master Plan and Redevelopment 500,000 500,000 Givens Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 Ruby Creek Regional Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 TOTAL 1,759,950 3,697,530 1,428,200 19,406,363 7,055,000 8,704,526 42,051,569 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 6-Year Expenditures Project Prior Years W2024-2030 Expenditures Port Orchard Community Event Center 4,064,132 24,035,868 $28,100,000 Waterfront Plaza Shoreline Restoration/Enhancement 360,194 2,147,806 2,508,000 Orchard St Plaza 78,822 4,221,178 4,300,000 Givens Park Sport Court Remodel 485,000 $485,000 McCormick Village Park Phase 3 (Impact Fee Credit) 1,250,000 1,250,000 Telford Way Multimodal Pathway (Impact Fee Credit) 979,012 979,012 McCormick Village Dr Multimodal Pathway (Impact Fee Credit) 1,468,518 1,468,518 Sherman Ave Stormwater Park 300,000 1,861,039 2,161,039 Paul Powers Park Master Plan and Redevelopment 500,000 500,000 Givens Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 Ruby Creek Regional Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 TOTAL 4,803,148 37,248,421 42,051,569 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change Chapter 10. Climate Change 10.1 Introduction The City of Port Orchard is likely to face challenges due to climate change over the next twenty years, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and ecological shifts that will directly affect the City's existing businesses, residents and the environment. This chapter will begin the important process of planning for climate change in the City of Port Orchard, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the City's resilience to the impacts of climate change. Climate Change Vision Port Orchard is an environmentally resilient community, actively participating in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with Washington State'sgoal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Vision 2050 provides a roadmap for managing growth, transportation, and economic development across our region. By 2050, the Puget Sound region population is projected to reach 5.8 million people.' Vision 2050 plays an important role in addressing climate change as the region grows by emphasizing clean energy, sustainable transportation, and resilient communities. The document serves as a guide for local jurisdictions, including Port Orchard, to prepare for growth while preserving the environment and promoting equity. In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1181, enhancing the state's response to climate change. This legislation amends the Growth Management Act (GMA), requiring cities and counties fully planning under the GMA to incorporate a dedicated climate element into their comprehensive plan. Within this element, two sub -elements must be addressed: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions • The City of Port Orchard commits to ambitious goals for reducing emissions, promoting cleaner energy sources, and minimizing our carbon footprint, consistent with Washington State's GHG goal of net zero emissions by 2050. • The City seeks to explore innovative strategies to encourage sustainable transportation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy adoption. Climate Resiliency Planning: • The City of Port Orchard recognizes the inevitability of climate impacts and prioritizes resilience. This chapter will outline strategies to enhance community preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. • The City aims to protect vulnerable populations, critical infrastructure, and natural systems from climate -related disruptions. During the course of 2024, this chapter will be a living document and will be updated as the City's planning efforts progress. The development of a climate change element is anticipated to take approximately one year of study and should incorporate input from stakeholders and the public. To fully understand the impacts of climate change, the City must also have a baseline of current greenhouse gas emissions and other climate change indicators. Some of this information is currently available through ' Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's (UW CIG) Climate Mapping for a Resilient Washington (CMRW) webtool'. The City is awaiting baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Department of Commerce for Kitsap County, which will then need to be disaggregated down to the City level for Port Orchard. The City will also be seeking grants from the Department of Commerce to complete this work. This chapter should be read as a first draft of the City's Climate Change element, with the expectation that future study and planning work will be completed in the future as funding is available. 10.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions HB 1181 identifies three minimum requirements' that the GHG emissions reduction sub -element of this chapter must address. These requirements can be met through the adoption of goals and policies that identify actions to meet these requirements. Requirement 1: Result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions generated by transportation and land use within the City but without increasing emissions elsewhere in Washington. • Requirement 2: Result in reductions per capita vehicle miles traveled within the City but without increasing greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in Washington. Requirement 3: Prioritize reductions that benefit overburdened communities in order to maximize the co -benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice. The Department of Commerce in its Intermediate Planning Guidance' has outlined three pathways that the City may take to set emissions -reduction targets and goals and policies to achieve those targets. The City of Port Orchard has elected to pursue Pathway 3, which the Department of Commerce has recommended for jurisdictions that are required to create a GHG reduction sub -element. Pathway 3 requires the City of Port Orchard to utilize the GHG emissions inventory provided by the Department of Commerce to set mitigation goals and policies to satisfy the minimum requirements. The City is required to adopt goals and policies from the transportation, buildings and energy, and zoning and development sectors of the Menu of Measures provided by the Department of Commerce' that support achieving net -zero emissions by 2050. The City may also adopt goals and policies from the other sectors of the Menu of Measures based on the emission inventory. 10.3 Climate Resilience HB 1181' identifies three minimum requirements that the climate resilience sub -element of this chapter must address. These requirements can be met through the adoption of goals and policies that identify actions to meet these requirements. Requirement 1: Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. z https://cig-wa-climate.nkn.uidaho.edu/ 3 RCW 36.70A.070(9)(e)(i) ' Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023 5 Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023, Appendix L 6 RCW 37.70A.070(9)(d)(i)(A-C) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change • Requirement 2: Identify, protect and enhance natural areas to foster climate resilience, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe species migration. Requirement 3: Identify, protect, and enhance community resilience to climate impacts, including social, economic, and built -environment factors, which support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. The Department of Commerce in its Intermediate Planning Guidance' has outlined 11 sectors of climate resiliency that the City's Comprehensive Plan should address, with potential climate -related impacts. Not all these sectors or climate -related impacts will affect Port Orchard, and at the time of the development of this chapter, the City is currently beginning the process of studying the impacts of climate change and assessing vulnerability and risk to the City's community assets (social, economic and environmental assets). Once complete, the City will explore how changes in the climate could exacerbate natural hazards and impact these assets and develop goals and policies to address these impacts. In 2020, Kitsap County, in coordination with the City of Port Orchard, prepared the Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment$. This assessment provides a comprehensive understanding of climate impacts and risks specific to the City. The Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment highlights several specific risks that the City faces due to climate change: Sea Level Rise As global temperatures increase, sea levels are rising. This poses a 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 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. Extreme Heat Events More frequent and intense heatwaves are expected. Extreme heat impacts public health, especially vulnerable populations. It strains energy systems, increases wildfire risk, and affects outdoor activities. Ocean Acidification Acidification of marine waters due to increased carbon dioxide absorption harms shellfish, fish, and other marine life. Healthy marine ecosystems play an important role in the City's economy, ecosystems, and are critical to the cultural practices and way of life of the Suquamish Tribe who have inhabited South Kitsap County for thousands of years. Changing Precipitation Patterns Altered rainfall patterns affect water availability, agriculture, and stormwater management. Increased precipitation intensity leads to flooding, landslides, and soil erosion. The City may expect to see impacts to public infrastructure as a result of increased flooding, including disruption of transportation routes and damage to ferry terminals, as well as damage to stormwater and wastewater infrastructure from flood inundation and saltwater intrusion. Health Impacts Climate change exacerbates respiratory illnesses, heat -related illnesses, and mental health issues. ' Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023 8 Kitsap County Climate Resiliency Assessment, 2020 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change Vulnerable populations, including the elderly and low-income communities, are at higher risk. More frequent heat waves may result in increased deaths and will require the investment in cooling centers and/or public subsidies for low income households to install air-conditioning. Increased need for air conditioning will also have an adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions in the City. Habitat Disruption Changing ecosystems affect wildlife migration, breeding patterns, and food availability. Protecting habitats is critical for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Warmer stream temperatures and lower summer flows will affect fish species that use these habitats. New invasive species and diseases could also emerge due to changes in the climate. Economic Disruptions Climate impacts can disrupt local businesses, tourism, and agriculture. Planning for economic resilience is vital. The City has a large workforce employed in construction. Outdoor laborers are especially vulnerable to extreme heat events and are likely to experience lost labor hours due to extreme heat and poor air quality. Sea level rise and increased flooding may also affect property values within coastal areas or floodplains. Water Resources Challenges The City provides drinking water within the City supplied by six active wells and from additional planned wells. Altered hydrology due to climate change will affect water supply, groundwater recharge, and streamflow. Balancing water needs for residents, agriculture, and ecosystems is a priority. Resiliency planning will address these risks, ensuring Port Orchard remains adaptable and prepared for a changing climate. 10.4 Baseline Conditions Effective decision -making requires understanding baseline conditions, including greenhouse gas emissions and climate resiliency indicators. This information will serve as a benchmark to measure the effectiveness of any strategies or initiatives implemented towards achieving these goals. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Emissions (2022) The baseline for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represents the starting point against which we measure progress. It encompasses historical emissions data, including those from energy production, transportation, industry, and land use changes. The Department of Commerce is creating emissions inventories for the 11 counties that are required to include a GHG reduction sub -element in their comprehensive plan. The inventories use 2022 as a baseline year but do not disaggregate emissions to the city level. Once the GHG emissions inventory for Kitsap County is available, the City will need to hire a consultant to complete the technical analysis required to disaggregate the emissions down to the city level consistent with guidance published by the Department of Commerce. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (2022) Per capita VMT serves as a critical indicator of transportation -related emissions. The baseline VMT includes historical data on miles traveled by various vehicle types (cars, trucks, buses) over time. Future analysis will be necessary to establish per capita vehicle miles traveled for the City. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change Climate Resilience The CMRW developed by the UW CIG has identified the following climate hazards that may pose a risk to the City of Port Orchard. The following climate indicators have been identified based on the historical normal for the period of 1980-2009 and provide a baseline for addressing the risk climate change poses to the City under the high emissions scenario for the years 2020-2049 (30-year period). • Agriculture & Food Systems • Emergency Management • Water Resources • Agriculture & Food Systems • Economic Development • Ecosystems • Human Health Sector(s) • Buildings and Energy Climate Indicator Hazard Drought 29% chance any given year will have a total summer precipitation below 75% of the historical normal summer precipitation Climate Impacts Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 30-year period. Below normal summer precipitation indicates a greater likelihood of drought. Drought can affect the well-being of people and water availability for crops and ecosystems. More frequent droughts is also expected to increase need for emergency services to respond to water shortages that may occur due to voluntary or mandatory conservation requirements. Climate Indicator Extreme Heat Climate Impacts Hazard 3.5° increase in average summer temperature Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 30-year period. Warmer summers will directly impact the health and well-being of people, create stress for crops and reduce water availability. Warmer summer temperatures could also decrease opportunities for warm season recreation activities. Warmer summer temperatures are expected to reduce soil moisture and increase stress on plants and animals. Climate Indicator Extreme Heat Climate Hazard +177 degree-days during the 30-year period Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 30-vear period. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change An increase in cooling degree days will increase energy demand for air conditioning in the summer when regional hydropower supply is expected to decrease. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Cultural Resources Sea Level Rise .75' Likely Sea Level Rise to High emissions scenario. and Practices 1.5' High Sea Level Rise Increase in likelihood for • Economic the year 2050. Development • Ecosystems Climate Impacts • Emergency Sea Level Rise will inundate culturally relevant and important sites, such as Management • Transportation traditional fishing grounds. Sea level rise may also intensify coastal flooding • Water Resources which can disrupt business operations, damage property, reduce the land area • Zoning and suitable for development, impact coastal transportation infrastructure, and Development increase need for emergency services to recover from flooding. Sea level rise can also increase coastal erosion and flooding reducing habitats for some aquatic, wildlife and plant species. Sea level rise is also expected to increase saltwater intrusion into groundwater and coastal aquifers, which could reduce water quality. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Cultural Resources Extreme Heat 14.3° increase in August High emissions scenario. and Practices stream temperature Increase in likelihood for • Ecosystems 2030-2059. Climate Impacts • Zoning and Development Warmer stream temperatures are expected to reduce habitat quality for salmonids, reducing abundance of and access for Northwest Tribes. Warmer stream temperature have the potential to reduce the ability to meet water quality standards set on wastewater treatment facilities. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Economic Flooding Return Interval of 25-yr High emissions scenario. Development Peak Streamflow Increase in likelihood for • Ecosystems Blackjack Creek — 9.8 years 30-year period. • Emergency Climate Impacts Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change Management The 25-year peak streamflow is the streamflow that occurs on average every • Transportation 25 years, heavier precipitation is anticipated to cause this to occur every 9.8 • Waste years for Blackjack Creek, which could leak to increased flooding and impacts Management to homes and businesses, increased need for emergency services, as well as • Zoning and increased flood damage to roads, bridges, and railway. Increased flood zones Development could also reduce the suitability of some areas for development. Increased streamflows can also cause juvenile salmonids to be flushed downstream prematurely, reducing salmonid migration returns. Flooding of waste management facilities can also release contaminants and hazardous materials. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Economic Extreme 7% increase in the High emissions scenario. Development Precipitation magnitude of 2-year storm Increase in likelihood for • Transportation 30-year period. • Waste Management Climate Impacts • Zoning and Development Heavier precipitation is expected to intensify flooding in low-lying areas and require higher capacity storm water drainage systems. Heavier precipitation events may lead to flooding, landslides and erosion which can interrupt transportation routes, damage infrastructure and increase maintenance and repair costs. Storm damage may also generate waste and debris. Increased urban flooding could also affect zoning restrictions on new buildings and require revised building codes or increased development in frequently flooded areas. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Ecosystems Drought 7.8% decrease in late High emissions scenario. • Water Resources summer precipitation Increase in likelihood for 30-year period. Climate Impacts A decrease in summer precipitation is expected to lower streamflows, reduce water quality and increase water temperatures. Less summer precipitation will also contribute to drought stress on plant growth and will contribute to summer water shortages. Water quality may also decrease with less summer precipitation and warmer water temperatures. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Emergency Extreme Heat +14.4 days above 90' High emissions scenario. Management during the 30-year time Increase in likelihood for • Human Health period 30-year period. Climate Impacts Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change More frequent extreme heat event are expected to increase the demand for emergency services. They may also impact emergency services due to transportation disruptions such as warped and buckling pavement on roads. An increase in the number of days above 900 is also expected to increase heat - related deaths, illnesses and hospitalizations. 10.5 Goals and Policies In this Chapter the City has set forth its vision and commitment to a sustainable future. Recognizing the challenges posed by a changing climate, these goals and policies are designed to steer the City towards resilience and adaptability while also aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The goals and policies contained within this iteration of the Climate Change element represent direction to complete this Chapter as well as preliminary goals and policies adopted from the Department of Commerce's Menu of Measures' to address the sectors and climate hazards identified from the CMRW in Section 10.4 above. Goal 1. Complete this Climate Change Element. Policy CC-1 Apply for funding from the Department of Commerce to complete the climate planning related activities necessary to complete this Chapter and implement House Bill 1181. Policy CC-Ia. When funding is available, hire a consultant to help complete the technical analysis required to establish baseline greenhouse gas emissions and VMT. Policy CC-2 Complete a Community Assets Inventory and risk assessment of the City's social, economic and environmental assets that the community wants to protect. Policy CC-2a. Evaluate the current risk exposure and vulnerability of the city's community assets against the impacts of climate change. Policy CC-3 Complete an audit of the City's existing plans to identify gaps, opportunities and barriers to building resilience to climate change. Policy CC-4 Refine the goals and policies contained within this first iteration of the City's Climate Change element, either adapting the goals and policies, developing new goals and policies, or adopting a hazard mitigation plan (see Climate Resilience Pathways in the Department of Commerce's Intermediate Planning Guidance). Policy CC-5 Conduct robust public engagement on the development of this Chapter. Policy CC-6 Set incremental emissions reduction targets that lead to achieving net zero emissions in 2050. Goal 2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the City consistent with the Washington State target of net -zero emissions by 2050. Buildings and Energy Policy CC-7 Maximize solar access of site design, where practicable, for new solar -ready residential ' Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023, Appendix L Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change and commercial buildings. Policy CC-7a. Encourage solar panels on buildings with large rooftops, as well as within or over parking areas. Policy CC-8 Encourage buildings that use renewable energy, conservation, and efficiency technologies and practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy CC-8a. Encourage energy efficient housing types that conserve non-renewable energy and help minimize impact on air quality and climate. (Policy HS- 25) Policy CC-8b. Encourage the retrofit buildings for energy efficiency. Policy CC-8c. Incentivize green building certification to improve energy and environmental performance. Policy CC-9 Encourage the adaptive reuse of buildings, recognizing the emission -reduction benefits of retaining existing buildings. Policy CC-9a. Encourage the preservation and weatherization of housing in overburdened communities, particularly at higher densities, to reduce emissions and increase resilience. Ecosystems Policy CC-10 Increase tree canopy cover to boost carbon sequestration, reduce heat islands, and improve air quality, prioritizing overburdened communities. Policy CC-10a. Require the retention and replacement of significant trees in the City.(Policy NS-9) Policy CC-10b. Adopt a canopy coverage target for the City and monitor progress on a regular basis to determine if policy changes are necessary to reach the City's target. (Policy NS-10) Policy CC-10c. Identify parks and open spaces in the City where tree canopy coverage could be increased. (Policy NS-11) Policy CC-10d. Use trees and vegetation to mitigate erosion potential, meet drainage needs and reduce the impacts of development. (Policy NS-12) Policy CC-10e. Establish programs and policies that maintain and increase forests and vegetative cover and prioritize the connectivity of forests that provide valuable wildlife corridors within the City. (Policy NS-14) Transportation Policy CC-11 Convert public fleets to zero emission vehicles and develop supporting infrastructure and programs (e.g., charging stations and dedicated lanes for electric cars and buses). Policy CC-11a. Require electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new and retrofitted buildings. Policy CC-12 Implement multimodal transportation planning to reduce single -occupancy vehicle dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy CC-12a. Emphasize moving people rather than vehicles by providing a variety of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change ways to commute to work. (Policy TR-45) Policy CC-12b. Provide preferential treatments for transit, such as queue bypass lanes, traffic signal modifications, and safe, convenient, transit stops. (Policy TR-20) Policy CC-12c. Create a safe, well connected, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian transportation network to encourage active transportation. Policy CC-13 Reduce vehicle miles traveled to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals. Policy CC-13a. Implement travel demand management (TDM) programs and strategies. Prioritize, develop, and maintain mobility hubs in transportation - efficient locations — especially in overburdened communities experiencing a scarcity of transportation alternatives. Policy CC-13b. Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. (Policy CN-3) Policy CC-13c. The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well -served by public transit. (Centers Goals 1,2,3,4,5,6; Housing, Parks, Economic Development, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements) (Policy CN-11) Policy CC-13d. Prioritize permitting for transit -oriented development (TOD) proposals. Zoning and Development Policy CC-14 Increase housing diversity and supply within urban growth areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support environmental justice. Policy CC-14a. Within centers, set minimum building densities that enable lively and active streets and commercial destinations. Such limits may take the form of: minimum floors or building height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. (Policy LU- 11) Policy CC-14b. Evaluate a range of incentives to encourage compact development to preserve open space throughout the city, possibly to include density credits, incentive zoning, and transfer of development rights. (Policy LU- 15) Goal 3. Strengthen the City's resilience against the impacts of climate change. Buildings and Energy Policy CC-15 Ensure that energy infrastructure — including generation and transmission — is able to accommodate renewable energy opportunities and to withstand and recover quickly from the impacts of extreme weather and other natural hazards worsened by climate change. Policy CC-15a. Plan and build facilities, utilities, and infrastructure projects to avoid or Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change withstand flooding from rising sea levels and associated climate impacts. Policy CC-15b. Work with energy utilities to improve the safety and reliability of infrastructure vulnerable to climate change. Policy CC-16 Ensure that buildings are designed and built sustainably to reduce environmental impacts and remain resilient to extreme weather and other hazards worsened by climate change. Policy CC-16a. Require the design and construction of commercial and residential buildings and their surrounding sites to reduce and treat stormwater runoff and pollution. Policy CC-16b. Develop or modify design standards to integrate exterior building features that reduce the impacts of climate change and increase resilience. Cultural Resources and Practices Policy CC-17 Ensure that cultural resources and practices — including significant historic sites and culturally important traditional foods and natural resources — are resilient to the impacts of extreme weather and other natural hazards worsened by climate change. Policy CC-17a. Work with state and federal agencies to protect, enhance, and restore ecosystems in order to meet tribal treaty rights and conserve culturally important consumptive and non -consumptive resources including foods, medicinal plants, and materials that could be adversely impacted by climate change. Policy CC-17b. Maintain government -to -government relations with Native American tribes for the preservation of archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties that are vulnerable to climate impacts. Policy CC-18 Ensure environmental justice by providing all residents an equitable opportunity to learn about climate impacts, influence policy decisions, and take actions to enhance community resilience. Policy CC-18a. Create and implement culturally contextualized outreach and education initiatives and materials that will inform the community about near - term and longer -term climate change threats and build resilience. Economic Development Policy CC-19 Ensure that the local economy is resilient to climate disruptions and fosters business opportunities associated with climate mitigation and adaptation. Policy CC-19a. Support local businesses' efforts to bolster climate preparedness and continuity of operations. Ecosystems Policy CC-20 Ensure the protection and restoration of streams, riparian zones, estuaries, wetlands, and floodplains to achieve healthy watersheds that are resilient to climate change. Policy CC-20a. Implement actions identified in restoration and salmon recovery plans Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change to improve the climate resilience of streams and watersheds. Policy CC-20b. Increase the climate resilience of native fish species and aquatic ecosystems by reducing the threat of aquatic invasive species (e.g., fish, plants, invertebrates). Policy CC-20c. Protect and restore watershed -scale processes to maximize the ecological benefits and climate resilience of riparian ecosystems. Policy CC-20d. Protect and restore riparian vegetation to reduce erosion, provide shade, and support other functions that improve the climate resilience of streams. Policy CC-20e. Increase aquatic habitat resilience to low summer flows by increasing water residence time, storing water on the landscape, conserving water, protecting groundwater, keeping waters cool, and protecting water quality. Policy CC-21 Protect and restore coastal ecosystems to increase the resilience of species, habitats, and communities to climate change. Policy CC-21a. Consider sea -level rise in coastal and nearshore habitat restoration projects. Policy CC-21b. Identify, protect, and restore submerged aquatic vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, etc.) that provides aquatic habitat, "blue" carbon storage, and other ecosystem services. Emergency Management Policy CC-22 Develop and maintain local government staff members' technical expertise and skills related to climate change and environmental justice so as to improve communitywide policy implementation, equity, and resilience. Policy CC-22a. Create evacuation plans and outreach materials to help residents plan and practice actions that make evacuation quicker and safer. Policy CC-23 Enhance emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts to mitigate risks and impacts associated with extreme weather and other hazards worsened by climate change. Policy CC-23a. Map transportation infrastructure that is vulnerable to repeated floods, landslides, and other natural hazards, and designate alternative travel routes for critical transportation corridors when roads must be closed. Policy CC-23b. Incorporate sea -level rise information, along with tsunami hazard mapping, into critical area delineation for siting critical infrastructure, land -use planning, and emergency management. Policy CC-23c. Develop resilience hubs — community -serving facilities that are designed to support residents, coordinate communication, distribute resources, and reduce carbon pollution while enhancing quality of life. Policy CC-23d. Factor climate impacts into the planning of operations and coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery activities among first - responders and partners, including public health, law enforcement, fire, Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change school, and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. Health & Well -Being Policy CC-24 Protect community health and well-being from the impacts of climate -exacerbated hazards — prioritizing focus on overburdened communities — and ensure that the most vulnerable residents do not bear disproportionate health impacts. Policy CC-24a. Promote the use of health impact assessments and other tools to address the potential impacts of health, equity, and climate change on vulnerable communities. Policy CC-24b. Prioritize the development of anti -displacement programs in overburdened communities when increasing densities. Policy CC-24c. Review land use maps and identify opportunities or barriers to responding to rapid population growth or decline, rebuilding housing and services after disasters, and other extreme climate impact scenarios. Policy CC-24d. Provide overburdened communities subsidies to offset potential cost increases associated with conversion to non -fossil -fuel energy sources. Policy CC-24e. Develop and maintain a program to distribute cooling units and install heat pumps, prioritizing households with residents (e.g., low-income seniors) most vulnerable to extreme temperature events. Transportation Policy CC-25 Ensure that the local transportation system — including infrastructure, routes, and travel modes — is able to withstand and recover quickly from the impacts of extreme weather events and other hazards exacerbated by climate change. Policy CC-25a. Design and site new and expanded roads to have the least possible adverse effect on the shoreline, account for sea level rise projections, not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or adversely impact existing or planned water -oriented uses, public access, and habitat restoration and enhancement projects. Water Resources Policy CC-26 Protect and preserve water quality and quantity from drought, extreme heat, and other hazards exacerbated by climate change. Policy CC-26a. Utilize water conservation methods and technologies in development of irrigation infrastructure within parks and recreation areas so as to foster climate resilience. Policy CC-26b. Develop and implement a comprehensive drought resilience strategy that factors in projected climate impacts and sets action levels for different drought stages. Policy CC-26c. Identify and implement strategies to prepare for and mitigate the effects of saltwater intrusion into aquifers and drainage systems. Policy CC-26d. Require the use of green infrastructure and low -impact development to Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Chapter 10: Climate Change address increased storm intensities and stormwater runoff. Policy CC-26e. Evaluate the long-term adequacy of water delivery infrastructure to ensure that changes in hydrological patterns (e.g., increases in flooding frequency or reduction of late -summer water availability associated with climate change) can be anticipated and managed effectively. Zoning and Development Policy CC-27 Establish land use patterns that increase the resilience of the built environment, ecosystems, and communities to climate change. Policy CC-27a. Restore and maintain critical areas and open space areas to maximize the climate resilience benefits they provide. Policy CC-27b. Direct new development into areas where exposure to climate hazards is low. Policy CC-27c. Identify and implement strategies to increase the resilience of the shoreline environment to sea -level rise and other climate hazards, while also protecting shoreline ecological functions, allowing water - dependent uses, and providing public access. Policy CC-28 Ensure that development and redevelopment projects are resilient to the impacts of climate change. Policy CC-28a. Establish development regulations that incorporate best practices for reducing the risk of wildfire, extreme heat, flooding, and other climate - exacerbated hazards. Policy CC-28b. Consider future climate conditions during siting and design of capital facilities, including changes to temperature, rainfall, and sea level, to help ensure they function as intended over their planned life cycle. Policy CC-28c. Identify and plan for climate impacts to valued community assets such as parks and recreation facilities, including relocation or replacement. Policy CC-28d. Consider climate change, including sea -level rise, extreme precipitation, increased winter streamflow, and other impacts, in floodplain management planning. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan DRAFT: October 2024 Appendix B: Plans Adopted by Reference PLAN OR DOCUMENT South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan (Provided Annually Pursuant to ILA 035-22) West Sound Utility District / Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility 2009 Capital Facilities Plan West Sound Utility District 2007 Sewer Plan West Sound Utility District 2023 Water Plan City of Bremerton 2020 Water System Plan Kitsap County 2003 South Kitsap UGA/ULID#6 Sub -Area Plan & EIS Pavement Management Analysis Report (2016) Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan (2016) Blackjack Creek Watershed Assessment and Protection & Restoration Plan (2017) City of Port Orchard 1994 Ross Creek Comprehensive Management Plan City of Port Orchard 2010 McCormick Village Park Plan City of Port Orchard 2021 Shoreline Master Program City of Port Orchard 2013 Public Art Program City of Port Orchard 2020 Water System Plan City of Port Orchard 2020 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update City of Port Orchard 2022 Parks, Recreation, & Open Space (PROS) Plan City of Port Orchard 2025-2030/2031-2044 — 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Plan City of Port Orchard Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan City of Port Orchard 2020 City Hall Space Analysis City of Port Orchard 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan Appendix B-1 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: May 2024 Acknowledgements Mayor Robert Putaansuu City Council Members Bek Ashby John Clauson Fred Chang Cindy Lucarelli Scott Diener Jay Rosapepe Shawn Cucciardi Planning Commissioners Trish Tierney Stephanie Baily Annette Stewart Mark Trenary David Bernstein Phil King Joe Morrison Suanne Martin Smith City Staff Nicholas Bond, AICP, Director Keri Sallee, Long Range Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews, Associate Planner Josie Rademacher, Intern Consultant — Makers Architecture and Urban Design (Graphics and renderings) Bob Bengford Scott Bonjukian Disclaimer: The user of this Plan should be aware that although the City has taken great care to use the most current mapping and environmental data available to produce the information contained herein, the maps, illustrations and calculations of potential critical areas, buildable areas and redevelopment potential are based on existing data sources, not on field surveys. This Plan and its contents are provided for planning purposes only, and cannot substitute for field surveys to determine the locations of critical areas or buffers, to determine critical areas typing or classification, or the development potential of any parcel. Chapter 1. Introduction. In 2016, the City of Port Orchard completed its periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan. This 2016 Plan included for the first time, a "centers" approach to planning (See section 2.7 of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan). The centers approach to planning is provided in Vision 2050, the regional plan completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council, and in the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by all jurisdictions in Kitsap County. In 2016, Port Orchard identified center locations, but did not have the resources to complete subarea plans at that time, and instead identified goals for subarea planning to be completed in the future. This plan is the result of that goal. In late 2019, Port Orchard set out to complete a subarea plan for the area located near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. At the time that the planning work began, this neighborhood did not have a name or much of an identity. The name "Ruby Creek Neighborhood" was selected to highlight a significant environmental feature located in the neighborhood. Ruby Creek is a major tributary to Blackjack Creek and has been the focus of significant habitat restoration projects just outside of the City limits in Kitsap County. Highlighting the name of this stream in the neighborhood name will have the effect of raising awareness of this sensitive environmental feature, and was chosen as a way of ensuring that future residents, businesses, and developers are conscious of their surroundings and can be good stewards of the environment. This plan was also developed during the unprecedented challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic. Public outreach was initiated in the weeks before large parts of the nation were closed to prevent the spread of the virus, including Kitsap County and Port Orchard. This resulted in the cancellation of the City's plans to conduct in person workshops with neighborhood residents and property owners. The City has instead relied on online surveys and public hearings before the Planning Commission that were held remotely. The City hired a consultant to help explore design alternatives for the subarea. Due to the critical area constraints found in the neighborhood, these alternatives contained only small differences. The main variable considered in the subarea plan was whether to locate a Kitsap Transit park and ride facility within the neighborhood. This variable was prompted by a parallel study being conducted by consultants hired by Kitsap Transit to identify possible sites for park and ride facilities in the South Kitsap area. The alternatives considered are as follows: 1. Concept 1: Mixed use neighborhood with no park and ride facility. 2. Concept 2: Mixed use neighborhood with park and ride facility on the east side of Sidney. 3. Concept 3: Mixed use neighborhood with park and ride facility on the west side ofSidney. Ultimately, the Kitsap Transit study eliminated Concept 3 early in their analysis due to critical area and space constraints. The preferred alternative selected here was a hybrid between Concepts 1 and 2. The preferred alternative preserved the mixed use feel of the Sidney Road SW corridor while allowing for flexibility in areas further to the east along Sidney Road SW. This flexibility meant that under the plan framework, either apartments, commercial uses, mixed uses, or a park and ride facility would be permissible in areas located in the neighborhood core but off the Sidney Road SW "Main Street". Chapter 2. Vision and Preferred Alternative. 2.1 Vision. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood is a thriving and attractive walkable neighborhood with easy access to goods and services, a variety of housing types, and convenient access to employment via Kitsap Transit and its proximity to SR-16 and SR-160. Residents can walk to the neighborhood grocery store, restaurants, and businesses providing other goods and services, as well as to Sidney Glen Elementary School and Cedar Heights Middle School. The Ruby Creek central business district consists of walkable shopfronts along Sidney Ave SW. Natural environmental features and park and recreation amenities along Ruby Creek and Blackjack Creek along with this central business district form the heart of the neighborhood. Bicycle paths run through the neighborhood and connect to other areas of the City. 2.2 Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative requires the development of storefronts along Sidney Road SW but allows the development of a Kitsap Transit park and ride to the east of the neighborhood core in lieu of apartments or commercial development. A park and ride concept is shown in Figure 4. This park and ride facility would reduce the population capacity for the neighborhood slightly, but would help drive economic activity in the neighborhood at certain times of the day, would reduce the traffic impacts resulting from plan implementation, and would provide for the sharing of parking facilities for the proposed public park and for residential units which would likely have peak parking demands (nights and weekends) which differ from those of commuters (weekdays). In the following sections of the plan, the subarea is broken into 3 parts for discussion: the neighborhood core in the center of the neighborhood, the north end (north of Ruby Creek), and the Sidney/Sedgwick crossroads (south end). Cf!? r PJBIL& a�l 171 "-EA* ME ROAD ji- Figure 1: Preferred Alternative Ruby Creek Neighborhood. 3 0 2.3 Neighborhood Core. The preferred alternative seeks to develop a new neighborhood core along Sidney Road SW. The center of the neighborhood is located approximately halfway between Ruby Creek and SW Sedgwick Road, and is marked by a new intersection that provides access to properties on the east and west of Sidney Road SW. The buildings near this intersection consist of single -story shopfront and mixed -use shopfront building types, with storefronts that face Sidney Road SW. Off-street parking and secondary access to ground floor shopfronts is provided to the rear of these buildings, out of sight from Sidney Road SW. Sidney Road SW is characterized by wide pedestrian oriented sidewalks, street trees and on -street parking. The center of the neighborhood has a small-town downtown feel. To the west of this new intersection, access is provided to new commercial and/or residential development. To the east of this development, flexibility is provided to allow either commercial and/or residential development, or a park and ride facility. The center of the neighborhood is also anchored by a new public park that has helped to enhance the natural amenities provided by Blackjack and Ruby Creeks. This new park has provided restoration of habitat, informational and educational opportunities, and opportunities for low impact recreation. Figure 2: The heart of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood as seen from the southwest. 4 HO_—_--RUBY ——-——-——^^-——� CREEK � / I Z BLACKJACK vv�eA V CREEK TI WETLAND B ;111llJ11�. I �"�'TRffi17TTP1 , F II. Ic' � I � T - PROPOSED = PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 4 ACCESS �� �V RE ISIONS I ® / - mII l' II III V' I I / \ S rtrtrt L-LNM OPTION 2 �••� SITEBOBNRAIW -. EXISTINGWETLANB PROPOSED BUS SHELTER 0AFESTIMATEB --PROPERTY LINE-••�••-EXISTING STREAM O PROPOSED LANDSLAPING FUTURE RIGNL OF WAY SW SIDNEY RD/ NO RTH OF WEDGWICK N E:(ISTWGKffSAP ---- WELLANDFSTREAM BUFFER ©1202ONING SETBACK SR IG PARKAND RIDE TRNNSITROBTE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LEVEL 3 SITE LAYOUT, KITSAP TRANSIT Figure 3: Neighborhood Center Park and Ride Alternative. This alternative preserves Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoned development pads along Sidney to ensure storefront development. Figure 4: Neighborhood Center Site Plan Illustration. This illustration does not include a possible park and ride facility located to the east of the Sidney Road SW storefronts. 2.4 North End. To the north of the neighborhood core is a residential area characterized by landscaping along the street, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, landscape islands in the street, and street trees. Although mixed use commercial development is permitted along this section of Sidney Road SW, it is seen as less viable due to the distance from SW Sedgwick Road and because it is separated from the commercial neighborhood core by Ruby Creek and its large protective buffers. Apartment development is permissible and anticipated in these locations. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes now connect this neighborhood to the Sidney Glen Elementary School, the Little League baseball fields, and places of worship located to the north of the neighborhood, as well as to the commercial core to the south which includes the neighborhood's main grocery store. These new residents can utilize transit service in the corridor for access to jobs throughout the region. Walking paths along Ruby Creek allow for recreation and access to a new city park. .9 Figure 5: The north end of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood as seen from the northwest. 0 Figure 6: North End Site Plan Illustration. 2.5 Sidney/Sedgwick Crossroads. The area near the crossroads of SW Sedgwick Road and Sidney Road SW is already characterized by significant development. There is a large grocery store, two gas stations, restaurants, shopping, and apartments in this area. One vacant development pad remains at this intersection. At this location, the City seeks the development of mixed -use shopfront buildings, or live work ground floor units in an apartment building, to help make the area feel more urban. Parking for this pad is provided behind these buildings and out of view of the intersection. In addition, the project has provided public amenity spaces near the prominent street corner at this intersection. Other properties in the neighborhood may eventually develop, but redevelopment is not expected in the near term. 7 r 4. _r . ►rr rw Figure 7: The south end of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood as seen from the northeast, showing the crossroads of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Figure 8: South End (Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road) Site Plan Illustration. 0 2.6 Centers. Countywide Center — PSRC Criteria The Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center is planned as a Countywide Center as described in the Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Centers Framework. As a designated Countywide Center, the Ruby Creek Neighborhood: 1. Is a local priority for investment. This plan includes transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, electrical, and park projects to support center development. 2. Is planned for more than 10 activity units (jobs + housing units) per acre. The center is planned to include 14.82 activity units per acre. 3. Is planned for a mix of residential and employment uses. The center is planned to consist of 73% residential and 27% commercial at full buildout. 4. Has capacity for additional growth. The center has capacity for an estimated 1,352 additional persons and 281 additional jobs at full build out. 5. The center supports multimodal transportation (including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles). Chapter 3. Land Use 3.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood is located near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Its boundaries are generally SR-16/Blackjack Creek to the east, Birch Road to the north, the City limits to the south, and a critical area complex to the west. The center is primarily designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan land use map and contains commercial heavy (CH), Commercial Corridor (CC), Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), and Greenbelt (GB) zones. The area is also subject to overlay district regulations which aim to implement the preferred alternative as depicted in the maps and figures in Chapter 2. Ruby Creek Neighborhood - Countywide Center Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations — C o—.—of Greanbes[ A — High Density Resid.*i l m � T� � Law Densiy Residential -Pu�lic&Communiy 5ervces r Ruby Creek Center �9� �t 'r0 \§O r\j HONEV Figure 9: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for the Ruby Creek Center. Ruby Creek Neighborhood - Countywide Center — '•.l Zoning — I_ I Cammemiel Mixed U.. Downtown Mixed Use � �\\' i —Commercial Comdor - Commercial Heavy _ -CIVIL FY institutional i1 -- — Parks & Recreation ' — — — — Greenbell Residential 1 I Residential 3 .y Ruby Creek Center i' o� I I , I Figure 10: The Zoning Designations for the Ruby Creek Center. As of the writing of this plan, there is an abundance of vacant and underutilized land within the center. Vacant and underutilized parcels are either zoned DMU, CMU or CC, depending on whether apartments are permitted outright in the absence of a commercial component within future buildings, and depending on the percentage of lot frontage along Sidney Road SW intended to be storefronts. The CMU zone allows apartments as a building type under POMC 20.32, whereas the CC and DMU zones do not. It is anticipated that large areas of the CMU zone will develop as apartments; however, commercial retail type uses are allowed and if constructed would be most likely to locate along the Sidney Road SW street frontage. The CC and DMU properties are intended for a "main street" development pattern, and have strict build -to -zone requirements to ensure that the Sidney Road SW corridor is developed with storefronts that are located close to the street. The DMU zone requires a higher percentage of the Sidney Road frontage to contain buildings, as compared to the CC zone. The GB zone is only applied along the streams, dedicated open space, and areas encumbered by flood plains. 3.2 Ruby Creek Center Land Area and Development Potential. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood measures 166.45 acres in land area. Of these 166.45 acres, critical areas (including wetlands and flood plains) associated with Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek occupy approximately 52 acres, leaving approximately 70 acres of developed land and 45 acres of vacant or underutilized land. 10 Infill Potential Map Ruby Creek Subarea Port Orchard WA Pei n Vacant Land '' a Underutilized Land -16E3 L4" �J Developed Land Figure 11: Infill Potential Map. To further illustrate development potential in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood, the map below (Figure 12) has combined potential critical areas and zoning to illustrate how much land area is available for redevelopment. The vacant and underutilized parcels have been assigned letter designations based on current ownership groupings. Later in this plan, these letters as shown on this map will help to show the land capacity within the center for both employment and population. This map is not based on site visits or a critical areas delineation, and reporting and actual development potential may be more or less than what is shown here. In addition, the City's critical areas code can allow buffer reductions through a variance, provided that these reductions are mitigated. Likewise, flood plain development requires flood elevation certificates to be prepared by a surveyor to certify that buildings are elevated to reduce flooding risk. The true development potential for any of these sites cannot be determined without preparing a critical areas report that meets the standards of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. 11 Rub, Creek Ruby Creek Ownership = Potential Critical Area_ Cl Ruby Creek Center Planned Housing ZoningDistrlct PR arAPr.�..elieo a o-sas�9. �lM11 11, pp� CMU - G9 I ✓t. ���.J,};�� aciryopo�b a is ��JA GMU R1 wx - CC R3 - CH Figure 12: Estimated Developable Land Map. 12 3.3 Population and Employment. As of June 24, 2020, the Ruby Creek Neighborhood contained 464 residents and 371 jobs. This equates to 5 activity units per acre under the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. Current population is accommodated in 232 existing apartments and 8 existing houses within the center. Current employment is provided in approximately 213,638 existing square feet of commercial space. The plan envisions adding 647 additional housing units and 100,400 additional square feet of commercial space. The expected future level of activity units equates to 14.82 activity units per acre, above the PSRC threshold of 10 activity units per acre. (1,816 persons + 652 jobs) / 166.45 acres = 14.82 activity units per acre Ruby Creek Center Population and Employment Capacity: With approximately 45 acres of vacant and underutilized, and unencumbered (critical area free) land remaining in the neighborhood, it is estimated that the total population and employment capacity in the center is 1,816 persons and 652 jobs. Actual growth will vary depending on a variety of factors, including whether the DMU and CC zones develop with single story shopfront buildings vs. mixed -use shop front buildings, and whether a park and ride facility occupies some of the land within the center. Table 1: Activity Units — Population and Employment — Existing and Future Existing Population 464 Planned Population 1352 Total Population at Build Out 1816 Existing Employment 371 Planned Employment 281 Total Employment at Build Out 652 Existing % Activity Units Dedicated to Housing 56% Planned % Activity Units Dedicated to Housing 73% 3.4 Land Use Goals for the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center (these goals are in addition to existing goals found in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan): Goal LU-1: Accommodate enough residential development in the Ruby Creek Countywide Center to ensure a thriving business district. Policy LU-1: Allowed uses, building types, and height limits should accommodate at least 1,800 residents in the Ruby Creek Countywide Center. Goal LU-2: Encourage the development of a Ruby Creek Central Business District along Sidney Ave SW, between SW Sedgwick Road and the Ruby Creek stream buffer. Policy LU-2: Provide storefront uses on the ground floor in the form of a "Main Street" along Sidney Ave SW, between SW Sedgwick Road and Ruby Creek. Regulations for the Ruby Creek District shall ensure that buildings line the street without landscape setbacks and with pedestrian entrances oriented towards the street as shown in Figure 13 below: 13 Figure 13: Block Frontage Map for Ruby Creek Neighborhood (Core and South End). Policy LU-3 Require a build -to -zone along the storefront area shown in Figure 13 in accordance with the DMU and CC zoning designations as shown on the Zoning Map (Figure 10), but provide exceptions for public plazas between buildings and at significant street corners. Goal LU-3: Provide opportunities to extend the Ruby Creek "Main Street" feel between Ruby Creek and Hovde Road. Policy LU-4: Provide greater flexibility in building types and land uses between Ruby Creek and Hovde Road using a commercial mixed -use zone and varied block frontage as shown on Figures 10 and 14. Figure 14: Block Frontage Map North End. Goal LU-4: Ensure that development in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. 14 Policy LU-5: Designate high visibility street corners as defined in the City's design guidelines in strategic locations along the Sidney Road SW corridor and establish requirements in these locations to accentuate building or plaza design with special design features. Policy LU-6: Require facade articulation when any proposed building exceeds 120 feet in length in the center. Policy LU-7: Ensure that there is at least 60% facade transparency on the ground floor of single - story shopfront and mixed -use shopfront buildings with a Sidney Road SW facing facade. Goal LU-5: Allow for the development of a park and ride transit facility within the center, provided that it be located at least 120 feet from the planned Sidney Road SW right of way (additional ROW needed for the Sidney Road SW project) and located behind future development sites as viewed from Sidney Road SW. See Figure 3. Policy LU-8: Ensure that park and ride facilities are a permitted or conditional use in the CMU zone within the Ruby Creek Center. Chapter 4. Housing. 4.1 Introduction. Existing housing in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood consists of two large existing apartment complexes built around 2013, and a handful of small farmstead type homes which are mostly vacant pending redevelopment. There are 232 apartment units and 8 houses in the Ruby Creek Center as of the writing of this plan. Dwelling units in the center contain about 1.9 residents per household (PSRC analysis). According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, multifamily projects containing 5 or more units in Port Orchard contain on average 2.09 persons per household, whereas detached houses contain 2.68 persons per household. No other housing types currently exist in the center. There is a large single-family neighborhood (Stetson Heights) under development to the west of the Ruby Creek Center, containing 299 single-family residential lots with future phases planned. This project is eventually projected to contain 450 to 600 housing units. It is expected that residents of this neighborhood will regularly visit this center seeking goods and services. These single-family areas should be considered part of the neighborhood walkshed even if they are located outside of the center boundaries. There also exists rural large lot development just beyond the City boundary to the northwest and south. A population of a few hundred County residents could also be characterized as being part of this new neighborhood although rural roads make pedestrian access to the center difficult. 4.2 Ruby Creek Center Planned Housing. For planning purposes, most future housing expected within the subarea would occur in the CMU zone. This plan encourages development of mixed -use shopfront buildings in the DMU and CC zones which could contain a significant number of housing units. Estimated housing development is provided in Table 2 below, based on parcel characteristics as shown in Figure 12 in Section 3.2. The housing unit and population shown in table 2 is only an estimate and actual development yields may vary. 15 Table 2: Housing and Population Projections Property Grouping (See figure 12) Zoning Total Acreage Developable Acres (Estimated) Projected New Housing Units Estimated New Population (2.09 PPH) Per OFM 2020 A CMU 18.5 13.06 235 491 B DMU/CMU 19.49 6.14 100 209 C DMU/CC 4.58 1.61 0 0 D DMU/CC 4.79 1.81 0 0 E CC 5.14 1.82 0 0 F CH 0.95 0.95 0 0 G CC 1.82 1.8 54 113 H CC 0.86 0.86 0 0 1 DMU/CMU 9.67 3.75 45 94 J CMU 2.68 2.68 25 52 K CMU 4.24 4.24 108 226 L CI 8.97 8.97 0 0 M PR 2.04 2.04 0 0 N CMU 2.65 2.65 80 167 O Cl 4.54 4.54 0 0 P CH 2.79 2.79 0 0 Q CH 5.82 5.82 0 0 Total 647 1352 16 4.3 Goals and Policies. (Additional goals and policies beyond those already in the Comprehensive Plan) Goal H-1: Provide for a mix of housing types including but not limited to apartments (apartment buildings or apartments in a mixed -use shopfront building), townhomes, and live -work units. Policy H-1: Ensure that the development regulations allow the development of the building types described in Goal H-1 in the center, pursuant to the Zoning Map in Figure 10. Goal H-2: Provide housing serving a mix of income levels that may be owner occupied or rental housing. Policy H-2: Offer 12-year multifamily tax exemptions throughout the center in support of affordable housing. Chapter 5 Economic Development. 5.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center currently contains a variety of businesses, goods, and services. The center is currently anchored by a 60,000+ square foot grocery store. A small strip mall, medical complex, and two gas stations also provide goods and services near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Non-residential square footage in the center is currently 213,638 square feet and supports 371 existing jobs. This figure includes an elementary school and a church. That equals 1 job per 575 square feet of nonresidential space in the center. The assumption for new commercial square footage in the center is 1 job per 300 square feet, as the expected uses would be retail, restaurant, and bars, which have a higher number of jobs per square foot of space compared to the existing uses in the center. The Ruby Creek Center plan envisions the establishment of a new central business district along Sidney Road SW between the existing development at the intersection with SW Sedgwick Road and Ruby Creek. This new central business district is intended to take the form of a "Main Street" with shopfronts on the ground floor abutting yet to be constructed sidewalks. Parking is to be provided on -street along Sidney Road with supplemental parking behind or below these shop fronts, or as on -street parking on new yet to be developed public and/or private streets. It is critical to the success of a new business district to ensure that there are a sufficient number of dwellings within walking distance to support these businesses. This will lower parking demands and increase activity in the area. The minimum residential threshold for the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center should be 1,800 residents within walking distance (1/2 mile) of the central business district. Nonmotorized improvements, transit, on- and off-street parking, gathering spaces, and an active streetscape will all contribute to a vibrant business district. 5.2 Ruby Creek Center Planned Employment. For planning purposes, most future employment expected within the sub area would occur in the CC, CH, and DMU zones. Some employment is expected in the CMU zones, but this is expected to be limited to jobs that support the leasing, recreation, and maintenance of multifamily housing. Expected employment per 1,000 square feet of future commercial square footage is shown in Table 3 below. The letters in the property group column correspond to the map (Figure 12) in section 3.2. The employment estimates shown in Table 3 below is only an estimate and actual development yields may vary. 17 Table 3: Square Footage and Employment Projections Property Grouping Zoning Total Acreage Developable Acres (Estimated) Acreage Designated CC, DMU, Expected New Commercial Square Footage New Jobs (1 Job Per 300 square feet) A CMU 18.5 13.06 0 1500 5 B DMU/CMU 19.49 6.14 1.83 15500 52 C DMU/CC 4.58 1.61 1.61 5800 19 D DMU/CC 4.79 1.81 1.81 6200 21 E CC 5.14 1.82 1.82 0 0 F CH 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0 G CC 1.82 1.8 1.8 5000 17 H CC 0.86 0.86 0.86 9000 30 1 DMU/CMU 9.67 3.75 1.07 14900 50 J CMU 2.68 2.68 0 0 0 K CMU 4.24 4.24 0 1500 5 L Cl 8.97 8.97 0 0 0 M PR 2.04 2.04 0 0 0 N CMU 2.65 2.65 0 1000 3 O Cl 4.54 4.54 0 0 0 P CH 2.79 2.79 2.79 40000 80 Q CH 5.82 5.82 5.82 0 0 Total 99.53 65.53 20.36 100,400 281 Total employment in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center is projected to be 652 (371 existing + 281 new) jobs once the center is fully developed. 5.3 Goals and Policies. Goal ED-1: Provide zoning for ground floor shopfront development and retail, service, restaurant, and other compatible uses along Sidney Road SW. Policy ED-1. Require ground floor shopfront development along Sidney Road SW from SW Sedgwick Road north to Ruby Creek, through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. Policy ED-2. Allow ground floor shopfront development along Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Policy ED-3. Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. IM Policy ED-4: Encourage mixed -use shopfronts on CC zoned properties by offering multifamily tax exemptions for the multifamily portion of the project. Goal ED-2: Ensure that uses which are not compatible with building a walkable neighborhood center are prohibited. Policy ED-5. Prohibit additional drive through businesses, gas stations, storage facilities, or other commercial uses that don't contribute to a walkable neighborhood center. Chapter 6 Parks. 6.1 Introduction. It is critical to consider the availability of parks and recreational amenities when planning countywide centers. Parks provide a gathering place for neighborhood residents, and recreational facilities contribute to public health and provide connections within the neighborhood. Within the existing apartment complexes in the Ruby Creek Center there are private park and recreation facilities maintained by the apartment owners. This type of private open space is required for all development per the design standards found in the City's municipal code. No public parks currently exist in the center, although there are school recreation facilities at Sidney Glen Elementary School consisting of grass fields, covered basketball hoops, and playground equipment. There are also two Little baseball fields on property located in the north end of the center along Sidney Ave SW, which is owned by the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department and leased to the South Kitsap Western Little League. The development of public parks and recreation facilities in the Ruby Creek Center is critical to developing a successful neighborhood center. The preferred alternative depicts a public park to be constructed to the southwest of the confluence of Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek. This proposed park plans to use pockets of developable land, critical area buffers, and floodplain areas to provide recreational amenities. Amenities would include parking, restrooms, playground equipment, walking paths along and over Ruby Creek via a pedestrian bridge, and other public amenities. Due to the degraded nature of these critical areas and flood plains, and the desire to provide public access (walking paths) along and across Ruby Creek, it is expected that critical areas variances will be needed to allow for park construction. Any variance will require significant habitat restoration and enhancement. All active recreation and parking areas will be constructed outside of critical areas but walking paths and a pedestrian bridge would be constructed within these buffers. Due to the significant opportunities to complete restoration work, it is expected that the park would include a landscape that is adaptive to flooding and that significant education and interpretive opportunities could occur in the park. For more information on this planned park, please see the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Goal P-1: Encourage the development of a public neighborhood park in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood. Policy P-1: The neighborhood park should incorporate natural or environmental features. Policy P-2: Provide walking paths along Ruby and/or Blackjack Creeks and (a) pedestrian crossing(s). Goal P-2: Encourage the development of public plazas and other gathering spaces along Sidney Road SW. 19 Policy P-3: Designate significant street corners on the block frontage standard maps as shown on Figures 13 and 14 to encourage the development of public gathering spaces along the central business district corridor. Policy P4: Provide extra sidewalk width in the central business district as part of the Sidney Road SW road section. Goal P-3: Provide recreational paths and trails, public and private sidewalks, and public bike lanes and paths within the center. Policy P-5: Provide bicycle lanes on Sidney Road SW through the center. Policy P-6: Ensure that sidewalks are constructed along all public and private roads within the center. Chapter 7 Natural Systems. 7.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Center and the lands adjacent to the center contain critically important habitats, especially creeks and wetlands. Blackjack Creek runs along the eastern boundary of the center. Ruby Creek, an important tributary to Blackjack Creek, flows through the center and crosses under Sidney Road SW. This watershed is a critical habitat to a variety of species including summer and fall Chum Salmon, Coho and Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Cutthroat. Of these species, Steelhead are currently listed under the endangered species act. Fish barriers exist along both Blackjack and Ruby Creek. WSDOT has plans to replace the partial barrier located under SR-16. The City is seeking grant funding to replace the Ruby Creek culvert under Sidney Road SW. Sidney Road currently lacks pedestrian improvements and will likely need to be widened. This widening will likely require some mitigation for impacts to the Ruby Creek corridor which could occur in conjunction with the park project described in Chapter 7. Although the Ruby Creek Center is planned as urban development, it is critical to take a sensitive approach to design to ensure compatibility between new development and these natural features. 20 F. �. S ---------- FSAMM 3M Ii OF STEUnow d 'I FFAOEIIwOF 1P`p p51wmWIR T —•— — EX -•_-- - I _ EX 12,W Y--_—-------- - ------- _- -_r_�� �• GA9NW FEROM 3SS LF OF F'S]iAl I•�, MIALL 3561E OF 10' g Wu FOR RnuAF WE ~ 'y c � f 1 I fp APPROXWE RUBY / iCMER M a wwr J RWdR �E%6'ggF.v P[111fR f. Figure 15: The City has developed preliminary culvert replacement plans for the Ruby Creek culvert under Sidney Road SW and is seeking grant funding for this project. 7.2 Goals and Policies. (Additional Goals beyond those already in the Comprehensive Plan). Goal NS-1: Encourage the protection of Ruby and Blackjack Creeks and provide educational and interpretive opportunities to residents about the critical functions that these features serve. Policy NS-1: Provide wildlife viewing areas and interpretive signage. Policy NS-2: Ensure that wetland buffers and fish and wildlife habitat buffers are provided consistent with critical areas regulations. Policy NS-3: Ensure that minimum flood plain elevations are observed. Goal NS-2: Ensure that all critical habitats, especially anadromous fish habitats in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood, are protected, restored, and enhanced. Policy NS-4: Seek opportunities to enhance and restore wetlands, streams, and buffers in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood. Policy NS-5: Provide for extensive use of low impact development in project and street design. Policy NS-6: Remove City owned fish passage barriers within the subarea. Goal NS-3: Allow for the development of low impact walking paths and trails along Ruby Creek and Blackjack Creek to encourage protection, education, and stewardship. 21 Policy NS-7: Permit walkway, trail, and pedestrian bridge construction, provided that habitat mitigation is provided in accordance with the critical areas code. 7.3 Natural Systems Project List. The following are projects to improve natural systems that have been identified for completion within the subarea: Table 4: Natural Systems Project List Project Name Agency Project Cost Funding Source SR-16 Blackjack Creek WSDOT 11,200,000 State Culvert Replacement Sidney Road SW Ruby City of Port Orchard $1,800,000 Grant/Stormwater Creek Culvert Utility Replacement Blackjack/Ruby Creek City of Port Orchard $500,000 Grant/Parks Stream and Floodplain Impact Fees Restoration Chapter 8 Utilities. 8.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Center is served by City water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater, Puget Sound Energy (electric and gas), Xfinity, Wave, Century Link, and KPUD (cable, phone, and/or internet). Significant utility upgrades are required to support the development and buildout of the Ruby Creek Center. Water source and storage, sewer lift station, force main, and gravity main improvements, stormwater improvements, and extension of underground power, gas, and telecommunication infrastructure are all necessary to support development. Although the City's water and sewer system plans will contain the most up to date information, several projects are currently identified to support the level of development identified in this plan. Those projects are listed in Table 5. Some of the projects listed in Table 5 have their locations indicated on Figures 4, 6, or 8. Other projects may be located outside of the center boundary but are needed to support center build out. Table 5: Utilities Project List Water/Sewer Project Name Project Description Water Well 13 Well 13 increases available water source in the 390 pressure zone. Water 390 Booster Pump Some areas in the 390 zone (outside of the Ruby Creek Area) could see pressures below the minimum 30 PSI if additional connections in the 390 zone are made. A booster pump will increase pressure to these properties. 22 Sewer Albertson's Lift Station Capacity The wet well at the Albertsons Upgrades lift station is undersized for anticipated development. Sewer North Ruby Creek Lift Station A sewer lift station is needed to support growth in the sub area to the north of Ruby Creek. Sewer South Ruby Creek Lift Station A second South Ruby Creek lift station may be needed if the Albertson's lift station cannot be upgraded sufficiently. This project would support growth in the center and west of the center and south of Ruby Creek. Sewer Sidney Road SW Second Force A second sewer force main will Main be needed to support the full buildout of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center running from the Albertson's lift station to the Cedar Heights Lift Station. Electric PSE Sidney Ave undergrounding and Underground distribution and transmission relocation service lines and move transmission poles (Schedule 74). Goal U-1: Encourage a comprehensive and collaborative approach between the City and developers to improving utility systems in the Ruby Creek basin. Policy U-1: The City should facilitate meetings between private developers and encourage the use of all legally available financing mechanisms for building out utilities in the center. Policy U-2: The City's water, sewer, and stormwater system plans should identify needed improvements in the center and determine which projects are in support of development vs. projects needed to correct existing deficiencies. Policy U-3: The City should ensure the costs and benefits for system improvements are equitable between all landowners and existing rate payers. Goal U-2: Ensure that adequate operational water supply and fire flow are available to support development in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy U-4: Provide employment and population assumptions for the center as contained in this plan to the City's water system manager for inclusion in the next water system plan update. Goal U-3: Ensure that sanitary sewer facilities are available to support development in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy U-5: Secure the needed property and/or easements to expand the Albertson's lift station, or, identify a site for a new sewer lift station in the center. 23 Policy U-6: Extend gravity sewers throughout the center to support development. Policy U-7: Ensure the sanitary sewer force main leaving the center is adequately sized for full build out of the center. Goal U-4: Ensure that adequate stormwater facilities exist to serve the public streets and sidewalks in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy U-8: Build low impact development (LID) stormwater facilities to manage stormwater created by new public and private streets within the center. Figure 16: Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Techniques incorporated into street design. This sort of design is encouraged in the Ruby Creek neighborhood. Goal U-5: Ensure that telecommunication facilities are adequate to support 21" century users. Policy U-9: Ensure that KPUD has access to trenches as roads and utilities are installed. Policy U-10: Provide for integration of 5G wireless facilities in the streetscape along Sidney Road SW. Chapter 10 Transportation. 10.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Center is established along the Sidney Road SW corridor near the intersection of SW Sedgwick Road. Historically, Sidney Road SW was a primary north -south route through Kitsap County connecting Purdy and Gig Harbor to the south with Port Orchard (Town of Sidney). This road's role was changed with the construction of SR-16. Access to SR-16 and SR-160 is provided at an interchange to the southeast of the Center. Kitsap Transit provides transit service to the center and is evaluating the possibility of a park and ride in or near the center. SR-160 provides access to the Southworth Ferry Terminal, with ferry service continuing on to Vashon Island, West Seattle, and Downtown Seattle via WSDOT and Kitsap Transit Ferries. As part of center development, improvements are envisioned for both Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road along with other new public or private roads. Sidney Road SW is classified as a Minor Arterial. Pursuant to the City's Public Works and Engineering Standards, Sidney is planned to be improved as a complete street through the center. To achieve Countywide Center requirements, the standard road section has been modified to ensure wider 24 sidewalks, required bicycle lanes, and low impact development landscape treatments. The Sidney Road section in the "main street" core of the center is designed to slow traffic, facilitating a safe walking and shopping environment as well as street parking. The Sidney Road SW streetscape is a critical public infrastructure facility required to transport this neighborhood into a Countywide Center. The Sidney Road SW section drawings are shown in Figures 17, 18, and 19. SW Sedgwick Road is classified as a Principal Arterial. Pursuant to the City's public works and engineering standards, SW Sedgwick Road is planned to be improved as a complete street that provides access to the Ruby Creek neighborhood and allows significant throughput. This road is significantly constrained due to critical areas between Sidney Road SW and SR-16, and experiences regular backups. Widening this road may require some sacrifices such as sidewalks on one side of the roadway to ensure that critical environments are protected. To the west of Sidney Road SW, a developer plans to install a non -motorized pedestrian pathway along the north side of SW Sedgwick Road west to the city boundary to provide access to a single-family residential development to the west of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood. Although the City will not be making improvements to the SR-16/SR 160 interchange, it is important encourage the state to make improvements to this facility. Improved access to these state highways from the Ruby Creek Center will be needed as the City grows. Sidney Road - Commercial Area South of Ruby Creek 88' Right of Way M �\ _v v Parallel Bike ♦ � ♦ Bike Parallel Parldng Lane Travel lane Turn Lane! Median Travel Lane Lane ParkEngSidewalk Curb Curb Figure 17: Sidney Road SW — Storefront Road Section. This road section corresponds with the section of Sidney Road SW designated as a storefront street in Figure 13. Sidney Road - Residential Area North of Ruby Creek 88' Right of Way 5 S Sidewalk Sidewalk 6' 6' 6" a' 6' 12' II' 12' 6' 8' 6" 6' 6' Curb Curb Figure 18: Sidney Road SW. This road section would be used in the center to the north of the Ruby Creek crossing. 25 Sidney Road - Crossing Ruby Creek 60' Right of Way Bike � * Bike Lane Travel lane Travel Lark Lane Figure 19: Sidney Road SW. Where Sidney Road SW crosses Ruby Creek, the road will narrow and taper to the above standard. This will minimize impacts to Ruby Creek while providing for nonmotorized connectivity. This section requires culvert replacement. Goal T-1: Improve Sidney Road SW between SW Sedgwick Road and Hovde Road generally in accordance with Figures 17, 18, and 19 above, with center medians generally placed in accordance with the site plans in Figures 1, 4, 6, and 8. Policy T-1: Provide pedestrian crossings across Sidney Road SW at regular intervals through the corridor. Policy T-2: Ensure that driveways and roads to the north and south of Ruby Creek are aligned across Sidney Road SW to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings of Sidney Road SW. Figure 20: Align driveways to facilitate pedestrian crossings throughout the Sidney Road SW corridor. Policy T-3: Provide on street parking through the center along Sidney Road SW. Policy T-4: Minimize pedestrian crossing distances through the corridor using bulb -outs. Policy T-5: Design Sidney Road SW in a way to reduce vehicle speed and increased pedestrian safety. 26 Policy T-6: Integrate urban low impact development stormwater management features in the roadway design, including landscaped infiltration galleries between the on -street parking lanes and sidewalks. Ensure that the infiltration galleries allow ample opportunities for access between parking areas and sidewalk. (See Figure 16.) Goal T-2: Improve SW Sedgwick Road between Sidney Road SW and SR-16 to ensure that traffic can flow freely through this constrained road segment. Policy: T-7: Continue to work with and lobby WSDOT to improve SR-160 and the interchange at SR-160 and SR-16. Policy: T-8: Improve SW Sedgwick Road as a complete street and add additional lanes if warranted. (SW Sedgwick Road should be evaluated to determine whether widening is warranted or whether the deficiency in this corridor is caused by WSDOT facilities.) Goal T-3: Improve connectivity between the Ruby Creek Neighborhood and areas to the north, including SW Berry Lake Road, Cedar Heights Middle School, and the Tremont Street corridor. Policy T-9: Coordinate City improvements to Sidney Road SW between Tremont Street and SW Sedgwick Road with intersection improvements at Berry Lake Road, to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety throughout this north -south corridor. Goal T-4: Discourage private surface parking lots in favor of on -street parking, under building parking, and structured parking. Policy T-10 Consider offering multifamily tax exemptions to projects that do not use surface parking lots. Policy T-11: Provide an exemption to surface parking standards for parks and park and ride facilities. Goal T-5: Encourage the development of storefronts along the frontage of Sidney road SW. Policy T-12: Designate Sidney Road SW as "storefront block frontage" in the city's design standards and require a build -to -zone along this frontage. Goal T-6: Support expanded and more frequent transit service in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-13: Adjust transit stop locations for maximum convenience as Sidney Road SW corridor develops. 27 Figures 21 and 22: Kitsap Transit map and schedule showing current Route 5 location, stops, and frequency. Policy T-14: Support the development of a park and ride in or near the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-15: Support increased transit frequency for transit service in the Ruby Creek Center. Goal T-7: Support bicycle infrastructure and provide bicycle amenities in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-16: Provide bike lanes or grade separated pathways running east/west and north/south through the Ruby Creek Center. These may be in the SW Sedgwick Road and Sidney Road SW right of way or running parallel to the ROW. m Policy T-17: Ensure that bicycle parking is provided in the Ruby Creek Center. Goal T-8: Provide pedestrian Infrastructure throughout the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-18: Ensure that existing and proposed streets in the Ruby Creek Center are constructed with sidewalks on both sides of the street and landscape strips for pedestrian vehicle separation. Policy T-19: Provide pedestrian connectivity between and within development projects in addition to that which is provided along public and private streets. Goal T-9: Provide safe multimodal access to the schools located along Sidney Road SW and Pottery. Policy T-20: Ensure that sidewalks are provided between the center and Sidney Glen Elementary School and to Cedar Heights Elementary School. Goal T-10: Coordinate electrical transmission and power pole relocation and undergrounding with road projects on Sidney Rd SW. Policy T-21: Undergrounding of powerline distribution and service should be required through the storefront section of the Sidney Road SW corridor. Undergrounding of transmission lines in the storefront section is encouraged if feasible. Goal T-11: Evaluate options for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements in the vicinity of Sidney Glen Elementary school, to ensure safe walking and bicycling conditions, safe and efficient pickup and drop-off for students, and safe vehicle turning movements at intersections. Policy T-22: As part of a future Sidney Road SW corridor project, ensure that pedestrian and bicycle safety and access improvements are made at the intersection of SW Birch Road and Sidney Road SW. 29 V Ail All WOO.' s ��T. � �"•�•'I.. -. � �3:1;' J ~ram .. ___ ��� p � I _ � _ _•..�„r. - _.. _. v � _ . ..- � .. .. _ .� . Y:F-.�` ��.r�� - • . -� M - �, �y�.-+ate - � ~�f~a�%i �•' . i� � - s_-tom-� �1 -ter 'i� - _ . p.' .. - r _ 3 � �_ _ _ �.. _ ..;�- _.^.rr�+Y �. .,. �' � � _ ' - - � "� fit. �I � � �3 w• y _ ' l � � � y' it �'� - �' _.. � � �� _ • ,�' • J 'yam .' � �• ��r �-;, r I PROJECT INFORMATION Port Orchard is a small but growing city in the Puget Sound region of Washington State. It enjoys an outstanding natural setting in close proximity to major urban employment centers. This setting and its role as Kitsap County Seat, Port Orchard has the opportunity to be an important regional center for growth. Keeping these opportunities in mind the Department of Community Planning at City of Port Orchard, along with its consultants are conducting a subarea plan and planned action EIS for the Port Orchard Downtown and County Government Campus. These areas have land uses and conditions that are unique to the City and would benefit from the subarea process as they will need to accommodate a proportionate share of the City's growth allocation in accordance with Vision 2050. The subarea and planned action EIS planning process will address issues such as current land uses, development capacity, future development mix and location of densities and uses, transportation, utilities, public facilities, amenities, and natural resources. The result of the planning process will be a subarea plan which will be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan. The subarea plan requires early and continuous public participation consistent with RCW 43.21 C.420. The planned action EIS shall meet the requirements of RCW 43.21 C.440(1) (b)(ii). The subarea plan and planned action EIS, which will be partly funded by an E2SHB 1923 grant administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce, must also comply with the requirements of the Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill (E2SHB) 1923 (Chapter 248, Laws of 2019). Additionally, the subarea plan shall address the PSRC Countywide Center criteria. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City of Port Orchard Department of Community Development 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 planning @cityofportorchard.us Mayor: Robert Putaansuu City Council Members: Bek Ashby John Clauson Fred Chang Cindy Lucarelli Scott Diener Jay Rosapepe Shawn Cucciardi Planning Commission: Trish Tierney Stephanie Bailey Annette Stewart Mark Trenary David Bernstein Phil King Joe Morrison City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Director Keri Sallee, Long Range Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews, Associate Planner Contact: Nick Bond nbond@cityofportorchard.us Keri Sallee kSallee@cityofportorchard.us Final: May 18, 2021 CONSULTANT TEAM Urban Design, Architect Real Estate and Economic Analysis GGLO Heartland 1301 First Avenue, Suite 300 1301 First Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98101 Contact: Contact: Jeff Foster Mark Goodman jfoster@GGLO.com mgoodman@htland.com Mitch Ptacek mptacek@gglo.com Civil Engineer - Sanitary Sewer and Water Infrastructure Engineers and Environmental Services BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Seattle, WA 98101 Inc., PBC Contact: 2200 6th Ave #707, John Gillespie Seattle, WA 98121 john.gillespie@bhcconsultants.com Contact: Rich Schipanski rschipanski@eaest.com Transportation Engineer Transportation Solutions, Inc. Civil Engineer - Storm Water 8250 165th Ave NE, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Reid Middleton, Inc. Contact: 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Andrew Bratlien Everett, WA 98204 andrewb@tsinw.com Contact: Julian Dodge jdodge@reidmiddleton.com Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 5 CONTENTS 09 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 STUDY AREA 1.3 PSRC FRAMEWORK 15 SECTION 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY ANALYSIS 2.1 HISTORY 2.2 RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS AND CURRENT PLANNING 2.3 EXISTING BUILT FORM AND CONTEXT 2.4 PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS 2.5 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING 2.6 CIRCULATION, ACCESS AND PARKING 2.7 UTILITIES 2.8 ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE 2.9 MARKET CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 2.9.1 ECONOMIC PROFILE 2.9.2 DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE 2.9.3 BUILD -ABLE LANDS 2.9.4 BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND ACTIVITY UNITS 2.9.5 MARKET YIELD ASSESSMENT 59 SECTION 3 - DRAFT SUBAREA PLAN GOALS AND VISION 3.1 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 3.2 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 3.2.1 WEST DOWNTOWN 3.2.2 EAST DOWNTOWN Final: May 18, 2021 6 CONTENTS 3.2.3 COUNTY GOVERNMENT CAMPUS 3.3 LAND USE AND HOUSING 3.4 ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING SECTION 04 - APPENDIX A - PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN AND OUTREACH SUMMARY B - HEARTLAND ECONOMIC PROFILE AND BUILD -ABLE LANDS ANALYSIS Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 7 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.1. PLAN BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The 2014 City of Port Orchard periodic Comprehensive Plan update incorporated a new "centers" strategy to guide future planning and designated the first ten "local centers" (See section 2.7 of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan). The Centers strategy evolved from the State Growth Management Act of the early 1990's as a means to combat urban sprawl development patterns that defined the post-war era. This strategy strives to accommodate growth in designated areas while preserving the existing character of the community, thereby retaining more open space and the dominant pattern of existing development. The centers approach to planning is provided in Vision 2050, the regional plan completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council, and in the County -wide Planning Policies adopted by all jurisdictions in Kitsap County. The latest Comprehensive Plan designated eight "countywide centers" and four designated "local centers". In addition, the City identified the Downtown and the County Campus as a potential candidate for a Regional Center designation under Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050. This plan addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. In late 2019 the City received a Department of Commerce E2SHB 1923 Grant intended to develop plans and actions that will increase residential building capacity. The grant provided partial funding for the City of Port Orchard to contract with consultants to complete the Downtown and County Campus Centers Subarea Plan and planned action EIS. The Center boundaries identified in the Comprehensive Plan do not meet the latest PSRC requirements for Regional Centers. After consultation with PSRC it was decided to expand the study area boundary to identify recommendations of expansion of the current Centers. The City and their consultants explored design alternatives for the subarea to be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Statement (See Section 3). Due to most of subarea being previously developed land, the alternatives include a single redevelopment plan for the East Downtown, West Downtown, and Government Campus while considering different programmatic approach to identified developable lands. The alternatives considered are as follows: • Alternative 1 - No Action • Alternative 2 - Residential Focus • Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT This original Public Participation Plan (See Appendix A) was developed just prior to state and local mandated closures to prevent the spread of corona -virus. This resulted in project delays and the cancellation of the City's plans to conduct in person workshops with neighborhood residents and property owners. The City has instead relied on internet surveys and public hearings before the Planning Commission that were held remotely. INITIAL GOALS 'Establish a vision for a vibrant urban center that is economically feasible and context sensitive' The city is defined by its physical and social environments and the ways in which they are connected. This subarea plan seeks to lay out a vision for Port Orchard that is founded on connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to a stronger community. The following initial goals were derived from City of Port Orchard Department of Community Development initial project definition goals summary: • Develop a Subarea Plan that establishes a vision for Port Orchard as vibrant urban center that supports denser residential living in a walkable neighborhood. • Increase Housing supply consistent with the goals of E2SHB grant. • Focused growth in designated centers to support residential living in walkable neighborhoods. • The plan should meet the PSRC criteria for designation as a countywide center. • Prepare a Planned Action EIS to identify potential SEPA regulatory compliance barriers and encourage economic development. • Plan for the City of Port Orchard to accommodate growth as a proposed high capacity transit community under Vision 2050. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Study Area City of Port Orchard Centers • County Campus • Downtown Study Area • 329 total acres Principle Arterials • Bay Street & Bethel Ave • Port Orchard and Mitchell Streets • Sidney Ave and Cline Ave Existing Land Use • Neighborhoods - Residential • Private Property / Commercial Uses • Government - City / Kitsap County • South Kitsap High School • Marina Waterfront Targeted Redevelopment Areas • West Downtown Waterfront • East Downtown Waterfront • County Campus sa�aa o a •.� > '? t Downtown _ - • Plan Center ;�..�- . ',a: �•bp� �.: !Jul f . -el ,,.art. •rtr■.b,.;o .`,•• ... .�<^ s �•$ `"�-• — __ _. s a. ' you a s■ 69F —. AL 14 n�./ Fay itl# ¢■ ■ y, i 004 R . County Campus e ..� r z■°� Plan Center,- -4 • r I n ',I r r lim IV FAW 44 ONES -.,bJ lL�+rS-il^:1 - Ly�i�i A.a■•�.��i�:.ia.._ !° �. J r� a r� ire STUDYAREA MAP AND PREVIOUS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CENTERS O SCALE: 1 " = 1000' Final: May 18, 2021 10 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION DEFINING THE SUBAREA BOUNDARY The original Subarea Boundary consisted of the Downtown and the County Government Campus Centers as delineated in the Comprehensive Plan. After initial evaluation and consultation with the City and PSRC three additional study area boundaries were developed for consideration. The goals of the study area boundary evaluations included: • Include sufficient context to allow the plan to include a holistic approach. • Preference for boundaries to cross streets such that planning can encompass a corridor approach. • Provide sufficient developable land inventory. • Provide a strong basis for a future PSRC Regional Centers Application. €: •. � wEgwy�� •_�,,• F • r Tif 119.82 Acres rr .R Original Centers .......... T ji• S Al s �,� � .� �: ,ta7:Aig,•o .ff as It t 288.82tA re r _ a", 1 The selected subarea boundary is a combination of option 1 and option 3. The selected boundary Guidance from PSRC suggested that it would be easier to reduce the boundary for a centers application than it would be to propose a large application boundary than what was previously studied. While the study area is extensive (329 acres), changes will not be proposed in all areas. Planned development is envisioned to primarily occur in or near the existing urban centers, along existing principle Arterials, and at currently underutilized parcels (see Section 2 and enclosed Appendix B). Z s ion ,L g j % v ; � •, r � � 20].83 Acres t upcion z Ur19 r `t • •• .P • r Er` 222.89 Acre 3 City of Port Orchard 2019 Urban Center Alternatives Urban Center Options Option =a 3 Cfty of Part Or -- Depa—nt of Common ty Development 216 Proapeci Street P.0 O—W M 98366 Ph.ne (366) 876 033 Fax (360) 8M4980 trofp non r STUDYAREA OPTIONS O SCALE: N.T.S. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 11 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework SUBAREA BOUNDARY r )PULATION AND EMPLOYMENT The City has no designated Regional Growth centers at this time, but the Downtown and County Government Campus Centers are being considered as a candidate for a future combined regional growth center. The selected subarea boundary does not meet the PSRC existing activity unit requirements, but it will identify the location of potential future capacity. URBAN GROWTH COUNTYWIDE CRITERIA • Existing density - 18 activity units per acre minimum • Planned target density - 45 activity units per acre minimum • Mix of uses - Regional growth centers should have a goal for a minimum mix of at least 15% planned residential and employment activity in the center. • Size - 200 acres minimum - 640 acres maximum • Transit - Existing or planned fixed route bus, regional bus, Bus Rapid Transit, or other frequent and all -day bus service. May substitute high -capacity transit mode for fixed route bus. Service quality is defined as either frequent (< 15-minute headways) and all -day (operates at least 16 hours per day on weekdays) -or- high capacity • Market potential - Evidence of future market potential to support planning target • Role - Evidence of regional role • Clear regional role for center (serves as important destination for the county) • Jurisdiction is planning to accommodate significant residential and employment growth under Regional Growth Strategy COUNTYWIDE CENTER CRITERIA • Identified as a countywide center in the countywide planning policies • Located within a city or unincorporated urban area • Demonstration that the center is a local planning and investment priority: • Identified as a countywide center in a local comprehensive plan; subarea plan recommended • Clear evidence that area is a local priority for investment, such as planning efforts or infrastructure • The center is a location for compact, mixed -use development; including: • A minimum existing activity unit density of 10 activity units per acre • Planning and zoning for a minimum mix of uses of 20 percent residential and 20 percent employment unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. • Capacity and planning for additional growth • The center supports multi -modal transportation, including: • Transit service • Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities • Street pattern that supports walkability • Bicycle infrastructure and amenities • Compact, walkable size of one -quarter mile squared (160 acres), up to half -mile transit walkshed (500 acres) Alternate Subarea Study Boundaries (PSRC Existing Conditions Analysis) Total Population Covered Employment Total Acres* Activity Units/Acres Option 0-Current Comp Plan 733 1,607 120 20 Option 1 1,275 2,113 259 13 Option 2 1,163 2,018 208 15 Option 3 1,424 1,697 223 14 Option 4 - Selected Subarea Study Boun 1,806 dift1 329 12 Source: PSRC, 2020 TOTAL ACRES: PSRC references the total acreage of the Study Area, which includes the gross parcel and public right of way acreage. Analysis contained later in the report referencing gross and net buildable lands does not include existing public right of way. Final: May 18, 2021 12 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 13 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 2 Existing Conditions Final: May 18, 2021 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History ,A. HISTu.,. OF PORT ORCHARD The City acknowledges that the Port Orchard and the broader Kitsap Peninsula is home to two Native American tribes, the Suquamish Tribe and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The City of Port Orchard and Sinclair Inlet are within the Tribe's adjudicated Usual and Accustomed (U&A) fishing, hunting and gathering area. The Tribe has a strong historical and present connection in Sinclair Inlet that is significant and well documented. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Suquamish Tribe inhabited the area in and around Port Orchard and Sinclair Inlet and has utilized its natural resources (including fish and shellfish) for thousands of years. Sinclair Inlet has been and continues to be an important cultural, historical, economical, and a place of well-being of the Suquamish Tribe. Significant tribal salmon fisheries exist in the inlet. Port Orchard, located in south Kitsap County, was platted as Sidney in 1886 by Frederick Stevens who wanted to name the future town after his father, Sidney Merrill Stevens. He chose a site on the southern shore of the Sinclair Inlet, part of Port Orchard Bay. Sidney quickly became known for its lumber industry, pottery works, small businesses, and agricultural opportunities. In 1890 it became the first town to incorporate in Kitsap County. Sidney residents took an active role in bringing the Puget Sound Naval Station (later Puget Sound Naval Shipyard) to Kitsap County. The navy employed many residents of Port Orchard and greater Kitsap County from the turn of the century onwards, and became the most important employer in the county. In 1893, after building a courthouse and donating it to the county, Sidney was chosen as county seat. After 1903, Port Orchard continued to grow due to the expansion of the naval yard during the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, and the 1960s, and due to Port Orchard's reputation as a quiet waterfront community located in a beautiful environment and close to Seattle. 1950's Street in Port Orchard, WA 1940's Kitsap County Court House 1970'a Port Orchard Marina 1908 Ferry Docks Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 15 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History SINCLAIR, INLET Upland Bluff Commercial '~� /�� /�F' Filled Tidelands Westbay City C, 14 x ��,qC ` County Bldg `- 160 Port Orchard Blackjack Blvd Ravine Creek / Ravine Historic Geographic Influenced Development Pattern O Final: May 18, 2021 16 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS NATURAL FEATURES AND GEOGRAPHY The geography and natural landscape of Port Orchard is defined by its waterfront on Sinclair inlet, the multiple stream ravines, and the steep topography that divides them. Just as these stream valleys bring rains to Sinclair Inlet, the valleys at Port Orchard Boulevard and Bethel Avenue now discharge residents and visitors into the West and East Downtown as they travel from the uphill and inland neighborhoods. The original waterfront shoreline was generally located at the current site of Bay Street prior to the infill of historic waterfront tidelands. These filled lands present a challenge potential redevelopment due to flood risks, poor soil conditions, and a high water table farrT terminal rocery k produce mov, tag e� St livery navy Viei r hotel dance ha ° ®" i 1t r 0 it V Historic Waterfront Figure -Ground - 1914 I If 4 i ILI Historic Waterfront Figure -Ground - 1982 Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 17 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History 1994 1908 - Port Orchard - Ferry Docks 1950's - Port Orchard - Bay Street Final: May 18, 2021 18 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ����c•-emu �*-�•aa jW 2020 - Port Orchard - Ferry Docks 2020 - Port Orchard - Bay Street Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 19 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.2 Existing Built form and Context The analysis has identified three distinct areas within the broader study area, the West Downtown, the East Downtown and the County Government Campus. All three areas have a different built -form and character. They areas are divided by the geographic barriers including the change in topography between West Downtown and the County Campus, and the Blackjack Creek Ravine between the County Campus and Bethel Corridor. The West Downtown Neighborhood The West Downtown Neighborhood is the current and historical cultural and civic hub of the community. Its is also the recreational hub with ferry connections to the neighboring cities. The area includes a mix of land uses like the City Hall and public library, the Kitsap Bank and restaurants and retail services. Restaurant and Retail along Bay Street The East Downtown Neighborhood The East Downtown is geographically separated from the West Downtown and was developed later with a more auto - centric development pattern. The neighborhood includes a mix of commercial uses from the junction of Bay Street and Bethel Ave and the waterfront. Further it extends in south to Mitchell Corridor which is higher in density with a mixture of single-family homes surrounding South Kitsap High School. Single Family Homes Around Mitchell Corridor County Campus The Kitsap County Government campus is both the heart of the Center and the City's largest employer. The Port Orchard Blvd and Black Jack Creek valley's along with the historic steep shoreline isolates the Center from the Downtown. The County Campus is surrounded by single family houses separated from the campus by Sidney and Cline Ave which are also the neighborhood arterials providing vehicle and transit access to downtown. Single Family Homes Around County Campus Final: May 18, 2021 20 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS fB ABA � r s s� O • W. 4 f MEW r • R + ','i. �d■ F �.� �� a 4%si �: CO,�'C. rl Y ,: Wrr - a e'�'�0'fRa to �: ♦p •.[p -FAA. v �� A a. R� '^ � + �� ': • i a ' �4 Vva *-�1� �.�"f /li rR •lA . - � • \ � ��4 as•wa 0 jC, ZJ r• ,■Tr,yY fL'Yr•r '� ..� w �� lL i.r.. lT�, 9. A it VE a. i[ w � W.: ,� r� q� a as Wr. [� - i • • a +a. (J� � • a v e 0.. ~ _ _•�y^, s ni ,„ a.�*, �' .,gyp 4 t. �� .i -•� �` - i'��■11 .[ ..�All na. Q L.L+. 4 i° r for Geographic Districts Map O Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 21 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.3 Recent Achievement and Current Planning BAY STREET PEDES I KIAN PATHWAY The City of Port Orchard is constructing a new 1.0 mile long multi -purpose path/trail, broken into 11 segments beginning at the downtown Port Orchard ferry facility and ending at the Annapolis ferry facility. The completed multi -purpose trail will become a part of the Mosquito Fleet Trail. A future extension is also being planned from downtown to east of Port Orchard blvd. This portion of the Mosquito Fleet Trail along Bay Street, also known as the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway, will be a significant segment of the off -road link in the Mosquito Fleet Trail, which eventually will connect Kingston to Southworth along the eastern shore of Kitsap County. It will also provide a much needed recreational facility within downtown Port Orchard, and a safe alternative transportation mode for its citizens and workforce. Users are expected to include lunchtime walkers, bicycle commuters, families with children, and recreational cyclists on both organized and independent tours. The trail is also likely to experience heavy multiple use during special events organized and hosted by the City of Port Orchard. BAY/ BETHEL STREET INTERSECTION REDESIGN Roundabouts are safer than traditional traffic signals or stop sign controlled intersections, and they accommodate vehicles of various sizes, including emergency vehicles, buses, semi -trucks with trailers, farm and logging equipment. Studies show roundabouts reduce injury crashes by 75% at intersections where stop signs or traffic signals previously existed. Roundabouts improve the flow of traffic because users don't have to wait for a green light to get through the intersection. Other benefits of a roundabout include vehicles moving in the same direction which helps improve traffic flow. Roundabouts reduce maintenance and repair costs when compared to traffic signals. w ._. SOUTH KITSAP COMMUNITY EVENTS CENTER SINCLAIR INLET PPOP V M v uTT swvR[[nr[ �STErcPNN ��•• �••�-^ •• W�nOE[ —KING a i - - % WPaevp x - -..-j _� �� -� SITE 6 o«Grosen �� •-W�D00- rcfT5�P 9�prc / / i �.r.r a.xePr rww wna. /. PE r G • T. GxwG.r The South Kitsap Community Events Center (SKCEC) is a collaboration between the City of Port Orchard, and the Kitsap Regional library. Concepts suggested a 24,000-square- foot multi -use facility that includes 9,000 square feet for the new Library. In 2019, the Kitsap Public Funding District allocated up to $12 million in phased funding to support the p roj e ct. Under Rice Fergus Miller's guidance, a site has been selected at the corner of Bay Street between Port Street and Orchard Ave. Initial concepts placed the new facility in downtown Port Orchard with a project scope that would include shoreline restoration, public open space, and parking solutions. Final: May 18, 2021 22 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS WATERFRONT LIFT STATION AND PLAZA The City of Port Orchard (City) uses its Marina Pump Station to collect all the City's wastewater and discharges it to the West Sound Utility District's (District) Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). With the City's rapidly growing development, the Marina Pump Station must remain reliable and capable of handling the expected increased flow rates through projected build -out. The existing station is a critical piece of the City's sewer system and must remain effective during high flow events. Currently, the Marina waterfront is used frequently by the City's residents and visitors. When proposing alternatives to upgrade the Marina Pump Station, the City stressed the importance of maintaining the aesthetics of the waterfront environment for generations to come. This Predesign Report analyzes alternative pump station improvements based on current, future, and build -out peak hour flow rates, reliability, expected resiliency, and cost. PARKS PLAN UPDATE The City currently has approximately 70 acres of park area, as well as trails and other open space. However, the Parks Plan has not been substantively updated since 2011. Once updated, the Parks Plan will provide a 20-year vision for the City's parks, recreation, open space, and trails, as well as a 6-year action plan for implementing short- and medium - term steps to succeed in this vision. Steps in development of the Parks Plan update will include research, public involvement, and the creation of recommendations for all aspects of Port Orchard's park system, including a community demand, supply and needs analysis. The Parks Plan will also include a framework for fiscally sound decision -making over a multi -year planning period. The Parks Plan functions in coordination with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 23 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts SUMMARY As the team prepares to draft a subarea plan for the City of Port Orchard we reviewed the previous planning efforts done by the city. We found a lot of similarities in the recommendations of these planning efforts and we plan on addressing them in the Sub -area plan. Following are the planning efforts: 1. Comprehensive Plan of 1966 2. Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization Plan Kasprisin Plan -1983 3. Downtown Port Orchard: Suggestion for Revitalization - 1999 4. Port Orchard: Economic Development Plan - 2004 MY ]W1Yr w* ci auirro a. MR V .ter '° ara■s�� ta4■�waR ' _�■+�n�rtr vrrw� . 9)T --- _ �IQ 'TC G:TI rl G r� yy M.P. l9Sr i4 Idihm y,�,� I77Fla['i7n .uiL{ } kCW Kr*m rpzj, �pw�}in■cnr iLmL C«r 2004 Port Orchard Economic Development Plan - Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections Concept Plan Final: May 18, 2021 24 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1. PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS 0 Awaterfront park and restaurant on the newly filled tidelands COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 1966 • A new yacht club marina, boat sale are on filled In 1966, Port Orchard completed a comprehensive plan for tidelands at the north of Blackjack Creek the city and downtown area. As a point of reference, the redevelopment recommendations for the downtown and And an expanded, east -west commercial wall to the north side of the existing Bay Street complex, a civic waterfront area are summarized below. center / auditorium was included in the development. Key recommendations include: 0 A relocation of city hall to Sidney Street and the • A scenic waterfront beach drive, from the De Kalb Blackjack Creek extension (present by-pass proposal) Street right-of-way connecting to Bay Avenue East of . A new waterfront motel. the West Bay Commercial area. • A substantial fill of the tidelands along the waterfront from the De Kalb Street waterway to include Blackjack Creek and West Bay. Auditorium Auto Oriente Cornin cia.l Park Motel la New �I — �ornTJreial Fact] kes I r� �I I e -V -its EHal Westbay Comprehensive Plan - 1966 Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 25 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts 2.1. rhtVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS KASPRISIN PLAN - 1983 The objectives of this study are to develop recommendations for revitalization the downtown and waterfront areas of the City of Port Orchard. Key Recommendations: • Waterfront Drive • Substantial tidelands infill • Waterfront Park • Yacht Club and Marina • Expanded east -west commercial corridor • Relocate City Hall to Sidney and new highway bypass SR 160 • New waterfront motel Sidney Hotel Hill Climb S I� Kasperian Plan - 1983 • Building and landscape improvements • Return waterfront and stream right-of-ways to public use • Downtown as a historic marine center • Integrate plans with Kitsap transit • Prioritize by-pass • Waterfront pedestrian walkway • Visual access to the waterfront from upland areas • Prioritize water dependent / related uses on th waterfront • Improve connections to uphill neighborhoods through possible hill -climb and lookout at "Fort Hill" Final: May 18, 2021 26 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS I Blackjack Creek Pedestrian Bridge Blackjack Creeku West Bay111 P " f 4 .13 • � I I L � � r� f ° 'x / � "P, A. -` 9 I I I I J Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 27 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts 2.1. PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS REVITALIZATION PLAN - 1999 In 1999, the University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning, prepared a revitalization strategy for downtown. This planning process included an opinion survey focused on the transportation and buying habits/preferences of individuals living in and passing through downtown Port Orchard. Key Recommendations: • Add strategic anchors • Up -zone to allow 24-30 dwelling units / acre • Increase height limits to 55' measured from Bay Street • Improve pedestrian connectivity Suggestion for Revitalization - 1999 • Develop mixed -use commercial pier along the waterfront F WA5E TWO 28 Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Mouth of Blackjack Creek w Mouth of Blackjack Creek Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 29 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts 2.1. t KEVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS EDAW PLAN - 2004 The City selected a team of consultants led by EDAW, Inc. (urban design and planning) and including Property Counselors (market analysis) for these studies. Key Recommendations: • Frame the District. • Enhance the Streetscape • Strengthen the Sense of Place in the Core • Emphasize Port Orchard's Rich History • Activate the Area • Preserve and Reinforce View Corridors • Better Connections with the Waterfront • Enhance Streetscape from Bethel to Port Orchard Boulevard • Strengthen Connections with the County • Create a Pedestrian Corridor for the Downtown Core • Tie Waterfront Park with an Expanded Waterfront Greenway O 3 N Marina K �1 y� larw t 0 j' r -in — UP QUA r - P e ~rq I a I -u u L m X >, DEKALB ST. Final: May 18, 2021 30 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 0PPORTUNIME5 0 City Center - Specialty Retail Core Retain active on street uses 0 Underutilized - infill or redevelop; Encourage mix of uses, emphasis on residential ner core nnnnn Marquee - Explore alternatives for Downtown idenity Encourage authenticity in architecture Enhance 5treet5cape - improve experience of pedestrians - visual enhancement of street corridor View Corridors - preserve views to water terminate views at Land mark features Activity Generators - Link and encourage development of added active uses ■ Parks * Greenways - Extend, enhance, maximize pedestrian linkages and water access Identity - 5torytellmg elements - add focus on art, ,r history, architecture Key Intersection - Enhance mtersection to provide focus and sense of place G'- Downtown Gateway - Enhance landscaping to highlight entrance E ♦ pb�o 1 CO eCY� �e IL ♦♦ v'e s�^ Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 31 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.5 Existing Land Use and Zoning CUKKtN I LHIV LJ USE (_HA mHC I tK15 I ICS Updated in 2019, Port Orchard's adopted land use code takes a form based approach to establish standard procedures for all land use and development. The code attempts to foster predictable built results and a high -quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. Because the code does not include density limits such as maximum floor -area -ratios, we used assumed residential densities included in the City Comprehensive plan amendment to establish assumed residential densities. The primary land use designations within the study area is medium density residential and Mixed -use commercial, however the study area include nearly all land use designation. The study are also includes two large public facilities campuses, the Kitsap County Campus and South Kitsap High School. Most land in the city is devoted to housing. Commercial areas and the downtown offer a range of goods and services, provide employment for local residents and those living in surrounding rural areas, and provide additional tax revenue to help fund public services and facilities. Industrial lands allow for light manufacturing and warehousing businesses, which also provide job opportunities and support the area's economy. The Land Use element establishes goals and policies that seek to: • Accommodate changes in population and demographics • Encourage development in urban areas, reduce sprawl, and deliver services efficiently • Ensure land use designations reflect need and demand • Minimize traffic congestion and encourage the development of a multi -modal transportation system • Protect open spaces and the natural environment • Promote physical activity • Support a range of employment opportunities OVERLAY DISTRICT The city's development regulations include land use overlay districts which are applied in parts of the City, as summarized below. • Downtown Height Overlay District • Government/Civic Center District • View Protection Overlay District City of Part Orchard Centers 4 { Annopo hs BWLbol Lund County Csrnji s I _ I F t NR1 Lawar MllU11 9 Hl4 I� FA�orml�k Y4onds L TAQVIii Old CJftn Inn Park - Sadgvrck Belhel Sedgwlck Sidney I! SWAh Bethel Tremont lJpppr M+k Hill Port Orchard Comp Plan Centers 32 Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN PORT ORCHARD CENTER Port Orchard's downtown is the cultural, civic, and recreational hub of the community. The downtown currently contains a mix of land uses, including Port Orchard's City Hall and public library, numerous retail and service businesses, a marina and ferry dock, public parking, and a waterfront park and trail. With access from the water and from state highways 3 and 16, it remains the City's primary center for community events and activities. The City continues to work toward a balance of historic preservation, environmental restoration, and economic improvement for the downtown center. Downtown Port Orchard coupled with the County Campus may be a future candidate as a regional center. As of 2018, the Downtown Port Orchard Center measured 70 acres containing 197 residents and 787 jobs. This equates to 14 activity units per acre under the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. IF COUNTY CAMPUS CENTER The City of Port Orchard has benefited from being the Kitsap County seat, as well as Kitsap County long serving as the City's largest employer. Kitsap County has proposed several phased development scenarios to provide options for the expansion of County facilities within the City of Port Orchard over the next 40 years. The District included land use and regulation proposals derived from the Kitsap County Campus Master Plan created in 2003, which was designed to accomplish the expansion of community facilities and allow uses that would serve to buffer the residential areas from the Campus. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 33 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.5 Existing Land Use and Zoning LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) RESIDENTIAL 1 (R1) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) RESIDENTIAL 2 (R2) ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) GREENBELT (GB) RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) P PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) ® GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU) CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) ® DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) � J r r—_—�— ►1 c,�T l O N '� ywF 1• e ■ p qy i r. r�F I KITSAP j ��~ z z z p �/ w� U DEKALB 0Q ��� w DEKAL.Fr i DWIGHT ! 1 I DIVISION I TAYLOR I O I I ! a SMITH 11 TAYLOR + i KENDALL �`�— PLISKO I 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i-_-_----------- SROUFE I I Existing Zoning Map b N Final: May 18, 2021 34 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT � J t • — / ►► Oc Py �TO/V y4F E KITSAP I 1 - j .01 �-r z LU w Z'000 p r ♦/ w+----� �� " i z U DEKALB 0 Q w DEKALB--�—i v� DWIGHT ! 1 I DIVISION m r i Qf Ctf � 0 I TAYLORQf I O I I ! --- SMITH 11 TAYLOR I + i KENDALL �` PLISKO I I-%--�_- 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i-_-_----------- SROUFE I I Existing Height Overlay Map (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 35 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.5 Existing Land Use and Zoning LEGEND STOREFRONT VARIED LANDSCAPED MARINE GATEWAY TRAIL 0 HIGH VISIBILITY CORNER Note: Dashed lines indicate conceptual planned streets or trails � J _ 1 �� ♦�^ r—_—�— ►1 l O N '� ywF 1• e ■ p qy i r. r�F I KITSAP j ��~ z z z p �/ w� U DEKALB 0 w DEKALB——i DWIGHT ! 1 I DIVISION I TAYLOR I O I I ! a SMITH 11 TAYLOR + i KENDALL �` PLISKO I 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I SROUFE I I Existing Block frontages Plan o• Final: May 18, 2021 36 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.6 Circulation, Access and Parking VEHICULAK uxCULAI ivim mime f.CCESS Minor arterial roads serve as key elements in the county transportation system. These minor arterial roads link together state routes or connect the state route system to Port Orchard, to other major centers, and to the ferry system. For example, Bethel Road is a two lane north/south road located in eastern Port Orchard. As a north/south road, Bethel Road connects and intersects with Sedgwick Road, Lund Avenue, and SR 166. Bethel Road terminates in Port Orchard at Bay Street. Bay Street is the East-West connector for downtown waterfront. Cline Ave and Sydney Ave are the primary vehicle connectors for county campus and downtown Port Orchard. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND ACCESS There are an assortment of pedestrian facilities located throughout Port Orchard and its UGA. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, trails and designated crosswalks. The majority of sidewalks are located along commercial corridors and in some neighborhoods. However there are some breaks in the sidewalks, continuous sidewalks would improve the safety and utility of the pedestrian environment. TRANSPORTATION STUDY See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by TSI Traffic Engineers to be incorporated into the EIS and enclosed in the document appendix. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 37 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.6 Circulation, Access and Parking 't Fuiittic-lial L lassilicallon i� Pnr�--apa1 AlLgnaI #,r qor Arw4W S-E� MILE H!11 'ao�-5- Vehicle Circulation and Access *Reference TSI existing transportation conditions analysis for the Port Orchard Subarea Plan. (�N Final: May 18, 2021 38 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Nonrralorited Faeiii[ies - $Ike lane Mrnquito Flee[ grail S Sidewalk -- sidewalk 10fie $Oek --- planned MuMrmudal Pamway Planned Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Local Street, Urban Center I[ � I(-1/4 MILE, 5 MIN WALK f , � 7 dO yF21. i 1/4 MILE, 5 MIN WALK ' Uj LU X F � 1/4 MILE, 5'MIN WALKwoo LLF z w F ---_� SEmiLE HLtl IAA Pedestrian Circulation and Access IN *Reference TSI existing transportation conditions analysis for the Port Orchard Subarea Plan. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 39 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.6 Circulation, Access and Parking Transit NMI Gf Intere5t Park & Bide —�- Armapalls Foot Ferry --� Pod Orchard Faut Farry Route a - Tremors Route 5 - Sidney ;i Route 8 - Bethel RauTo 9 - South Park Route 81-Anhapolis Commuter Rpu#e 86- I;whworlri Shume Purdy Gflnnection Urh arl Center Cdy Street Ferry [dock I. { I r-� Transit Service Plan n S� ay E 9 ff f4 �E 4{IH!LL. *Reference TSI existing transportation conditions analysis for the Port Orchard Subarea Plan. (�)N Final: May 18, 2021 40 City of Port Orchard Half -Mile Buffer from Ferry Terminals and Ferry Bus Drops Ferry_Routes 41 Ferry Terminals_Bus Drops Ferry & Bus Polygons OFerryTerminal_Buffers FerryTerminals_HalfM ileBuffers_TouchedParcels NoU GA Downtown Subarea Plan Boundary Urban Growth Area = Port Orchard UGA High Speed Transit (Ferry Terminals) 112 Mile Buffer Map (�N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 41 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 42 Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.7 Utilities and Capital Facilities TRANSPORTATION See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided byTSI Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. STORM WATER See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by Reid Middleton Civil Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. WATER SERVICE See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by BHC Civil Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. SEWER SERVICE See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by BHC Civil Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 43 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.8 Environment and Open Spaces EXIS i iimu i ivima Port Orchard is a community which provides a full range of parks, recreation, open space, and ecosystem services by protecting native wildlife habitat, restoring and preserving natural systems, enjoying majestic marine and mountain views, and ensuring new development enhances the natural environment. The existing City parks system is supplemented by the schools of the South Kitsap School District, and the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PARK VISION The City of Port Orchard 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update identifies twelve (12) Centers. The vision of the Parks Element and Comprehensive Parks Plan is to ensure that every center contains and/or is connected to a park by safe non -motorized routes. The Port Orchard Parks and Trails map on the following page depicts existing park facilities in relation to the ten local centers as well as the planned trail connections between local centers depicted with dashed lines. Walking/jogging/running paths were a top priority identified in the 2015 Parks Survey. Connecting local centers and parks with safe non -motorized routes, including those in public right-of-way such as bike lanes and walking shoulders, will increase access to active transportation for all residents and benefit the entire community. The Non -Motorized section of the Transportation Element provides further detail on existing and future trails. Final: May 18, 2021 44 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS O City Boundary Flood Hazard Area ® 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard ® FEMAZoneAE ® FEMAZoneA - Floodway Wetlands Watercourses Potential Wetlands Geologic Hazard Areas of Concern _ High Hazard Areas Bald Eagle Management Area 0 Waterbodies r ■ r LAPLL ■ 1 ' co _ ■� I J J ' R ALY - F '" 1 K ST a DEKALb ST r Q� D IG DWI HT ST DIVI ION T � ! ;1 �2 WEAN' ST 01-- W V W DA ST D' Ariz ¢ AY co IL W y W LLI U) 0 J U) _j O LOR ST TA LOR ST OLVES RD - _j Z O =j SMI ST SET YLOR ST K NDA L ST P ISKO LN I LU I • " MI E,HILL DF •1 J :_5 SROUFE ST � I O Port Orchard Environmental Map Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 45 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.8 Environment and Open Spaces !t� Public Park ea A#,• �. Natural Corridor �e�� a o - — - Bike/Ped Path a' 4f s Jf Ir �• ■ 9p.. Bay Street a 811 � . Pedestrian Pathway 4f 40 i � r �� s 4e Ow d KITSAP ST e F A. .Q DEKALB ST v > . '� ■ I V DWIGHTST 3 �`____� ��g I pis . ■yoo* . :R re pplow DIVISION ST _ ! � e n� [ � .. I l ■ ME re• p y ? 4 TAYLOR ST ' R 1 IL '16 ■egv� _■i _' q�llm O �R� �. 1 _ • .,%d - - I' ---------- dm r♦ �a<�" .��� i.0 Millie it ■ l " -Mn p 0 ee ! ■ 40 L a'48 ■ t 4W- AM Nee i L� �r F L w ■/ y r... i 7i7 Parks and Natural Open Space Corridors n. t. s. Final: May 18, 2021 46 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The City of Port Orchard classification system consists of five shoreline environments that are contained in the recommended classification system identified in WAC 173- 26-211(5). The State's Shoreline Master Program Guidelines describe the purpose of environment designations in WAC 173-26-191(1(d)). Shoreline management must address a wide range of physical conditions and development settings along shoreline areas. Effective shoreline management requires that the Shoreline Master Program prescribe different sets of environmental protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development regulations for each shoreline segment. Assigning shoreline designations, each with different policies and regulatory measures, provides a regulatory framework for environmental protection and development depending on the development and resources present in specific areas. Please note, shoreline use and development determined by the Department and classified by the Administrator is regulated under one or more of the following applicable sections. SHORELINE DESIGNATION AND FLOOD ZONE The study area includes High Intensity and Urban Conservancy shoreline designations. In addition to the shoreline designations the study area has a history of flooding during high tides, king tides, and storm events. The prevalence of flooding events is expected to increase due to anticipated sea level rise. Legend NATURAL - URSAN CON5ERVNdGY - HIGH INTENSITY SHORELINE RES.IDENRALL mom Shwhne Segmeal Lines Ill OIL uoa City Boundary wakwbedies Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 47 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 48 Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.9 Market Conditions Assessment A detailed study of Economic Profile and Capacity Analysis can be found in the Section 06 - Appendix under B - Heartland Economic Profile and Build -able Lands Analysis dated 6th June 2020. 2.9.1 Economic Profile POPULATION GROWTH • Current and Historical (Source: Washington OFM) *flag years with annexations • Foretasted (PSRC Forecasts) • Overall Port Orchard has added over 3,613 residents since 2010 • The City's growth rates was higher than other Kitsap County communities and the County in part due to annexations. FORETASTED POPULATION GROWTH • Currently available forecasts produced by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) call for an additional 7,146 residents in Port Orchard by 2040 • Neighboring Bremerton is anticipated to add more than 25,000 new residents during the same time period. DEMOGRAPHICS • Composition (family households vs non -family) • Housing tenure • Age • Gender • Race and ethnicity - Port Orchard's population is more racially diverse than Kitsap County - Port Orchard, Bremerton and Silverdale share similar levels of racial diversity. • Household income - Port Orchard has a median household income of over $70,000 - Port Orchard's median income is slightly lower than the median income for Kitsap County, but exceeds that of neighboring Bremerton. • Educational attainment - Over one-third (36%) of Port Orchard's population has college degree (Associates, Bachelors or Graduate/Professional). This is five percentage points below Kitsap County as a whole. - Just under 10% of the total population of Port Orchard has not graduated high school. This is higher than all the comparison geographies. HOUSING INVENTORY IN THE STUDY AREA (ASSESSOR) • Housing growth in the City • Number of housing units by Type (single, multifamily, mobile, group quarters) • Port orchard has added 1,379 housing units inclusive of annexations, since 2010, an average of over 150 units peryear HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION • Port Orchard has the highest percentage of family households of the comparison geographies. • Family households make up to 68% of households in Port Orchard, which is slightly higher than Kitsap County • Non -family make up almost half of Bremerton household composition. • Single family housing is the predominant existing land use in the study area (38% of land) • Single family housing represents 62% of total housing inventory (by unit) • There are 742 housing units in the study area Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 49 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.2 Development Pipeline DEVILLUr-ivir-N I' Firr-L111JIL The Map Below illustrate the development pipeline, representing projects that are known to be in planning or permitting stages of development. All parcels in the development pipeline were excluded in the gross build -able land area calculations in Step 1. Development Pipeline Final: May 18, 2021 50 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS KITSAP BANK CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Planning for the redevelopment of the existing Kitsap Bank Campus, to revitalize and create a sense of place on the Port Orchard waterfront. Design of the waterfront will capture beautiful views of the surrounding Puget Sound and Olympics. Elements of the redevelopment include a blend of public and private spaces; residential over commercial, office and community centers surrounded by parks and open waterfront spaces. Organic themes are drawn from the natural beauty of the site, incorporating warm woods, stone and natural materials into the architecture and landscape. Mitigation of stormwater is integral to landscape planning and incorporated into the overall site plan in functional and aesthetically pleasing design. The entire project is planned for phased redevelopment. 429 BAY STREET 1 COUNTY COURTHOUSE The purpose of the Kitsap County Campus Master Plan is to provide for the expansion of County facilities on the Port Orchard Campus over the next 40+ years. This Plan provides phased development scenarios to en -sure that the County has options for expansion and includes recommended zoning changes to facilitate this expansion. This Plan offers suggestions for design guidelines that the City and community may want to pursue in order to further shape future public and private development. The development of a mixed -use building located at 429 r 7 Bay Street consisting of 39 residential units, 500 square feet i of commercial space with enclosed parking provided on the L:d: ground. i _.i. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 51 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.3 Exiting Buildable Lands The map below, highlight both the net vacant and reclevelopable lands along with the planned development pipeline. These maps indicate where future development capacity is located within the Study Area. C3 7 i Study Area VacanklRad-evetDpablit MIXED USE ZONE CIVICF0PEN SPACE ZONE ; N 00-MMERGIAL ZONE lot RF_$1DCNTlA6LrZ0tdl! Capacity by Land Use Category Final: May 18, 2021 52 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 N f t � • G �4 iL� . C- � F " !•i�rji i ' III �.. ` _y No 9 r�•r�7 � ` �l J � ;� • f r i yr AA k c c _ im SUAy Area Va[antRedeve"able SiO�le-FaM -di UEM19lLy V�C�ni Capacity by Vacant and Redevelopable Land iJndE,l;llzbd Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 53 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.3 Build -able Lands BVILUHDLC LHINU HrCCA The gross buildable land area is the sum of all land area for all parcels meeting one or more of the criteria listed to the right. This does not include existing public right of way which accounts for approximately 85 acres of land within the Study Area. Certain parcels were excluded from this calculation to improve the accuracy of the analysis (see Parcel Exclusions). City of Port Orchard Review. In addition, the City of Port Orchard conducted a detailed review of the study area to inform designation of vacant and redevelopments parcels and to better reflect known parcel level conditions in the City. PARCEL EXCLUSIONS Properties with zero total assessed value were manually reviewed for ownership, land use and were visually inspected. Properties that were significantly improved or public facilities, including city owned beach -front parks, were excluded. All the parcels in the pipeline were also excluded including the current phased expansion of the County Courthouse. The development capacity in the pipeline is re -incorporated in Step 3c. Examples of Exclusions: • Government Services (Prop Class) • Parks (Prop Class) • Cemeteries • Educational Services • Utilities • Condominiums GROSS BUILDABLE LANDS CRITERIA VACANT Using data from the Kitsap County Assessor, this analysis identifies vacant parcels using the assessed values of the improvements. Lots with zero improvement value are then compared against other factors such ownership and property class descriptions to determine vacancy. UNDERUTILIZED Using Kitsap County Assessor data, this analysis calculates an improvement ratio by dividing the assessed improvement value by the total assessed value. This ratio of assessed improvement value to total assessed value is a commonly used indicator for a property's level of improvement. A ratio less than 0.5 indicates the land is worth more than the improvements. This analysis uses an improvement ratio of 0.5 as the threshold. Any parcels with an improvement ratio under this threshold are considered underutilized. SINGLE-FAMILY Any Single -Family use, as defined by assessor property class field, in a high -density base -zone, is deemed to be redevelopable. Final: May 18, 2021 54 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.4 Market Yield Assessment FUTURE CAPACITY SCLimHn,iv ANALYSIS Using the zoning assumptions and FAR ranges, the analysis leverages variation in development densities to simulate different market conditions impacting the range of capacity across the subarea. The three scenarios, presented to the right, reflect the following: > The impact of surface versus structured parking on capacity -- serving as a reflection of different market conditions (for example, structured parking would require more favorable market conditions). > The concentration of commercial development as a standalone product as well as a share of mixed -used developments. > The overall range of capacity within the subarea The tables on the following page (Exhibit 49-51) provide details on each scenario in terms of assumptions for the proportion of structured versus surface parking and the proportion of commercial uses in mixed -use development. A detailed breakdown of FAR assumptions by zone and scenario is provided in the appendix. Scenario 1: Baseline Capacity • Mostly residential development • Standalone commercial development only in commercial only zones. Some commercial incorporated into mixed -use developments • Majority surface parking meaning lower density development Scenario 2: High Capacity, Residential Heavy • Mostly residential development • Standalone commercial development only in commercial only zones. Some commercial incorporated into mixed -use developments. • Majority structured parking, meaning higher density development Scenario 3: High Capacity Commercial Heavy • More balanced mix of residential and commercial • Some standalone commercial development in mixed - use zones plus commercial development in commercial only zone. Increased commercial incorporated into mixed -use developments • Majority structured parking meaning higher density development Exhibit 49. FAR Allocation Assumed in Zones Permitting Commercial & Residential Building Forms for Each Scenario Commercial Only Residential Mixed -Use Structured Parking Surface Parking Below Grade Parking Surface Parking 1 -Baseline 0% 0% 25% 75% 2 - High Capacity, Res Heavy 0% 0% 75% 25% 3 - High Capacity, Comm Heavy 10% 10% 60% 20% Exhibit 50. FAR Allocation Assumed in Zones Permitting Only Commercial Building Forms for Each Scenario Commercial Only • Structured Parking Surface Parking 1 -Baseline 25% 75°/a 2 - High Capacity, Res Heavy 75% 25% 3 - High Capacity, Comm Heavy 70% 30% Exhibit 51. Commercial Use & Res Uses permitted Commercial Capacity Percent (%) Of Total By Base Zone SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 NMU 5% 5% 24% CMU 25% 25% 40% ❑MU 25% 25% 40% GMU 25% 25% 40% BPMU 20% 20% 36% CC 25% 25% 40% CH 100% 100% 100% Cl 100% 100% 100% Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 55 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.5 Baseline Assessment SCENAKIU "1 - BASELINE CArH%.l FY Net CATEGORY/ZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity The Baseline Capacity scenario more closely reflects near (Acre) (5F) (5F) (Units) term market conditions in Port Orchard. In this scenario CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 362,900 0 0 housing is the predominant highest and best use in mixed RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 use zones. In addition, a large majority of development is COMMERCIALZONES 2.6 92,100 0 0 assumed to be surfaced park, thus reducing overall densities MIXED USE 20.5 278,600 800,900 1,247 achieved. TOTAL with Pipeline 34.5 733,600 800,900 1,367 • Mostly residential development Pipeline 11.2 347000 NA 246 total withoutppelioe 23.3 386,600 800,900 1,121 • Standalone commercial development only in zones prohibiting residential building form. Scenario 2 Table • Some commercial incorporated into mixed use developments. SCENARIO 3 - MIXED -USE FOCUS • Majority surface parking meaning lower density The High Capacity, Commercial Heavy capacity scenario development. reflects more favorable economic conditions in Port Orchard and broader Kitsap market area, with an emphasis Net on commercial and office development. In this scenario CATEGORY/ZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential a significant share of development in mixed use zones Area Capacity Capacity Capacity is assumed to be commercial. As in Scenario 2, a larger (Acre) "'; (Units) proportion of development is assumed to incorporate CIVICANDOPEN5PACE 3351,400 p structured parking, thus increasing overall densities achieved. RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 • More balanced mix of residential and commercial COMMERCIALZONES 2.6 65,200 0 0 MIXED USE 20.5 206,200 566,200 954 • Some standalone commercial development in mixed TOTAL with Pipeline 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 use zones plus commercial development in commercial Pipeline 11.2 347006 NA 246 only zone. Increased commercial incorporated into Total without Pipeline 23.3 275,806 566200 828 mixed use developments. • Majority structured parking meaning higher density development Scenario 1 Table SCENARIO 2 - RESIDENTIAL FOCUS CATEGORYIZONE Net Developable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity The High Capacity ,Residential Heavy capacity scenario (Acre) (5F) (5F) (Units) reflects more favorable economic conditions in Port Orchard CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 361,800 0 0 and the broader Kitsap County market area. In this scenario RESIDENTIAL ZONES T9 0 UKN 120 housing is still the predominant highest and best use in mixed COMMERCIALZONES 2.6 89,400 0 0 use zones. Alternatively, a larger proportion of development MIXED USE 20.5 418,200 596,155 991 is assumed to incorporate structured parking, thus increasing TOTAL with Pipeline 34.5 869,400 596,155 1,111 overall densities achieved. Pipeline 11.1 347000 N4 246 • Mostly residential development Total without Pipeline 23.3 522,400 596,155 865 • Standalone commercial development only in commercial only zones. Some commercial incorporated Scenario 3 Table into mixed use developments. • Majority structured parking meaning higher density developments Final: May 18, 2021 56 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Development Scenarios with Subarea Plan Recommendations Study Area (acres) Commercial (square footage) Residential (square footage) Residential (units) Existing 329 761,645 n/a 742 *Note: All scenarios include assumed development pipeline projects. EXISTING ACTIVITY UNITS Development Total Covered Residen- Activity Activity Units Activity Units Scenarios Population Employment tial Units Units/Acre Dedicated to Dedicated to Housing Employment Existing 1,806 2,150 742 12 46% 54% • Population, employment and existing activity units provided by PSRC. • Activity units calculated as total population + employment / 329 acres Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 57 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 3 Subarea Plan Goals and Vision and Alternatives Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 03 1 VISION AND ALTERNATIVES INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 03 1 VISION AND ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Proposed Alternatives Approach The proposed design concepts are a single vision for achieving the broader goals outlined in this subarea plan. In the downtown areas, this includes promoting a vibrant walkable community that showcases the City's waterfront. In the County Government Campus planning area and the uphill neighborhood the plan incorporates planned expansion at the county campus, provides development flexibility along the Sidney and Cline arterials, and preserves residential areas throughout most of the neighborhood. Due to existing neighborhood constraints and the absence of large tracts of developable land the alternatives are based on a single concept plan. The distinction between each alternative is whether the assumed program of future development will consist primarily residential and standalone commercial or if it will have greater vertical mixed -use development. Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action No action would be taken to adopt new development policies. The existing Downtown and County Campus Centers would each be retained in their present configurations; no combination or expansion of these subareas would take place; no changes to zoning or other land use regulations would be made. The capacity assumed in this alternative assumes that development will still occur, but at a density similar to existing conditions with very limited structured or below -grade parking. Alternative 2 - Residential Focus This alternative assumes a mostly residential development with commercial development only occurring in standalone buildings in nonresidential zones. The maximum building height and densities would see limited increases in locations with minimal view impacts. The alternative assumes a greater mix of structured parking to achieve greater density than the existing baseline development patterns. Potential zoning changes would focus on increasing residential capacity in existing commercial zones. Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus This alternative assumes an increase in mixed -use residential, commercial retail, and office development. The maximum building height and densities would see limited increases in locations with minimal view impacts. The alternative assumes greater mix of structured parking to achieve greater density than the existing baseline development patterns. Potential zoning changes would focus on increasing residential capacity in both existing commercial and residential zones. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 59 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION BASELINE ALTERNATIVE 3 - MIXED -USE FOCUS Net Net CATEGORYIZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential CATEGORYIZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (Acre) (SF) (SF) (Units) (Acre) (SF) (SF) (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 351,400 0 0 CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 361,800 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.0 0 UKN 102 COMMERCIAL ZONES 2.6 65,200 0 0 COMMERCIAL ZONES 0.0 0 0 0 MIXED USE 20.5 206,200 566,200 954 MIXED USE 24.8 486,800 752,283 1,186 TOTAL with ipe me 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 TOTAL with ipe me 35.4 848,600 752,283 1,288 Pipeline 11.2 347,000 NA 246 Pipeline 11.2 347,000 NA 246 Total without Pipeline 23.3 275,800 566,200 828 Total without Pipeline 24.2 501,600 752,283 1,042 ALTERNATIVE 2 - RESIDENTIAL FOCUS CATEGORYIZONE Net Devlopable Area (Acre) Commercial Capacity (SF) Residential Capacity (SF) Residential Capacity (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 362,900 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.0 0 UKN 102 COMMERCIAL ZONES 0.0 0 0 0 MIXED USE 24.8 310,600 1,010,100 1,509 TOTAL with ipe me 35.4 673,500 1,010,100 1,610 Pipeline Total without Pipeline 11.2 24.2 347,000 326,500 NA 1,010,100 246 1,364 Summary of Changes from Buildable Lands Baseline Capacity Analysis • Proposed land use changes including: proposed zoning changes and height increases. • Additional buildable land assumptions due to zoning changes and assume redevelopment areas. See updated buildable lands map in section 3.3. • Proposed required parking modifications. Ref: Document of City of Port Orchard Downtown Subarea Plan - Economic Profile and Capacity Analysis prepared by Heartland Group, May 14th, 2020 Final: May 18, 2021 60 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON Development Scenarios with Net Developable Commercial Residential Residential Subarea Plan Recommendations Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (acres) (square feet) (square feet) (units) Existing - 761,645 n/a 742 Alternative 1 - No Action 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 Alternative 2 - Residential Focus 35.4 673,800 1,010,100 1,610 Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus 35.4 848,600 752,283 1,288 *Note: All scenarios include assumed development pipeline projects. Alternatives show new proposed development ACTIVITY UNITS SUMMARY Development Scenarios Total Population Covered Employment Residential Units Activity Units/Acre Activity Units Dedicated to Housing Activity Units Dedicated to Employment Existing 1,806 2,150 742 12 46% 54% Alternative 1 4,051 3,396 1,074 23 54% 46% Alternative 2 4,663 3,617 1,610 26 60% 40% Alternative 3 4,128 3,889 1,288 25 54% 46% • Total Population assumes 2.09 persons per unit per Washington's Office Financial Management 2020. • Employment assumed 1 employee per 500 sf of commercial development. • Activity units calculated as total population + employment / 329 acres Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 61 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.1 West Downtown Planning Area "ANINtu Al. i REDEVELOPMEN i AKtA West Downtown is Port Orchard's current and historical Potential Shoreline cultural, civic, and recreational hub of the community. The Restoration area includes a mix of land uses, including Port Orchard's City Hall and public library, numerous retail and service businesses, a marina and ferry dock, public parking, and a Pedestrian Plaza waterfront park and trail. With access from the water and from Bay Street to from state highways 3 and 16, it remains the City's primary the waterfront center for community events and activities. Anticipated future 03Di Surface Parking' j i development includes the South Kitsap Community Events Traffic Center and a new Kitsap Bank headquarters as part of a Calming ;�; • �. larger mixed -use development. The concept plan works to balance historic preservation, environmental restoration, and economic improvement. Potential Stream �♦ �-' Daylighting I: ♦ I Pedestrian Hill ' Climb to Prospect Street e Potential Stream Daylighting , / , '( n i t —i 061 ' o / Gate 0 �1�� �� i s / Z East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram Final: May 18, 2021 62 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Two-way traffic at Passenger Ferry Frederick Ave New slow waterfront Terminate Streets at the "shared street" to create waterfront with a small plaza, front doors on Sinclair Inlet overlook, or pocket park •Ii ■r■i■r■r■r rkinn� z c-- Surfacerri g' Parking rn Lo di g/ P rki g z ■ 5 ta`a\e Rend O,C\ Ne\ghborh . LEGEND Q RESIDENTIAL 0 O i L - - J (Preferred Front Orientation) t RESIDENTIAL/ MIXED USE 0 (Preferred Front Orientation) f— s a� r — COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) EK4LB ST OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE (Preferred Front Orientation) -CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING I EXISTING PIPED STREAM N 1 " = 200' Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan 1 Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 63 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Community Events Center OEM Residential Mixed Use East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan a cn w Roof Deck {j CornmercialI j Office I \ 1: 1 1 I Residential i Mixed Use 7� t a uj I o I i L LL � ' I I I i Final: May 18, 2021 64 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Key OBay Street corridor design and frontage improvements © Consolidate curb cuts where feasible to improve pedestrian safety © Waterfront plaza / overlook OKayak launch dock © Proposed Hill Climb Opaving Traffic calming / specialty at Crosswalk to Orchard Street Plaza and viewpoint OWaterfront open space Frederick Street improvements Qand conversion to two-way traffic OTrail Improvements New waterfront pedestrian oriented shared street Street termination plaza and overlook i & Ia�l .101sI l _�_ LEGEND RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE (Preferred Front Orientation) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE (Preferred Front Orientation) CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) i L SURFACE PARKING EXISTING PIPED STREAM N (i) 1 " — 100, Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 65 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.2 East Downtown Planning Area BANNED AL i REDEVELOPMEN i .,,,,A The East Downtown is geographically separated from the West Downtown and was developed later with a more auto - centric development pattern. This area includes a mix of commercial uses primarily on larger parcels fronting Bay Street or Bethel Ave. WSDOT is currently in the process of redesigning the Bay and Bethel intersection to replace the current signal with a new round -about. The concept plan strives to break -down the scale of existing large sites to provide a more walkable land -use pattern. Large surface parking lots and many vacant properties provide an opportunity for new economic development more reminiscent of the existing historic development character of West Downtown. East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram "Finer Grain" mixed -use development oriented toward Sinclair Inlet that reinforces views to the water. Final: May 18, 2021 66 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Extend Mitchell Corridor to terminate at t e waterfront /J//, I table \ orhooa Ne�9 r LEGEND RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE j w i (Preferred Front Orientation) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) / OFFICE MIXED -USE -OFFICE (Preferred Front Orientation) CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) OPEN SPACE J (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING EXISTING PIPED STREAM JL TN 1 " = 200' Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 67 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.3 County Government Campus Planning Area BANNED AL i REDEVELOPMEN I AK,, The Kitsap County Government campus is Port Orchard's largest employer. The Port Orchard Blvd and Blackjack Creek valleys, along with the historic steep shoreline isolates this part of the Center from Downtown and inhibits accessible pedestrian connections. Sidney and Cline Ave act as neighborhood arterials providing vehicle and transit access between Highway 16 and the downtown. Kitsap County is currently developing a phased development for the expansion of County facilities within the City of Port Orchard over the next 40 years. The County Campus expansion is currently anticipated to occur over five phases. The anticipated scope of development was included within the pipeline projects analyzed as part of this plan. The subarea plan encourages development to occur along the existing Sidney and Cline arterial corridors. Neighborhood mixed -use zoning is proposed to be expanded across the street from the County Campus to provide a buffer or transition between the County Government Campus and established single-family neighborhoods. Note that neighborhood mixed -use allows for both single family and small-scale or less intense commercial uses. I� Existing County Government Campus Final: May 18, 2021 68 Ll SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.3 Land Use and Housing LAND USE INTi.�HON The primary land use designations within the study area is medium -density residential and Commercial Mixed - use, however the study area includes nearly all zoning designations. The study are also includes two large public facilities campuses, the Kitsap County Campus and South Kitsap High School. Within the individual study areas the West Downtown contains the historic City main -street. LAND USE AND HOUSING GOALS Goal LUH - 01 Develop a land use pattern that is environmentally sustainable and economically vibrant and accommodates additional housing and businesses. Goal LUH - 02 Encourage increased development in the center and along existing primary circulation corridors to create vibrant walkable neighborhoods. Goal LUH - 03 Ensure that proposed new development largely maintains existing views. Goal LUH - 04 Transform the existing East Downtown from a largely car dominant development pattern to an extension of the existing walkable downtown West Downtown area. Goal LUH - 05 Ensure that future residential development protects and restores natural ecosystems and critical areas, including wetlands, streams and wildlife habitats. LAND USE POLICIES Policy LUH - 01 Revise the existing Comprehensive Plan Center boundaries to establish a new Downtown Center that reflects this subarea plan boundary. Policy LUH - 02 Rezone parcels along Cline and Sidney Avenue from R2 to Neighborhood Mixed -use to provide a moderate increase in development and provide a transition to the residential zones. Policy LUH - 03 Extend the varied block frontage designation along Cline Street from Kitsap Street to Kendall Street. Policy LUH - 04 Revise frontage requirements along the new waterfront street and in the East Downtown to reflect the proposed concept design plan. Policy LUH - 05 Rezone the Commercial Heavy Parcels in the East Downtown to Commercial Mixed -use (CMU). Policy LUH - 06 Rezone the Commercial Mixed -use Parcels on the east side of Bethel between Dekalb Street to Mile Hill Drive from Commercial Mixed -use (CMU) Corridor to Gateway Mixed -use (GMU). Policy LUH - 07 Allow for buildings up to 5-stories on the east side of Bethel between Dekalb Street to Mile Hill Drive. Policy LUH - 08 Modify the Downtown Height Overlay District as follows: • Allow the building height for new development along Bay Street to be measured from the future road elevation consistent with Sea level rise contemplated in the Shoreline Master Plan. • Amend 20.38.640 (1) as follows: (1) DHOD Height Zones Established. Within the DHOD as shown on the zoning map, there are three different DHOD height zones with height limits established as follows: (a) DHOD 3: 48 feet - three stories. (b) DHOD 4: 58 feet - four stories. (c) DHOD 5: 68 feet - five stories. • Amend the height along the block south of Bay Street between Robert Geiger and Frederick to allow 5 stories except within 50 feet of Robert Geiger Street which shall be limited to 4 stories. Policy LUH - 09 Add an exemption to 20.35.040 to allow the minimum build -to percentage to be decreased (1) if a public pedestrian -oriented open space is provided, if the reduction is no more than what is needed to accommodate the open space, or (2) for public civic buildings (such as a community center or library). Policy LUH - 10 Support the acquisitions by the County of the needed parcels to implement the county campus expansion plan. Final: May 18, 2021 70 SECTION 03 SUBAREA PLAN � J ST OC,'TO/V PRO Bqy _-f•.' � � .L �.' wF��F< r frr SpFCT r - � 1 KITSAP r F ^1 i w czn w v ff z w O .J-_ 1 U DEKALB l�� I DWIGHT I DIVISION m � F Q r U O ti O a TAYLOR SMITH KENDALL oOf Of cN Q I SROUFE - f 1 1 I I � Subarea Plan Boundary L U i J I w DEKALEr T 1 I I i I I ! ! 1 TAYLOR ! I PLISKO MILE HILL Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 71 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN � J °c TO N � y�F 1• B ■ p qy i r. r�F I KITSAP j ��— z z z p �/ w� U DEKALB 0 Q<b w DEKALB---i DWIGHT ! 1 I DIVISION I TAYLOR I O I I ! a l 1 i SMITH 11 TAYLOR + i KENDALL �`�— PLISKO I 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i—_—_----------rl SROUFE I I Existing Block Frontage Plan o• Final: May 18, 2021 72 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN � J ��/ 1 f ■� /-� ram^ ►1 c l �O 11, � yw Eqr � p i1 r►1 � FT�F< O R SpF�'T I _ ■ � �� • KITSAP j ��— 4r z LU z p �/ u'+---,� ,� z U DEKALB Q� �� w DEKALB---i I = I )T �U- I DWIGHT .7E i 1 I DIVISION I TAYLOR I I I ! O a l 1 SMITH 11 i TAYLOR + i KENDALL ■`■` PLISKO I 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i---------------I SROUFE I I Proposed Block Frontage Plan (�)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 73 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) M mRAKAGRrim rnRRimp trr� <�J i°c TO N '� ywF 1• e ■ p qy i r. ROSPFCT t'.# .i KITSAP j z z z p �/ w+——,r1 U DEKALB 0 w DEKAL.Fr i DWIGHT ! 1 I DIVISION I TAYLOR I O I I ! a l 1 i SMITH 11 TAYLOR + i KENDALL �`�— PLISKO I 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i-_—_----------- SROUFE I I Existing Zoning Map b" Final: May 18, 2021 74 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) GREENBELT (GB) PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) ® DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) RESIDENTIAL (R1) RESIDENTIAL 2 (132) RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) t +# # �•► *4 Commercial Heavy to Commercial Mixed -use RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) 1 , �J:• GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU) Changed are outlined in black dashed line. .: j�c�#•# �� # ■ Y #r.•+ rt x ��.. ■ • ; # F T i,t 7# ,N � • ,� w �: ■ ire �,Tti r , +� .. '+•�i w• Al"' " Commercial Heavy and K TSA .: 9 *. •: v 4 y Commercial Mixed -use Z *+';_ to Gateway Mixed use L6 in Dr�ALK— U DWIGHT _ 0 r � OL e1rIF ■ I ` i. IVISI6N + Qf tl Qf Or ALL .. Residential 2 to Z ; + MILE HILL Neighborhood r tl * , Ills a Mixed -use ra go. 16 . r tl i # LIFE ■.. r r ■ Ir �. ■ Ira -PLO % Proposed Zoning Map Adjustments Encourage development along existing neighborhood arterial corridors. Provide a buffer from commercial to residential areas and preserve established single family neighborhoods. ri Wes. 4b•1 IP b N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 05.06.2021 75 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN � J � /�_� ��~, ► ram^ f • t• �— /r ►► Py �T011v KITSAP I �— 1 - j � z w Z p r ♦/ w## i z U DEKALB w DEKALB--�—i DWIGHT ! 1 I DIVISION m r i Qf ctf � 0 I TAYLORQf I O I I ! l 1 i SMITH 11 TAYLOR + i KENDALL �` PLISKO I I -%--� 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i-_-_----------- SROUFE I I Existing Height Overlay Map Final: May 18, 2021 76 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT Note: Changed are outlined. A, � J 071 1�J i / f'~~� i y Oho 11/ qy L � KITSAP 1 - j W } z (N W V z U DEKALB Ln [if w DEKALB--�—i DWIGHT I .7E i ► I DIVISION M i � i TAYLOR I I 0 SMITH I► TAYLOR + i KENDALL �` PLISKO 11I i 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i-__—_-_--_— SROUFE _--I I I Proposed Height Overlay Map Adjustments Encourage development height increases in locations that do not impact existing protected �N views. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 77 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN = Pipeline Project Vacant/ Reclevelopable Single Family in Higher Density Vacant Underutilized Study Area T - wjrsx.4- — KAOA -0 wm.v-mF041-� -r—w! - F, 100 '17. N; Poe Iwo 0 LU Wz W. ??# --, �WIGHT TA DIVISION 7�lr U CLI — 0 laf 0 k 4 T M. F NDA lip L Q�- s SR I Ll 40 oil .1 %- 'N Existing Buildable Lands or Potential Infill Development Map 4�& "o 06�Al .moo el lo Final: May 18, 2021 78 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Pipeline Project Vacant/ Redevelopable Single Family in Higher Density Vacant Underutilized Added in the Subarea Plan � J •fir v� ��� oho 11, qy L � KITSAP 1 - j W } z (N W V z U DEKALB [if --�—i w DEKALBLn DWIGHT I .7E i ► I DIVISION m i Qf � i TAYLOR I I I ! O SMITH I► TAYLOR + i KENDALL �` PLISKO 11I i 1 I MILE HILL I i I I I i-__—_-_--_— SROUFE ---I I I Updated Build -able Lands or Potential Infill Development Map that incorporates additional lands that were added due to zoning changes or anticipated development included in the subarea plan. (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 79 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.4 Environment and Open Space ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE OVERVIEW In addition to multiple public parks the defining Environment and Open Space features in the study area includes the shoreline along Sinclair inlet and numerous historic creek valleys. The existing waterfront includes large tracts of surface parking developed prior to the adoption of the Shoreline Management Act. Environment and Open Space goals strive to both enhance the environment and the public realm for City residents and guests. ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE GOALS Goal EOS - 01 Provide improved public shoreline access and recreational opportunities at the waterfront. The Port Orchard waterfront offers excellent recreational opportunities for fishing, beach walking, wildlife viewing, kayaking and paddle boarding, and more. Goal EOS - 02 Plan for resiliency and to mitigate flooding during high - tides and as a result of sea -level rise identified in, "PO SMP Sea Level Rise Advisement Report 10-2-2020." Goal EOS - 03 Consider opportunities to incorporate new open space within required shoreline buffers such that they can serve dual -purposes. (For example refer to Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Concept for existing Blackjack Creek Outlet) Goal EOS - 04 Improve safety and security along existing open spaces and around Blackjack Creek. Goal EOS - 05 Protect, enhance and maintain the values and functions of Port Orchard's natural areas, open spaces, and critical areas. Goal EOS - Ob Consider and support opportunities for restoration including but not limited to shoreline riparian areas, barrier culverts, storm water, etc. Goal EOS - 07 In redevelopment of parking areas encourage the use LID and innovative approaches, such as raingardens and bioswales, where site conditions allow to reduce runoff and protect water quality, including consideration of underground parking areas (including under new or redeveloped buildings) where feasible to reduce impervious footprint. Goal EOS - 08 Support the restoration of existing streams including Blackjack Creek, a high priority salmon and steelhead watershed in the West Sound region and consider options for removal of artificial fill to improve estuarine habitat at the mouth of Blackjack Creek. RJR %;T 40 Conceptual Waterfront Plaza and kayak launch at Port Street Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Concept for existing Blackjack Creek Outlet ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE POLICIES Policy EOS - 01 Encourage the future replacement of existing shoreline armoring that allows for pedestrians access to the water. (For example refer to Shoreline Armor with Water Access Final: May 18, 2021 80 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Concept for the West Downtown waterfront) Policy EOS - 02 Encourage the creation of a public kayak launch dock. Policy EOS - 03 Where road ends terminate at the waterfront, they should incorporate a public plaza, overlook, or pocket park. Improvements should also consider shoreline habitat improvements and enhancements, including potential removal of hard armor and fill to establish "pocket beach" parks. Policy EOS - 04 Convert Orchard and Port Streets to pedestrian plazas with limited vehicle access. Policy EOS - 05 To enhance shoreline ecological functions in the subarea, the City shall emphasize the importance of the following actions: planting riparian vegetation, especially trees, that naturally stabilize banks and shade the intertidal zone; removing hard armor where feasible; replacing hard armor with soft bank protection where feasible; reducing the footprint of hard armor (like revetments) and replacing with lower footprint alternatives (like vertical bulkheads pulled landward) where feasible; improving stormwater and wastewater treatment; daylighting piped stream channels; and restoring buffers for both marine and freshwater habitats. Pulling armor landward will improve access to beaches at higher tides. Policy EOS - Ob Support the expansion of Etta Turner Park to include a riparian buffer with bio-retention from adjacent development. Policy EOS - 07 Support shoreline restoration and consider the creation of new open space at the Blackjack Creek Estuary and Etta Turner Park. Restoration shall study the removal of artificial fill to improve estuarine habitat. Design shall work with Etta Turner Park to frame the Blackjack Creek corridor from Bay Street to the Sinclair Inlet and should focus on estuary restoration. Policy EOS - 08 Support efforts to acquire property for conservation and provide mitigation in and around the Blackjack Creek estuary. Policy EOS - 09 As development occurs the City will issue a notice to the local tribe on a project by project basis to allow for review and comment regarding significant developments with potential impacts to cultural and Tribal treaty natural resources. Dry season Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Urban waterfront parkscape. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 81 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST Funding No. Project Name Description Agency Cost Source Port Orchard Blvd The historic creek that previously existing t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Estuary at the location of Port Orchard Blvd is now OCreek Restoration piped to its terminus at Sinclair Inlet. The plan encourages estuary restoration at the outflow of this creek. Port Orchard Boat The historic creek that originates near the t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Launch Estuary County Government Campus is currently Restoration piped from approximately Austin Ave to © its outfall east of the boat launch. The plan encourages the creek to be daylit west of intersection of Bay and Robert Geiger Streets with estuary restoration at Sinclair inlet. Port Street Shared Port Street is proposed to be transformed to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Viewpoint, and a pedestrian plaza or shared street to provide ©Plaza, Shoreline Restoration pedestrian access and views to Sinclair Inlet. The plaza should terminate with a viewing plaza with potential access to the water. Orchard Street Plaza Orchard Street is proposed to be transformed t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. and viewpoint to a pedestrian plaza or shared street to provide pedestrian access and views to 0 Sinclair Inlet. The existing elevated viewing deck and pump station at the terminus of this corridor will be replaced with an at grade viewing plaza. Kayak Launch A publicly accessibly kayak launch dock is t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © proposed near the location of the former pier north of Port Street. Prospect Street Hill The redevelopment of the parcels located at n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. Climb the corner of Bay Street are encouraged to 0 include a publicly accessibly hill climb from Prospect Street to Bay Street. The hill climb should align with either Port Street or Orchard Street. Bay Street Pedestrian Widen the existing Bay Street Pedestrian Path t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Path Enhancements from Port Orchard BLVD to the Downtown Port Orchard Ferry Terminal to provide O multi -model access and meet existing design standards. Improvements may include viewpoints and street terminations and new landscape amenities and furniture. Blackjack Creek Provide a new waterfront park on the City t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Estuary Park and Etta parcel along the west side of Blackjack Creek Turner Park expansion and expand Etta Turner Park to provide an Qand enhancements expanded riparian buffer. These parks should 0 include natural features and wildlife habitat. Incorporate wetland boardwalks, provided that they can comply with shoreline mitigation requirements. Waterfront shoreline New development should provide waterfront t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. enhancement shoreline restoration at the current auto 0 dealership and the Westbay center sites in compliance with requirements contained within the City SMP and the State SMA. Final: May 16, 2U21 82 Environment and open space Proposed Project List (�)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 83 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.5 Circulation, Access, and Parking CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING OVERVIEW Downtown Port Orchard contains a well established transportation network centered on Bay Street, and Bethel Ave. Mitchell Street, Cline Ave, and Sidney Ave. These are primary minor arterials from uphill neighborhoods to the waterfront. The Downtown walk-on ferry terminal provides service to Bremerton with connections to Seattle. Improvements envisioned as part of the development include orienting new development toward the water and improving pedestrian access throughout the area. CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING GOALS Goal CAP - 01 Improve Bay and Bethel corridors such that they are safer for all users and that they define a place rather than act as just a highway. Goal CAP - 02 Ensure that adequate parking is available to support the marina and allow for downtown businesses to thrive while promoting a walkable main -street character. Goal CAP - 03 Encourage development in the West downtown to face the waterfront and Bay Street Goal CAP - 04 Provide improved pedestrian circulation within the West Downtown between the waterfront and Prospect Street. Goal CAP - 05 Transform the existing East Downtown from a largely car dominant development pattern to an extension of the existing walkable downtown West Downtown area. Goal CAP - Ob Discourage new development from locating parking between new development and the waterfront. Goal CAP - 07 Encourage the replacement of the existing Bay Street sidewalk marquee. Goal CAP - 08 Encourage new development to be oriented perpendicular to Sinclare Inlet to frame views toward the waterfront. CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING POLICIES Policy CAP - 01 Develop a corridor design plan for Bay Street between Port Orchard Blvd and the eastern terminus of the Study area, and for Bethel Ave between Bay Street and SE Mill Hill Dr. The corridor plan shall address elements such as multi -modal circulation, frontage design and improvements, and bike and pedestrian safety improvements. The plan shall accommodate raising the elevation of Bay Street in response to the City's Sea Level Rise Study referenced in the 2021 SMP Update. Work with WSDOT to explore opportunities for potential traffic calming measures. Policy CAP - 02 Where appropriate, encourage urban low impact development stormwater management features in the roadway design, such as bio-swales between the on - street parking lanes and sidewalks. Policy CAP - 03 Phase out all -day commuter parking in the West Downtown to support parking for downtown businesses. Policy CAP - 04 Support Kitsap Transit to study the feasibility and need of adding additional park and ride facilities away from the downtown waterfront to serves ferry riders. Policy CAP - 05 Create a new waterfront street from Harrison Ave to Fredrick Ave that includes parking, sidewalks, and landscape improvements and accommodates ferry transit drop-offs. Policy CAP - Ob Support the reconfiguration of the marina parking lot to increase parking and improve multi -modal circulation from Bay Street to the waterfront. Policy CAP - 07 Include a hill -climb from Bay Street to Prospect Street aligned with either Orchard Ave or Port Street. Policy CAP - 08 Redesign Orchard and Port Street to pedestrian plazas with limited vehicle access. Policy CAP - 09 Convert Fredrick Ave to a two-way street with parallel Final: May 18, 2021 84 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN parking on each side or widen street for angled parking Policy CAP - 10 Encourage the creation of a loop street or private access drive to break down the scale of the auto -dealership site, provide waterfront access, and provide additional on - street parking. Policy CAP - 11 Extend Mitchell Ave north across Bay Street as a new private access drive to terminate at the waterfront. Policy CAP - 12 Provide new frontage improvements, including parallel parking and sidewalks on both sides of Harrison Ave. At least one of the sidewalks should extend to the waterfront. Policy CAP - 13 Modify residential parking requirements in all zones to be consistent with the current DMU parking requirements of one stall per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. Consider establishing a maximum number of parking stalls allowed and allowing for further reductions when located near transit. Policy CAP - 14 Vacate Harrison Street R.O.W. between Bay Street and Prospect Alley. Policy CAP - 15 The Bay Street corridor plan frontage design standards shall include design standards for the removal of the existing sidewalk marquee. The marquee should be replaced with new overhead protection weather protection that is incorporated with the structure of new development. Policy CAP - 16 Revise the Shoreline Master Program to discourage parking along the waterfront. Policy CAP - 17 Expand POMC 20.124.130(1) to apply to all DMU zones in the in the east and west downtown. Policy CAP - 18 Revise POMC 20.124.130(3) to exempt public civic buildings (such as a community center or library). Policy CAP - 19 Allow for required parking to be met with an off -site shared parking agreement. Policy CAP - 20 Require that any new development or Level III improvements as defined in POMC 20.127.020, shall provide street frontage improvements consistent with City design requirements. Encouraged Low -impact Stormwater management such as street front bioswales. Conceptual Woonerf or shared Street Concept Image Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 85 r . Will Al r- M�r _'�.� �i"`� �• T• Yi tN' ` Lam" I �_ _ �:. .-�-.'�sN • . � Aw Dori VIP f � - SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Conceptual Street Section Key Plan Street Cross -Section A -A I New Waterfront Street Between Frederick and Sidney Ave (Looking West) Street Cross -Section B-B I New Waterfront Street Between Sidney and Harrison Ave (Looking West) Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 87 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST Funding No. Project Name Description Agency Cost Source Bay St /Port Orchard Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. O Blvd Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. St / Cline Ave Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. ©Bay Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Fredrick Ave Convert Fredrick Ave to two-way traffic to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Improvements serve the marina and the new waterfront © street. Include frontage improvements and explore street expansion to maintain angled parking. O New Waterfront Street Provide a new waterfront "shared" street t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. between Frederick and Harrison Ave. Sidney Ave. Frontage Provide frontage improvements including t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © Improvements Street Trees/landscaping, sidewalk expansion, and street furniture from Prospect St to the waterfront. Harrison Ave Frontage Provide frontage improvements including n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. 0 Improvements Street Trees/landscaping, curb and sidewalks and street furniture from Bay St to the waterfront. Bay Street and Bethel Develop a corridor plan for Bay Street t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Ave Corridor between Port Orchard Ave and the eastern terminus of the Study area, and for Bethel Ave between Bay Street and SE Mill Hill Dr. The corridor design shall address elements O such as multi -modal circulation, frontage design and improvements, and bike and ped safety improvements. The plan shall accommodate raising the elevation of Bay Street in response to the City's Sea Level Rise Study referenced in the 2021 SMP Update. Bay St / Mitchell Ave Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation © and safety. Design will incorporate the extension of the Mitchell Street across Bay Street as a new private access drive. Bay St / Guy Wetzel Rd Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. • 0 Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Final: May 18, 2021 88 S /7 �5 _ORCHARD Final: I* 41 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD 2021 ZONING MAP Greenbelt (GB) Residential 1 (R1) Residential 2 (R2) Residential 3 (R3) Residential 4 (R4) Residential 6 (R6) Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) - Commercial Corridor (CC) - Commercial Heavy (CH) Light Industrial (LI) Civic and Institutional (CI) Public Facilities (PF) Parks and Recreation (PR) Urban Growth Area i Port Orchard UGA City of Port Orchard Department of Community Development 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: (360) 874-5533 Fax: (360) 876-4980 www.cityofportorchard.us This map was created from existing map sources, not from field surveys. While great care was taken in using the most current map sources available, no warranties of any sort, including accuracy, fitness, or merchantability accompany this product. The user of this map assumes responsibility for determining its suitability for its intended use. This map is not a substitute for field survey. City of Port Orchard Official Zoning Map as adopted by Ordinance 0**-20 on ****, 2020. 000000 Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST. Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:000 ❑ Charlotte A. Archer, City Attomey0 0 0 ❑ Sponsored by Scott Diener, Councilmember PUBLISHED: ***, 2020 EFFECTIVE DATE: ****, 2020 The official signed Zoning Map may be viewed at the City Clerk's office. Date Saved: 5/7/2021 2:19:38 PM S E Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 2. Land Use 2.1 Introduction The Land Use element represents the heart of the Comprehensive Plan, as land use goals, policies, map designations, and decisions connect and relate to all other elements. The purpose of this section is to provide a framework to guide future land use to help the city grow in an orderly, rational, and efficient way and help the community realize its potential during the 20-year planning horizon. The goals and policies contained herein recognize that haphazard and disorderly development can reduce efficiency and increase the cost of utilities, roads, and other services, consume valuable open space, and result in higher taxes and fees for service to fund infrastructure and services. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires plans to contain land use elements that describe the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses. Once adopted, land use goals and policies will be functionally implemented in Port Orchard's development regulations. The challenge of this element is to plan for population and employment growth while ensuring development occurs in accordance with the community's aspirations and values and the requirements of the GMA. 2.2 Key Issues and Concepts As a community, Port Orchard is growing due to a healthy birth rate, immigration, and annexation. This plan accommodates Port Orchard's 2036 population and employment growth allocation, as distributed through the Vision 2040 framework and agreed upon in coordination with other Kitsap County municipalities in the Countywide Planning Policies. Port Orchard's land use and zoning designations currently provide sufficient land capacity within city boundaries to accommodate the projected 8,235 additional residents who will make Port Orchard their home (during the 2010-2036 planning period). In conjunction with the findings of the Buildable Lands Report, the Future Land Use Map shows how the 6,235 additional projected and allocated residents in the adjacent Urban Growth Area can be accommodated. Residents have emphasized that it is critical to manage new growth in a way that protects the small town character of the community while allowing for new and innovative development that responds to changing household needs and growth pressures. In 2000, the city's population density was 1,943 residents per square mile. By 2012, taking into account new annexations, density had dropped to 1,213 residents per square mile. This decrease in density is due to the annexation of several areas, including the Bethel Corridor, which had far lower densities than the existing city. Based on population allocations for 2036 and no additional annexations, Port Orchard must plan for a density of 2,068 residents per square mile, an increase in density of 70%. Port Orchard's population appears to be aging, but this trend has likely been skewed by recent annexations. Figure 1 shows the changes in different age groups from 2000 to 2010, with a significant increase --in both proportional and absolute terms --in people aged 40-69, reflecting the aging of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use baby boomer generation. As Port Orchard's population ages, the city needs the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs and desires of this age group and the foresight to plan for those changes as well. 80+ 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 U 30-39 20-29 10-19 0-9 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 ■ Male in 2000 . Female in 2000 Male Increase in 2010 - Female Increase in 2010 Population in hundreds Figure 1 The fundamental goal of the Land Use element, as established by the GMA, is to establish broad, general direction for the City's land use policies. This element provides the City's policy plan for growth over the next twenty years. It also implements many of the goals and objectives in the other plan elements through suggested land use designations and other action recommendations. The Land Use Element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses, and the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given development trends and allocated population. The City's development regulations and permitting processes are used to direct growth in a manner consistent with the provisions of this element. To accomplish this, the Land Use element establishes goals and policies that seek to: • Accommodate changes in population and demographics • Encourage development in urban areas, reduce sprawl, and deliver services efficiently • Ensure land use designations reflect need and demand • Minimize traffic congestion and encourage the development of a multimodal transportation system • Protect open spaces and the natural environment • Promote physical activity • Support a range of employment opportunities 2.3 Current Land Use Characteristics Figure 2 shows the percent of land uses and zoning based on the city's total land area as of 2020. Most land in the city is devoted to housing. Commercial areas and the downtown offer a range of goods and Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use services, provide employment for local residents and those living in surrounding rural areas, and provide additional tax revenue to help fund public services and facilities. Industrial lands allow for light manufacturing and warehousing businesses, which also provide job opportunities and support the area's economy. Figure 2-4 shows the amount of developable land in residential land use areas. Zoning By Percentage of Total Land Acreage PR 2.3 PF 4.7 NMU 6.S LI 2.3 GMU 0.6 G6 8.5 UMU M ❑ & CMU � 6.2 CI � 2 CH � 2.5 GC � 3.3 BPMU { 9 R6 � 5.4 R4 7.1 R3 17.8 R2 RI � 4.9 0 5 10 15 20 .. Figure 2 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.4 Land Use Designations The City's comprehensive plan land use element identifies 7 different land use designations which are listed in Table 1. These land use designations are implemented through the city's zoning regulations contained in the municipal code. Each land use designation may correspond to one or more zoning designation. As the City develops sub -area plans for its designated centers as described in section 2.7, the city may wish to create new zones and standards consistent with this plan, its goals and policies, and these land use designations. When doing so, the city should ensure that it doesn't significantly alter the land capacity for the city such that the City's population and employment growth allocations adopted in the countywide planning policies can't be accommodated. Likewise, if sub -area plans are likely to accelerate population and employment growth rates, the City should take reasonable measures to ensure that it doesn't surpass its 2036 growth targets. Table I Range of Pass]ble Anticipated [lesidentlai Land Use Designations Uses Uses Corresponding Zoning Maximum Remilem5ai Onelopment Density far mm itt" Buildable lands Purposes. ptect en of cnU[a areae, liabit at management areas, Greenbelt greenbelts and deslgneled Open space to a6aw low density residential development. Ureentlelt [ J81 -S dmilmg units ner net acre Low Density Residelstial 5iagle4a mlly detached housing Reudeilval 1191) 7,26 7.B 7 Units Per Ave 51 enira -, nR5 PerAve Residential2 (R2j 9.8-ZI.7 10 Unhs Per Ave Mediumpensiiv Residential $ingleFa ml1v detached and attached housing, apartment k5idem,al3 (R31 9.g-26 16 Units Per Acre baotding: RasMential6 (R6I 9.8.17-7 8 Units Per Ave High Density ReSldlnlial Single Family Attached Housing, Apartment Buitdings Residential4 (R7I. Residential 5 (R51 9 8- 4 Za Unl}s Per Acre Iwe and im0tuLonal Civic and Open 5oace CWernmentse ki - ut]liiles, parks, sshpa]s and related Parks and Reveation IPR} NA NA Cnnlmpnity Facrlitiez Puh]ic FaCllrties I NA NA R"OnIk"Ix Use n [s P& AM Nelghtlorhood Mixed Use [NMUJ 9,6-54 16 Units Per Atre 6usi mu Prafmbrkat Mixed Use {BPIufU) 16,535 8 Units Per Ave Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) I7-Z6 16 Units Per Ave Camrnemial Donmtown Mixed Use lOMU) 0a]A 2R Units Per Ave Gateway Mixed Use IGMUJ 0-54 Z0 Units Per Acre Commercial Corridor (CC) U-44 4 Units Per Au Retail, oRlee, mixed -use commerclallresldentlal, and Commercial Heavy ICHI NA NA prafesslonal serones Industrial Flex 11F) 045 A Unils Per Acre Manlsdanuriq and assem y. bulk %orageand Light In uvrlal ll NA NA Urban Indust vial warehousing, J"mFer Intl Uuckirlg R"foes. Heavy IrWuvrlal (HI) NA NA N., , n:nd,A—I.- lu, lalwe newt, in bm rr h- Cuwry I.,lld% a Lamk an !PI Table 1 2.5 Overlay Districts The city's development regulations include land use overlay districts which are applied in parts of the city, as summarized below. • Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) • Self Storage Overlay District (SSOD) • Ruby Creek Overlay District (RCOD)View Protection Overlay District (VPOD) Port Orchard's overlay districts accomplish varying objectives including implementing subarea plans, providing regulations for the development in centers, regulating specific uses, and determining building heights. The creation of a new overlay district may be appropriate as the City continues to develop subarea plans under the Centers approach to growth. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.6 Land Use Goals & Policies Goals are not listed in any particular order. Port Orchard strives to: Goal I. Retain Port Orchard's small town commercial and residential character while accommodating allocated growth citywide. Policy LU-1 Ensure that land use and zoning regulations maintain and enhance existing single- family residential neighborhoods, while encouraging that new development provides a mixed range of housing types. Policy LU-2 Limit industrial development to locations accessible from arterials or freeways and discourage industrial access through residential areas. Policy LU-3 Update and establish building and site design standards that support an attractive and functional built environment in all areas of the City. Policy LU-4 Encourage the subdivision of large parcels and, through private subdivisions and public acquisitions, the creation of a continuous street grid similar in scale to the downtown's, especially in designated centers of local importance. Goal 2. Ensure that sufficient land is available for development to accommodate allocated growth in population and employment. Policy LU-5 Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of housing units within the city and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted population growth. Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of commercial retail and office space within the city and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted employment growth. Policy LU-6 Ensure adequate land is available for light industrial and commercial uses, including high technology, medical, and office uses, in appropriate areas to diversify Port Orchard's economic base and provide for the community's changing needs. Policy LU-7 Monitor the rate of residential, light industrial and commercial growth against the 20- year targets established in VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies, and if growth appears to deviate from a rate that complies with these targets, consider adopting reasonable measures such as reducing/increasing adopted transportation levels of service, reducing/increasing impact fees, or accelerating/delaying projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-8 Provide a variety of housing types and employment opportunities that meet the needs of diverse socioeconomic interests. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy LU-9 Notify adjacent military facilities of relevant local land use decisions. Goal 3. Implement a strategy to develop centers. Policy LU-10 In consultation with stakeholders and the general public, develop a comprehensive strategy to implement centers as a means of directing and prioritizing residential and commercial growth. Policy LU-11 Within centers, set minimum building densities that enable lively and active streets and commercial destinations. Such limits may take the form of: minimum floors or building height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. Goal4. Ensure that both public services and infrastructure are developed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Policy LU-12 Prioritize capital facilities and transportation investment in those locations targeted for growth and higher land use densities. Policy LU-13 Coordinate with Kitsap County to develop a plan and timeline to annex UGA land adjacent to the city, consistent with the city's capability to provide municipal services and applicable law. Policy LU-14 Identify land in the UGA that is useful for public purposes, such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, parks, schools, and other public uses. Goal S. Protect, enhance, and maintain the values and functions of Port Orchard's natural areas, open spaces, and critical areas. Policy LU-15 Evaluate a range of incentives to encourage compact development to preserve open space throughout the city, possibly to include density credits, incentive zoning, and transfer of development rights. Policy LU-16 Prioritize the development of new parks, open space, and passive and active recreational opportunities in underserved neighborhoods and centers. Policy LU-17 Incentivize infill development to preserve and protect open space, critical areas, and natural resources. Policy LU-18 Identify land in the UGA that is useful for open space corridors, including land for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connections of critical areas. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy LU-19 Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies through zoning designations, development regulations, and the local critical areas ordinance. Goal 6. Reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, promote public health, reduce auto dependency, and increase multimodal transportation opportunities for accessing retail services, health care services, and places of employment. Policy LU-20 Ensure orderly development, concurrency of infrastructure provision, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas through an effective and predictable permitting process. Policy LU-21 Remove barriers to low -impact development in zoning, subdivision, and street regulations. Encourage the minimization of impervious surface areas in development. Policy LU-22 Promote local food security and public health by enabling the establishment of urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers markets, and food production and distribution infrastructure. Policy LU-23 Enable land use patterns that allow all residents to safely and efficiently access commercial services, especially grocery stores and healthcare facilities, without an automobile. Policy LU-24 Encourage the expansion of transit networks that enable both incorporated and unincorporated neighborhoods outside of the city to access job centers within Port Orchard. Goal 7. Encourage the development of active, vibrant, and attractive destinations throughout the community. Policy LU-25 Incorporate the following principles in planning for commercial areas: • Create lively and attractive places at a human scale. • Support a mix of retail, office, and residential uses in multistory structures. • Create transitions between commercial areas and surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Protect residential areas from excessive noise, exterior lighting, glare, visual nuisances, and other conditions that detract from the quality of the living environment. • Encourage multi -modal transportation options, especially during peak traffic periods. • Promote an intensity and density of land uses sufficient to support effective transit and pedestrian activity. • Promote a street pattern that provides through connections, pedestrian and vehicular access. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use • Establish urban and architectural design standards that support an attractive and functional pedestrian environment, such as block size limits and requiring street - facing windows and doors. • Encourage pedestrian travel to and within commercial areas by providing: • Safe and attractive walkways. • Close groupings of land uses. • Parking lot design that provides safe walking routes and pedestrian connections between adjacent properties. • Off-street surface parking to the backs or sides of buildings to maximize pedestrian access from the sidewalk(s). Goal 8. Connect new and existing neighborhoods to each other, to commercial and employment centers, and to public facilities. Policy LU-26 Require adequate transitions between different land uses to mitigate potential negative impacts of noise, light, and air pollution. Policy LU-27 Require new development to provide connections to and through -access for existing and planned trails and roads. Explore strategies to encourage existing development to provide the same as part of a city- and region -wide trail and open space network. Goal9. Encourage the ongoing development of downtown as an active, vibrant community, commercial, social, and civic center while respecting its historic character. Policy LU-28 In conjunction with the Centers strategy, enhance downtown Port Orchard's role as the center of the South Kitsap region, reflecting the following principles in development standards and land use plans: • Encourage land uses that support transit centers and promote pedestrian activity. • Promote a mix of uses, including retail, office, and housing. • Encourage uses that will provide both daytime and evening activities. • Support civic, cultural, and entertainment activities. • Provide sufficient public open space and recreational opportunities. • Enhance, and provide access to, the waterfront. • Develop enhanced design guidelines and design review requirements that promote attractive, pedestrian -scale development and redevelopment within the City's historic downtown area. Policy LU-29 Consider conducting a downtown parking study to assess current and future parking needs and develop solutions and strategies to address identified constraints or oversupply. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy LU-30 Ensure land use designations and development support existing maritime industries, promote creative uses of the waterfront, and facilitate the planning and construction of waterfront parks and gathering places. 2.7 The Centers Strategy 2.7.1 Introduction The post-war 1920s have become synonymous with the beginning of a development pattern known as urban sprawl. Sprawl expands development over large amounts of land, resulting in long distances between homes, jobs, and stores. It also significantly increases dependence on the automobile and traffic on neighborhood streets and highways, as driving is required for nearly every activity. This development pattern also draws economic resources away from existing communities and spreads them thinly and inefficiently, far away from a community's historic core. This increases spending on new roads, new water and sewer lines, and police and fire protection. This ultimately leads to the degradation of the older city, higher taxes, and fewer available resources for already existing communities. In the early 1990s, Washington sought to combat this adverse development style by adopting the GMA. Among other ambitions, the GMA suggested a new development pattern broadly known as Centers. In 2014, the City designated ten "local centers" in its Comprehensive Plan, in accordance with the criteria provided in the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2040, which is a regional strategy for accommodating the expected 2040 population of the Puget Sound region. In subsequent years, VISION 2040's criteria and terminology for centers have been revised, and the City has revised its center terminology and boundaries for consistency. Based on the new criteria, the City now has eight designated "countywide centers" and four designated "local centers". In addition, the City identifies two countywide centers as a Candidate Regional Center. Compact development Power Sewer iL. ai enables efficiency in a capital facilities construction and Q service delivery Roads Water A. Least Dense I B. Moderately Dense I C. Most Dense Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Figure 3 — The advantages of infrastructure and land use concurrency 2.7.2 What are Centers? Traditional neighborhoods often had smaller business districts that served surrounding residential areas. These districts typically had retail shops, markets, and services that were a short walk from the homes in the area. Additionally, these districts created a unique identity that solidified the neighborhood. With the increased cost of fuel and the economic recession, residents of Port Orchard have expressed a preference for the development of smaller, local retailers and service providers in places that knit people and commerce together on a local level. Centers are focused areas of development that have key uses which enable the City to deliver services more cost -efficiently and equitably pursue a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound, and provide a means of influencing growth and change through collaboration with the community in planning for the future of these areas. This strategy helps to accommodate growth in designated areas while preserving the existing character of the community, thereby retaining more open space and the dominant pattern of existing development. Centers accomplish these objectives by: • Concentrating a thoughtful mix of supporting uses. • Allowing more intense development while maintaining appropriate scale. • Offering a wider variety of housing types that meets the needs of the broader community. • Minimizing the dependence on vehicle trips. The Centers strategy is a comprehensive and long-term approach to planning for a sustainable future that helps preserve those aspects of the community that residents' value. This approach is intended to maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services and promote collaboration with private interests and the community to achieve mutual benefits. Providing opportunities for residents, jobs, stores, services, and open spaces to be located in close proximity can reduce the reliance on cars for shopping and commuting and offer better access to daily wants and needs. Increasing residential and employment densities in key locations makes transit and other public services convenient for more people and therefore makes these services more efficient. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use The criteria for the designation Centers are found in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Regional Centers Framework Adopted March 22, 2018 and in Vision 2040, which is a regional strategy for accommodating the expected 2040 population of the Puget Sound region. According to VISION 2040, centers serve important roles as sub -regional hubs and secondary concentrations of development. They provide a dense mix of housing and services, such as stores, medical offices, and libraries. They serve as focal points where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living, and recreation. They often have a civic character with community facilities, such as municipal buildings and other public places. Local centers should be served by regular local transit and regional express transit service and should have a complete network of sidewalks and access to bicycle paths and transit facilities. The Regional Centers Framework defines five different types of Centers: 1. Regional Growth Centers 2. Manufacturing Industrial Centers 3. Countywide Centers 4. Local Centers 5. Military Installations Several of the identified center types include subtypes. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Figure 5 — Rendering of a concept for a pedestrian -focused town center 2.7.3 Designated Centers (Existing and Planned) The following centers have been designated in the City's comprehensive plan by center type: Regional Centers. The City has no designated regional centers at this time. Downtown Port Orchard was evaluated as part of the Downtown Subarea Planning Process as a candidate for reginal center designation but achieving the PSRC requirement for 45 activity units per acre was determined to be too large of a change to Downtown Port Orchard. As Downtown continues to grow and evolve, its candidacy as a regional center should be revisited in the future. Manufacturing Industrial Centers. The City has no designated Manufacturing Industrial Centers currently. The City's only industrial park is too small to be considered either a Manufacturing Industrial Center or a Countywide Center. Port Orchard is served by the nearby Puget Sound Industrial Center — Bremerton. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Countywide Centers. The City has 7 designated Countywide Centers. Not all of these Countywide Centers meet the minimum activity units per acre threshold per the PSRC Regional Centers Criteria for Countywide Centers (8 activity units per acre). The City intends that these Countywide Centers which don't presently meet the activity unit threshold set by PSRC will meet that threshold in the future. These centers may temporarily be recognized as candidate countywide centers or local centers until the activity unit threshold is met. The City's designated Countywide Centers are as follows: 1. Downtown Port Orchard 2. Tremont Center 3. Lower Mile Hill 4. Upper Mile Hill 5. Sedgwick Bethel 6. Bethel Lund 7. Sedgwick Sidney (Ruby Creek Neighborhood) Local Centers. The City has designated the following local centers: 1. Annapolis 2. Old Clifton Industrial Park 3. McCormick Village 4. Bethel South Center (Salmonberry) Military Installations. The City has no military installations within the City Limits. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use CrfY OF PORT ORCHARD 2021 CENTERS •.ARM � nnnapoue � aeme� wva owunmm a� co�n��k nooe� � oia rrna� ma Nam SMgv�ick BeNel _ .Soulli tlelhel nmiil �ptlo�Mlcllll Urban Growth Area k 9 9 4 s 2.7.4 General Center Goals and Policies The following are a list of general goals and suggested policies that Centers should seek to fulfill. Although Centers have common elements, it should be acknowledged that each Center is unique and have/will have a different set of priorities. Centers goals should be tailored to the specific Center in question. Generally, Centers should seek to: Policy CN-1 Prioritize the City's residential, commercial and light industrial growth and infrastructure investments within designated Centers, in accordance with VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy CN-2 Focus future growth in designated, higher intensity areas in an effort to encourage the preservation of open space and maintain surrounding neighborhood character. Policy CN-3 Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. Policy CN-4 Provide commercial services that serve the population of the Center, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region (dependent on the suitability of the scale of each Center). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy CN-5 Support pedestrian and transit uses by promoting compact, mixed -use areas with appropriate infrastructure that provide a variety of activities. Policy CN-6 Balance objectives for accommodating growth, encouraging compatibility, promoting housing affordability, and offering a wide range of housing types. Policy CN-7 Provide access to parks and public pedestrian spaces by creating them within each Center or by creating connections to existing public and open spaces. Policy CN-8 During subarea planning for Centers, develop an implementation plan that addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. Policy CN-9 The City shall direct growth to Centers of all types through focused regulations and directed capital projects. Policy CN-10 The City should support employment growth, the increased use of non -automobile transportation options, and the preservation of the character of existing built-up areas by encouraging residential and mixed -use development at increased densities in designated Centers. Policy CN-11 The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well -served by public transit. (Centers Goals 1,2,3,4,5,6; Housing, Parks, Economic Development, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements) Policy CN-12 The City shall create and designate zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. (Centers Goals 2,3,4; Economic Development and Housing Elements) Policy CN-13 The City shall encourage a broad range of housing types and commercial uses within designated Centers, through zoning and development regulations that serve a local, citywide, or regional market. (Centers Goals 3,5; Housing and Economic Development Elements) Policy CN-14 The City shall encourage the creation of public open space, private open space, and parks within and serving designated centers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5 Specific Center Descriptions and Policies 2.7.5.1 Downtown Port Orchard (Countywide Center) In 2021, the City completed a subarea plan for Downtown Port Orchard which is adopted by reference in appendix D. This plan combined two previous centers, the Downtown Port Orchard and County Campus Centers into one center. The center was evaluated for possible designation as a Regional Urban Growth Center, but there was a lack of support for increasing the level of activity in the center to a planned target of 45 activity units per acre. The boundaries of this center are shown on the map below: EG I. �T1lnni 2.7.5.2 Tremont (Countywide Center) T'- - L 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Tremont sub -area plan is to ensure that future development in the Tremont Corridor is guided by specific guidelines and land use regulations that have been generated by community wide involvement. This Comprehensive Plan and Tremont Corridor District plan incorporates existing comprehensive or other documents related to properties within the Tremont Corridor Sub Area. This plan will establish certain important Visions, Goals, and Policies as well as standards and guidelines within the Tremont Corridor sub -area. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use P e` g -nEriarr Joeo��, e 2. Vision. The Tremont Corridor is one of three primary entry points into the City of Port Orchard from Highway 16. Presently the area is a mix of single-family residences, commercial, health care facilities and multi -family residences. The expanded Harrison Hospital Urgent Care Campus and Kaiser Permanente facilities are the anchors for businesses along the corridor, particularly from Pottery Avenue west to Highway 16 forming the basis for a Hospital Benefit District. The Tremont Corridor is a through -way for travelers and residents wanting to access shops and services in the core of the city and businesses and homes in outlying areas. The Tremont Corridor also announces to residents and visitors alike that the city has economic vitality and provides services and opportunities to its citizens and residents in the south Kitsap area. Tremont Corridor residents and Port Orchard citizens have determined that they would like to see the corridor developed in way that encourage professional businesses that support the health care facilities already in place and businesses that allow the continuing free flow of traffic from Highway 16 into the downtown areas. Focus should be placed upon pedestrian connections within the district as well as providing a regional connection to the South Kitsap areas served by the hospitals and emergency service providers within the district. Tremont Avenue will be improved and widened with sidewalks, street trees and a landscaped island that will create a boulevard style of roadway. The Tremont corridor is promoted to include design standards that will necessitate new development to provide a consistent, attractive landscape edge while maintaining a human scale to new and redevelopment projects. A system of trails that are pedestrian and bike friendly connecting the Tremont Corridor to the Port Orchard marine walkway with trails through natural areas are key to the success of the Tremont district. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use The Tremont district is envisioned with some multi -family residences to accommodate the combination of residential and employment land uses within walking distances of the major health care facilities. Some cafes and neighborhood services are also envisioned to support those living, working or visiting the health care facilities. Regulations and design guidelines should help to ensure that parking is provided in a manner that is beneficial to the neighborhood and enhances the flow of transportation through the district. In addition, Tremont Corridor stakeholders envision monument signage that are tastefully designed and constructed of natural materials. The corridor from Pottery Avenue east to Sidney Road consists primarily of single-family residences and small clinics. Single family uses are encouraged as a desired mix of services and residential uses within this district. 3. Housing and Employment. As of 2018, the Tremont Countywide Center measured 215 acres containing 1,092 residents and 702 jobs. This equates to 8 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. 4. Tremont Center Goals Goal 10. Encourage development within the area that supports the major hospital and medical installations (Harrison Hospital and Kaiser Permanente) and assists the emergency response agencies in the corridor (South Kitsap Fire District). Policy CN-26 Encourage regulations that enhance existing businesses while providing incentives that promote economic growth in the corridor while maintaining sensitivity to residents in the area. Policy CN-27 Encourage professional and office uses that support the medical industry and create pedestrian oriented health care focus. Policy CN-28 Promote the creation of a hospital benefit district that will create opportunities for additional community and economic development funding. Goal 1 I. Encourage residential units in walking distance to employment, services, and health care facilities. Policy CN-29 Require sidewalks or interconnected pedestrian paths or a system of trails for non - motorized transportation with all new development. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Goal 12. Encourage development of an efficient multimodal transportation system and develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet its needs. Policy CN-30 Encourage all new developments to limit direct access to Tremont Street. Policy CN-31 All future City paving projects on streets within the Tremont Corridor should include continuous 6-foot paved walkways for pedestrian use. Policy CN-32 Developments abutting public rights -of -way within the Tremont Corridor should include sidewalks and bicycle lanes Policy CN-33 The City shall help to facilitate the development of trail systems that connect the Tremont Corridor with transportation facilities in the surrounding areas. Policy CN-34 Encourage the expansion of Kitsap Transit's service to increase trip frequency within the Tremont Corridor. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.3 Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center The Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center consists of the lower sections of the Mile Hill Road commercial corridor and adjacent multi family development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center measured 70 acres containing 174 residents and 288 jobs. This equates to 7 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. I — — L — — 3 sK nui nccrss I Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use JL�5.4 Upper Mile Hill Countywide Center The Upper Mile Hill Countywide Center consists of the upper sections of the Mile Hill Road commercial corridor and contains mix ofmulti family and single family development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop e sub area plan for this area prior tothe next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of201Q,the Upper Mile Hill Countywide [enter measured 65 acres containing 387 residents and 373 jobs. This equates to 10 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. � Port Orchard CmnpmhonxkmP|un Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 201B.July 2020' Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.5 Sedgwick/Sethel Countywide Center The Sedgwick/Bethel Countywide Center consist of the Sedgwick Rd corridor from Geiger to the West to the city boundary to the East including the Bethel and Sedgwick intersection. In addition to commercial development and commercially zoned vacant land, this area includes a future park site and land zoned for multifamily development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2020, the Sedgwick/Bethel Countywide Center measures 161 acres containing 58 residents and 505 jobs. This equates to 4 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.6 Bethel Lund Countywide Center The Bethel/Lund Countywide Center consists of the Bethel commercial corridor near the intersection of Lund Avenue including nearby residential areas. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Bethel/Lund Countywide Center measured 114 acres containing 267 residents and 1,195 jobs. This equates to 13 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. i ca.urvca< j J i Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.8 Sedgwick/Sidney (Ruby Creek Neighborhood) Countywide Center The Sedgwick/Sidney Countywide Center is a rapidly developing area of the city at the intersection of Sidney Road SW and Sedgwick Ave that has seen more than 220 units of multifamily housing develop since 2010 along with significant new commercial development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Sidney/Sedgwick Countywide Center measured 148 acres containing 450 residents and 252 jobs. This equates to 5 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.8 Old Clifton Industrial Park Local Center The Old Clifton Industrial Employment Local Center is located at the site of reclaimed sand and gravel mine. Its close proximity to transportation facilities and its isolation as a result of past mining activities make it an ideal site for industrial and employment uses. The site is served by Kitsap Transit and is located along Old Clifton Road near SR-16. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. �L L_ I� T�_ it l �F I i -� Port Orchard Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.9 McCormick Woods Local Center The McCormick Woods/Old Clifton Mixed Use Center includes portion of the McCormick Woods master planned community, the recently developed city park McCormick Village Park, the site a future South Kitsap High School (an additional high school), recreational facilities including trails and a golf course, and areas zoned for multifamily and commercial development. The area is not presently served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.10 Annapolis Local Center The Annapolis Local Center is located on the Sinclair Inlet shoreline east of the city's Downtown Countywide Center. This center includes Mitchell Point and the Annapolis Pier, from which Kitsap Transit operates a foot ferry service to Bremerton during the work week. Commuter parking is located east of the pier. The area also includes a number of historic buildings, commercial services, and residences, as well as a public dock and kayak launch point. The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway will end at the foot ferry facility. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.11 Bethel South (Salmon berry) Local Center The Bethel South Local Center consists of the underdeveloped intersection of Salmonberry and Bethel and the nearby residential areas. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.6 Road Map to Implementation Further planning for each identified local center is required in order to implement the City's vision for the overall centers strategy. The city is committed to undertaking a sub area planning process for each center, to better identify center boundaries, develop a vision, goals, and policies for each center. This planning process will also provide recommendations for amending the development regulations, zoning designations, design guidelines and capital facility plans to reflect and implement the sub area plans. Sub -area plans for the centers will be adopted into the City's comprehensive plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 EXHIBIT 4 I 20.39.040 Use table. (Gray shading separates categories into residential, commercial and industrial, and civic/parks) Use Category Specific Use R1 11211131114 R5 R6 GB RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI Cl PR PF Definition/Standards Residential Uses All household living, as listed below: Ingle -family detached (including new manufactured homes) P P P - - P P P - - P - - - - - - - -- 20.39.600 - 615 Designated manufactured home, manufacti mobile home (except for new designated manufactured homes) - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.39.600 - 615 New designated manufactured home P P P - - P P P P - - P - - - - - - - - Two-family - P P - - P - P P - - P - - - - - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Single-family attached (2 units) - P P - - P - P P - - - P - - - - - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Single-family attached (3 or 4 units) - P P P P P- P P P P P P P- P -- - 20.39.600 - 615 Single-family attached (5 or 6 units) - - P P P P - P P P P P P P - P - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Multifamily (3 or 4 units) - - P P P - - P P P P P P P - P - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Multifamily (5 or more units) - - P P P - - P P P P P P P - P - - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Manufactured or mobile home park - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Boarding house - - - C C -- -- -- C - P C - - - - - - Congregate living facilities - - C C C -- -- -- C P C - - - - - - - Lodging house - - C C C -- -- -- C - P C - - - - - - Group home (up to 8 residents), except as f P P P P P P P P P - - P - - - - - - 20.39.600 - 615 Adult family home P P P -- -- P P P P - - - P - - - - - - - EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards All group living (9 or more residents) - - - C C - [GB P C P C - P P - - - - 20.39.610 Social services facilities - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - 20.39.615 Secured high risk social services facilities - - - - - - - - - - C C C C - - - Public Uses All civic uses, as listed below: Community college, university, trade or tecr school (8,000 square feet or less) - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - - - 20.39.240 Community college, university, trade or tecr school (more than 8,000 square feet) - - - - - - - - - - - C C C C - C 20.39.240 Club or lodge - - - - - - - - P P P P - - - - P - - 20.39.240 Public use -- -- --- - P P P P P P P P P P P P P 20.39.240 Museum, library - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - - - - P 20.39.240 Place of worship C C C C C -- -- -- P - P P P - - - P - - 20.39.240 School (K-12) - - - - - - - - - - - - C - - 20.39.240 Jail or detention center - - - - - - - - - - - C C C - C 20.39.240 Transit park and ride lot -- C C C-- C C P C C P P P P P P- P Transfer station - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - P 20.39.230 Transit bus base - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - P 20.39.210 All open space and park uses, as listed belm Cemetery C - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - 20.39.410 Golf course C C C - - C - - - - C - - - - - P P 20.39.410 Park, recreation field - - - - - - - - P P P P - - - - - P P 20.39.410 Animal shelter or adoption center - - - - - - - - C C I C IC IC C - C 20.39.200 EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R6 GB RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards All utilities, as listed below: Minor utilities P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 20.39.415 Major utilities - - - P P P P P P 20.39.415 Wireless telecommunication facilities, as list below: Amateur radio operator tower P P P -- -- -- P -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - 20.39.270 Small cell wireless telecommunication facilit P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 20.39.270 Wireless telecommunication tower (exclude cell facilities) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C- C 20.39.270 Commercial Uses All day care, as listed below: Family day care (6 children or fewer) P P P -- -- P P -- - P - - - - - 20.39.505 Group day care (mini day care) (7 to 12) C C C - - C C C P P P P P - - - - 20.39.505 Day care center (13 or more) - - - - - - - C C C - P C P P - - - - - - 20.39.505 All indoor recreation, except as listed below -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C P C P P P - - - - C - Shooting range - - - - - - - - - - - C C - -- C 20.39.510 Special event facility - - C C C C C C C C- C C C 20.39.510 Commercial entertainment, except as folio - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P - - - - - Adult entertainment -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - C C - - - 20.39.515 All outdoor recreation, except as listed belo, - - - C C C P - P P - - - - C C Campground, travel trailer park, RV park (dc include mobile home park) - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- C C 20.39.530 Horse stable, riding academy, equestrian ce - - - - - - - - - - - - - C C 20.39.530 EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 IRS R6[GB RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards Shooting range - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C 20.39.530 Marina (upland areas) - - - - - - - C C C C C C C C C C 20.39.575 All overnight lodging, as listed below: Level 1: Vacation rentals or similar short -ter house/room rentals P P P P P P P P P P P P P - - - - - - - 20.39.535 Level 2: Bed and breakfast (up to 7 rooms) C C C - - C C - P P - - - - - - 20.39.535 Level 3: Motel - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - - - 20.39.535 Level 4: Hotel - - - - - - - - - P P P - P P - - - - - 20.39.535 All medical, except as listed below: - - - - - - - - - C C P P P P P - - - P Hospital - - - - - - - - - - - C C C C - - - C 20.39.520 All office, except as listed below: - - - - - - - C C P P P P P P P - - - - Bail bonds - - - - - - - - C C C C P P - - - - - 20.39.525 Surface parking: commercial parking, comrr- lease parking or park and ride, remote park - - - - - - - C C P P P P P P - P - C 20.39.350 Commercial parking garage - standalone - - - - - - - - - C C C C P P P - - - - C 20.39.350 Electric vehicle charging stations P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 20.12 All personal service, except as listed below: - - - - - - - C C P C P P P P C - - - - Funeral home - - - - - - - - P - P P P P - - - - - 20.39.545 Crematorium - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P - - 20.39.545 Indoor animal care - - - - - - - - C P - P - P P P - - - - - 20.39.550 Outdoor animal care - - - - - - - - - - - - C C C C - - - - 20.39.555 Business services - - - - - - - C P P P P P P P P - C - -- 20.39.570 Conference center - - - - - - - - - C C C C C - - C I C 20.39.310 EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards All restaurants except as listed below: - - - - - - [GB P P P P P P P PFood truck - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P - - P - - 20.39.562 All retail sales, as listed below: Retail establishment (up to 5,000 gross flooi P P P P P P P P P - P - 20.39.565 Retail establishment (5,001 - 15,000 gross fl area) - - - - - - - - - P P P P P P - - - 20.39.565 Retail establishment (15,001 - 50,000 gross area) - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - - - - 20.39.565 Retail establishment (over 50,000 gross floo - - - - - - - - - - - C P P - - - - 20.39.565 Fireworks sales in accordance with Chapter 5.60 POMC - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - - - Recreational marijuana sales - - - - - - - - - - P P I P 1 120.64 Convenience store with fuel pumps - - - - - - - - - - - C - - - - 20.39.565 Convenience store without fuel pumps - - - - - - - - C C C - - P P P - - - 20.39.565 Fuel station, including fuel pumps and fuel without convenience store - - - - - - - - - - - - C - P - - - Automobile service station - - - - - - - - - - - - C - P - - - 20.39.300 All vehicle and tool/construction equipment and rental, as listed below: Light vehicle and light tool or construction equipment sales and rental - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - - -- 20.39.565 Heavy vehicle and heavy tool or constructioi equipment sales and rental - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - - 20.39.565 All vehicle service and repair, as listed below Car wash - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - - - 20.39.625 EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6[GB RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards Vehicle service and repair, minor - - - - - - - - - - P P P P -- -- -- -- 20.39.640 Vehicle service and repair, major - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - 20.39.645 Vehicle service and repair, commercial vehi - - - - - - - - P P P - 20.39.650 Industrial Uses All heavy industrial - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - 20.39.605 All light manufacturing, except as listed belc - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P -- -- -- Commercial laundry, dry cleaning or carpet cleaning facility - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - - 20.39.610 Brewery, distillery under 5,000 square feet - - - - - - - - P P - P - - - - - Brewery, distillery 5,001 - 15,000 square fee - - - - - - - - - C C - C P P - - - Brewery, distillery over 15,000 square feet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - Craft shop - - - - - - - P P P P P - P P P P P - - 20.39.610 Food and beverage processing, boutique (ar used for processing less than 3,000 square 1 - - - - - - - P P P P P - P P P P P - - 20.39.610 Food and beverage processing, industrial - - - - - - - - - P P P P - - 20.39.610 Recreational marijuana production - - - - - - - - - - - P P - - 20.64 All research and development - - - - - - - - P P P P P P - - 20.39.615 Resource extraction - mining, dredging, raw mineral processing, except: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C - - 20.39.620 Timber harvesting in the absence of concurs development - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sand and gravel mining - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C C - - -- Stockpiling of sand, gravel or other aggrega materials - - - - - - - - - - - - C P - -- P 20.39.620 EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 GB RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards Sheet metal, welding, machine shop, tool ar equipment manufacturing, vehicle painting - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C P P P - P 20.39.610 All warehouse, storage and distribution, as I- below: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C C C C C -- -- -- Enclosed storage -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - P P P P P - 20.39.655 Self-service storage, mini -warehouse - - - - - - - - C C C C - - 20.39.655 Storage yard - - - - - - - - C C P P - - P 20.39.470 All waste -related service, including wastewa treatment facilities, decant facilities and rec, centers -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C - - P 20.39.660 Recreational marijuana processing - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P 20.64 Agricultural Uses All agriculture, as listed below: Agricultural processing, excluding marijuan processing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C P P - 20.39.500 Community garden P P P P P P P P P - -- P P 20.39.500 Nursery P P P P P- -- - - 20.39.500 Winery C C C C P P P P-- - 20.39.500 Accessory Uses Accessory uses not otherwise listed below, z determined by the administrator: Accessory dwelling units, as listed below: Accessory apartment (attached dwelling) P P P -- -- P P -- P - 20.39.600, 20.68 Backyard cottage dwelling P P P -- -- P P -- P - 20.39.600 Drive -through facility - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C P P P P - 20.39.610 EXHIBIT 4 Use Category Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R6 GB RMU NMU CMU DMU GMU BPMU CC CH IF LI HI CI PR PF Definition/Standards Home occupation P P P P P P P P P - - P - - - - - - - 20.39.615 Home business P P P - - P P - - - P - - - - - - - 20.39.620 Livestock keeping P P P - - - P - - - - - 20.39.625 Outdoor display - - - - - - - - P P P P P P P P P - 20.39.630 Outdoor storage as listed below: Low -impact - - - - - - - - - - P P P P P - - 20.39.635 High -impact - - - - - - - - - - - - P P P - - 20.39.635 Self -storage as accessory use to apartment building - - - P P -- -- - - - - - - - - 20.39.640 Vehicle service and repair, accessory to a residential use P P - - - P P - - - - - - P P - - - - - - 20.39.645 Park as accessory use to residential develop P P P P P P - P P P P P P - - - - - - - - Medical marijuana cooperative P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P--- - 20.64 Key: P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use -- = Use Not Permi EXHIBIT 5 20'127'130 Community design framework maps. (1) Figure 20.127.130 below is an overview map of the applicable planning areas within Port Orchard. Examine the map to determine which map or figure relates to individual properties. (2) Figures 20.127.130(l) through (16) include community design framework maps for applicable mixed use and nonresidential zones throughout Port Orchard. Figure 20.127.130 Port Orchard Community Design Framework Maps Index J. ` 1-� EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(1) Map #1 - Downtown West EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(2) Map #2 - Downtown East o saa i coo r�srT A . L6ganA ray"�a s<on� •. No eep:wrem �� cq bwrbv� � pOaLea:rs r..am[epbi++ca wh 14wo� we wkeo�l dH��iYAlry even cameo EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(3) Map #3 - County Campus E= Y PT- LD---7� ;n rl T � LL Varies Grcewq �y � LiMfNpcQ Trill �J a. Noeeq',mv. � 4ybwtl�.y ,mea rUuiltA h,cf XaR pb.eA wd lyreury � m.e�pol 1 Q N�r4bitl l+.nc<anen T r T Fr T T T -� frmmw's mn�c il RO LO D Fe�c OriLn,a :y :aperirn: s:.Jc. 2C0D Figure 20.127.130(4) Map #4 - Lower Mile Hill EXHIBIT 5 L g.nd MOTE00sf daa w}feic pfmr[< fexary tt lli[eeem vm Y'r(lpeNJ w tan<n 1� 1 �- 4 H�r,13r1%Wttl { -- '�'; Sno wbpa magovl mrrwriry dng. .: framcxorirmfta pLn>Fprdal Ar, o sco ipao e EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(5) Map #5 - Upper Mile Hill EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(6) Map #6 - Bethel North EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(7) Map #7 - Lund Bethel EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(8) Map #8 - Bethel South EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(9) Map #9 - Sedgwick Bethel SR16 EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(10) Map #10 - Bethel Cedar EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(11) Map #11 - Bethel Lider EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(12) Map #12 - Tremont EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(13) Map #13 - Cedar Heights EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(14) Map #14 - Sidney Glen 0 500 11000 Fees Originaly exported scale I-1,000 EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(15) Map #15 - Sidney Sedgwick EXHIBIT 5 500 1000 -A.. Figure 20.127.130(16) Map #16 - McCormick Woods Onsiml3yey0ormda le- I;x.p00 rail ��. rva nvaemen: — ciry a ,dn xore, owe ears .�ara. paorce a�a � i� iurown: «a an�,paep M*A9blllryat w,ne, �__ i hainnwrk matttr plan xp'm:�[ r —VWI lam CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WA McCORMICK VILLAGE SUBAREA PLAN DECEMBER 10, 2021 Acknowledgements Mayor Robert Putaansuu City Council Members Bek Ashby John Clauson Fred Chang Cindy Lucarelli Scott Diener Jay Rosapepe Shawn Cucciardi Planning Commissioners Trish Tierney Stephanie Bailey Annette Stewart Mark Trenary David Bernstein Phil King Joe Morrison City Staff Nicholas Bond, AICP, Director Keri Sallee, AICP, Long Range Planner Jim Fisk, AICP, Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews, Associate Planner Josie Rademacher, Assistant Planner Consultants Swift Design Group Dahlin Design Group (Graphics and renderings) Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Overview. In 2016, the City of Port Orchard completed its periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan included for the first time, a "centers" approach to planning (See section 2.7 of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan). The centers approach to planning is provided in Vision 2050, the regional plan completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and in the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by all jurisdictions in Kitsap County. In 2016, Port Orchard identified center locations, but did not have the resources to complete subarea plans for each center at that time, and instead identified goals for subarea planning to be completed in the future. This subarea plan is the result of that goal and aims to create a cohesive plan for the subarea plan boundary as depicted in Figure 1. The greater McCormick area of Port Orchard was based on a master plan that dates to the early 1980s. A series of approvals and plans have been adopted and implemented since that time and numerous project phases have been constructed. In 2003 and prior to annexation into the City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County approved a subarea plan for the McCormick area (ULID6 Subarea Plan) that included a McCormick Village commercial core. In 2009, the City of Port Orchard annexed this area into the City and became responsible for implementing previous plans and approvals, but was not bound by the ULID6 Subarea Plan. The City provided commercial zoning consistent with the County's 2003 plan but did not prepare any sort of coordinated master plan at that time. In 2015, the land and development approvals in the McCormick area were sold to new owners and those owners resumed development activity after several years of inactivity related to the great recession. The resumed development activity initially focused on single family residential areas. As of the end of 2020, more than 1,000 lots had been created and developed within and in the vicinity of the subarea. Up to this point, the commercial village portion of the project has not been realized. This plan is intended to facilitate the permitting and build -out of the McCormick Village Neighborhood Core, including the commercial village as shown on Figure 2. The plan recognizes and refers to other previous but not yet constructed subdivisions (McCormick Woods, McCormick West, McCormick North); however, due to previous agreements and the vesting associated with those agreements, the plan is not intended to influence new development in those areas. Some previously entitled single family lots are shown in Figure 2. The creation of this plan was a joint effort between McCormick Communities, LLC (the Developer) and the City of Port Orchard. McCormick Communities hired a consultant to develop conceptual plans for the subarea. After several iterations of this concept plan, the City agreed to consider the creation and adoption of a subarea plan to guide future development in the subarea. Early concepts fell short of the mark in terms of meeting the intent of existing City codes and policies. The preferred alternative met the intent of the City's plans and policies and was sufficiently innovative to warrant consideration as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. McCormick Village Subarea Legend WkC—ick Lfllege 5ub— 2oundery Pared L'nn WC—kk Yilage Park Pmpoxd N— Entrances fM1 &dingL—d— WlarmkY Vila, Haic}r6orhood {ore Figure 1 (above): The McCormick Village Subarea. The area outlined in red is the boundary of the subarea plan and the McCormick Village Center. The area shown in purple is the McCormick Village Neighborhood Core. Previously entitled but not yet recorded single family lots are shown in areas of McCormick Trails (McCormick West) and in McCormick Village (McCormick North) in gray outline. Figure 2 (above). The Neighborhood Core Concept Plan. The preferred concept includes a neighborhood commercial core as was sought by the City's elected officials consistent with the original concept plans. Neighborhood connectivity and walkability were priorities for the concept as was providing a variety of housing types, especially missing middle housing types, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 1.2 Local Center. This plan is intended to show how the center will comply with the PSRC requirements for a local center. The center includes some existing development and entitlements in addition to the smaller neighborhood core which is unentitled. The neighborhood core (boundary shown on Figure 1 in purple) is a smaller portion of the center and is what is being "planned," meaning that aside from a few existing development agreements, this area must go through a land use (subdivision) entitlement process. The areas outside of the subarea but within the center are within walking distance (approximately .25-35 miles) of the commercial core and support the viability of the commercial core. These areas are not being "planned" at this time as the areas are not intended to change because of previously approved entitlements. 1.3 Public Outreach. In May 2021, the City of Port Orchard collaborated with the Developer to conduct public outreach. Initial outreach consisted of an online (Zoom) meeting with the Developer and the McCormick Woods HOA that was attended by more than 50 neighborhood residents. A similar meeting was held with the Planning Commission on June 1, 2021. At the same time, the City conducted a survey of residents in the McCormick Woods communities that had very high levels of participation. In the community survey, the area residents provided very clear direction (see Appendix A). This feedback has been synthesized into a list of goals for the subarea plan as follows: 3 1. Provide opportunities to shop, dine, meet, and gather. 2. Support the development of an assortment of businesses with an emphasis on restaurants and bars, coffee shops, retail, and grocery uses. Ensure that the commercial village is small scale, containing approximately 10-20 storefronts and 20,000+/- square feet of commercial space. 4. Connect the commercial village to surrounding neighborhoods with trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 5. Ensure that the commercial village is designed and landscaped to fit into its natural surroundings. 6. Utilize green building techniques and materials in the commercial village. 7. Provide small plazas, outdoor gathering spaces, and opportunities for outdoor dining in the commercial village. 8. Ensure that the urban village is pedestrian oriented with streetscape amenities such as pedestrian scale lighting, benches, landscaping, and street trees, and ensure that sidewalk and trail connections are provided to adjacent existing and future neighborhoods. 9. Protect streams and wetlands and their buffers. 10. Preserve existing trees where possible and ensure the establishment of long-term tree canopy throughout the subarea. 11. Provide pocket parks to supplement the amenities provided at McCormick Village Park. 12. Design the commercial village to complement the future western entrance to McCormick Village Park as envisioned in the McCormick Village Park Master Plan. 13. Ensure that Old Clifton Road is improved as a multi -modal corridor, providing connections to McCormick Woods, the Ridge, McCormick Meadows, and McCormick West, accommodating non -motorized users, and improving safety and accessibility. 14. Work with Kitsap Transit to provide transit service to this area. 15. Ensure that adequate parking is provided to serve the commercial core. 16. Continue to support and partner with the South Kitsap School District to develop the schools at the site to the northwest of Feigley Road and Old Clifton Road. Chapter 2. Vision and Preferred Alternative. 2.1 Vision. The McCormick Village subarea is a thriving and attractive walkable neighborhood providing an assortment of goods and services, a variety of housing types, and convenient access to employment via Kitsap Transit and its proximity to SR-16 and SR-160. Residents within the subarea and surrounding neighborhoods can reach a new commercial district containing shops, restaurants, and other businesses, as well the future school sites to the northwest of the intersection of Old Clifton Road and Feigley Road, using a robust network of sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes that connect throughout the subarea and to adjacent neighborhoods. 4 The McCormick Village Subarea commercial core consists of walkable shopfronts along a new woonerf street, which is a street designed for low vehicle speeds where vehicles and pedestrians share the travel way. The commercial core is located adjacent to a new western entrance to McCormick Village Park which serves as an anchor to the commercial district. Natural environmental features are protected, and parks and recreation amenities are provided in and around the subarea. The landscaping installed within the subarea is extensive and has been designed to be an extension of the surrounding forests and to make extensive use of native trees and plants. This landscape is complemented by a mix of classic and modern Northwest architecture, defined by an extensive use of natural materials and finishes. Figure 3. An example of a proposed woonerf street. The residential portion of the subarea is compact and walkable. Primary residential access streets have sidewalks separated by landscape strips while secondary local access streets are shared residential woonerfs. Vehicle access to housing units is via alleys to the maximum extent possible, to ensure continuous uninterrupted on -street parking and attractive facades dominated by windows and front porches. 2.2 Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative (see Figure 2) visually depicts development that is consistent with the vision described in Section 2.1. Figure 4. The following graphic is a rendering of the east portions of the neighborhood core viewed from the north. The commercial areas are located on the left side of the rendering. 2.3 Center Designation: Local Center. The McCormick Village Center is currently designated as a local center as described in the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. As a designated local center, the McCormick Village Center is an active crossroads in Port Orchard that is a gathering place, community hub, and focal point for services. It is likely that this local center will grow to become a countywide center under the Framework. However, the center currently does not have the requirements of an existing activity unit density of 10 units per acre and a minimum mix of uses including at least 20% housing and 20% employment. As planned, the subarea: 1. Will include an estimated 1,646 activity units (jobs plus housing units) at roughly 5 activity units per acre; and 2. Will provide a mix of residential and employment uses. The center is planned to consist of 77% residential and 23% commercial at full buildout; and 3. Has capacity for additional growth. The center has capacity for an estimated 3,200 additional persons and 361 additional permanent jobs at full buildout; and 4. The center is supported by multimodal transportation (including pedestrian, bicycle, transit (planned), and automobile). Chapter 3. Land Use 3.1 Introduction. The McCormick Village subarea measures 378 acres in land area. This area includes the 40- acre McCormick Village Park, the 57-acre future South Kitsap School District school site, and a 5-acre church property. The remaining 276 areas are public right of way (ROW), and land controlled by McCormick Communities which has previously been approved for development or is intended for development. Additionally, there are several areas of wetlands and the headwaters of Anderson Creek, all of which are protected critical areas and are off limits to development. N. To facilitate development of the Neighborhood Core as shown in Figure 2, amendments to the City's land use map and development regulations are required. These amendments include: 1. Amending the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Amending the official City zoning map. 3. Creating an overlay district to allow for deviations from the City's development regulations and public works road standards. The Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan is being amended to refine the commercial area locations within the subarea to correspond to the development concept shown in Figure 2. The existing and proposed land use map designations are shown in Figure 5 below: PROPOSED EXISTING Figure 5. Land use designations before and after subarea plan adoption. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD McCormick Village Overlay District Comprehensive Plan Designation O MVOO Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation _ COMMERCIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The Zoning Map as adopted in POMC 20.31 is being amended to refine the commercial area locations within the subarea to correspond to the development concept shown in figure 2. The existing and proposed zoning designations are shown in figure 6 below: IN PROPOSE[ EXISTING Figure 6. Zoning before and after subarea plan adoption. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD McCormick Village Overlay District Zoning Designation MVCD Boundary Zoning Designation /� CMU NMI R3 A McCormick Village Overlay District is proposed for adoption in conjunction with this subarea plan. This overlay district seeks to allow several deviations to the City's current standards and includes the following: 1. Land Uses 2. Building Types 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards 4. Building Elements 5. Lot and Road Layout 6. Road Standards. 7. Off-street Parking Standards. E:3 8. Significant Tree/Tree Canopy Standard. 3.2 Population and Employment. As of the end of 2020, the McCormick Urban Village Center contained a regional park and a church, no homes, and only a few jobs. Development of the first housing units in the subarea began in 2021 and is accelerating rapidly. McCormick Communities desires to begin development of the Neighborhood Core in 2022. Based on existing entitlements and the plans shown in Figure 2, when developed the subarea is expected to contain 1,271 housing units and 375 jobs. Planned jobs and housing are shown in Table 1 below. The actual amount of development may vary from the estimate below. Housing Planning Area Jobs Units McCormick Village Commercial Core 67 0 McCormick Village Core 0 388 McCormick Village SF Areas (north of SW Yarrow Street) 0 322 McCormick Trails SF Areas 0 361 McCormick Trails MF 3 200 Future School Site 275 0 Fire Station 10 0 Church 20 0 Total 375 1271 Percent Job/Housing 23% 77% 3.3 Land Use Goals for the Urban Village Subarea (these goals are in addition to existing goals found in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan): Goal MVLU-1: Implement the McCormick Urban Village Subarea Concept Plan as shown in Figure 2. Policy MVLU-1: Allow uses, building types, and site design generally consistent with Figure 2 in the McCormick Urban Village Subarea Overlay District. Goal MVLU-2: Encourage the development of a McCormick Urban Village Central Business District along a new woonerf street accessed via Campus Parkway. Policy MVLU-2: Provide storefront uses on the ground floor in the form of a "Main Street" along a woonerf street as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Regulations for the McCormick Urban Village Overlay District shall ensure that buildings line the new woonerf street without landscape setbacks and with pedestrian entrances oriented towards the street. we Figure 7: Block Frontage Map for McCormick Urban Village. DI Policy MVLU-3: Require a build -to -zone along the storefront area shown in Figure 7 in accordance with the CMU zoning designations, as shown on the Zoning Map (Figure 5) but provide exceptions for public plazas and significant street corners. Goal MVLU-4: Ensure that development in the McCormick Urban Village is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. Policy MVLU-4: Designate high visibility street corners, as defined in the City's design guidelines (POMC 20.127.250) in strategic locations along the new woonerf street and establish requirements in 10 these locations to accentuate building or plaza design with special design features. Policy MVLU-5: Require facade articulation when any proposed building exceeds 120 feet in length. Policy MVLU-6: Ensure that there is at least 60% facade transparency on the ground floor of single - story shopfront and mixed -use shopfront buildings with a facade facing a woonerf street. Chapter 4. Housing. 4.1 Introduction. Home construction within the subarea plan boundary commenced in 2021 for areas previously entitled. As indicated in the Land Use chapter, the subarea is planned to include 1,271 housing units at full buildout. According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, multifamily projects containing 5 or more units in Port Orchard contain on average 2.09 persons per household, whereas detached houses contain 2.68 persons per household. Based on these persons per household estimates, the center should house about 3,200 residents at full buildout. 4.2 Goals and Policies. (Additional goals and policies beyond those already in the Comprehensive Plan) Goal MVH-1: Provide for a mix of housing types, including but not limited to detached houses, backyard cottages, carriage houses, paseo houses, duplexes, attached houses, townhomes, apartments, forecourt apartments, and live -work units. Policy MVH-1: Ensure that the development regulations allow the development of the building types described in Goal MVH-1, pursuant to the Zoning Map in Figure 6. Goal MVH-2: Provide owner -occupied and/or rental housing serving a mix of income levels. Policy MVH-2: Offer 12-year multifamily tax exemptions throughout the subarea in support of affordable housing. Chapter 5 Economic Development. 5.1 Introduction. The McCormick Urban Village subarea is currently mostly undeveloped. Employment opportunities within the subarea will include the existing city park, the McCormick Woods HOA, the existing church, a future fire station, the future school sites, home businesses, and temporary construction jobs related to the buildout of the subarea. The employment assumption for new commercial square footage in the center is one job per 300 square feet, as the expected uses would be retail, restaurant, and bars, which have a higher number of jobs per square foot of space compared other commercial uses. Approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial space is planned within the neighborhood core. It is expected that future schools and a new fire station located in the center would employ approximately 285 people. The total expected employment for the center at buildout is 375 jobs, excluding home businesses. The McCormick Village Plan envisions the establishment of a new central business district adjacent to Campus Parkway along a new woonerf street. This new central business district is intended to take the form of a "Main Street" with shopfronts on the ground floor abutting this new woonerf, featuring wide sidewalks and a shared street. Parking is to be provided on -street along the woonerf, with supplemental parking behind or below these shopfronts, or as on -street parking in the planned neighborhood. It is critical to the success of a new business district to ensure that there are enough dwellings within walking distance to support these 11 businesses. This will lower parking demands and increase activity in the area. Ultimately, this commercial district will be supported by a full center buildout of 1,271 housing units containing approximately 3,200 residents. Other residential areas just beyond the center boundary, along with nonmotorized improvements, transit, on- and off-street parking, gathering spaces, McCormick Village Park, and an active streetscape will all contribute to a vibrant business district. 5.2 Goals and Policies. Goal MVED-1: Provide zoning for ground floor shopfront development and retail, service, restaurant, and other compatible uses along a new woonerf street. Policy MVED-1. Require ground floor shopfront development along a new woonerf street running perpendicular to Campus Parkway, through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. Policy MVED-2. Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. Policy MVED-3. Allow urban plazas in areas where shopfront development is required. Goal MVED-2: Ensure that uses which are not compatible with building a walkable neighborhood center are prohibited. Policy MVED-4. Prohibit drive through businesses, gas stations, storage facilities, and other commercial uses that are unlikely to contribute to a walkable neighborhood center. Chapter 6 Parks. 6.1 Introduction. It is critical to consider the availability of parks and recreational amenities when planning centers. Parks provide a gathering place for neighborhood residents, and recreational facilities contribute to public health and provide connections within the neighborhood. In 2016, the City completed construction on phase 2 of the McCormick Village Park, a regional park adjacent to the neighborhood core. This park, including phase 3 construction as identified in the McCormick Village Park Master Plan, will continue to function as a centerpiece for the neighborhood and will be complemented by the new neighborhood core. The preferred alternative includes multiple pocket parks to be constructed within the subarea. These pocket parks and plazas are consistent with existing City code requirements for usable open space associated with multifamily development. Goal MVP-1: Encourage the development of new pocket parks throughout the neighborhood. Policy MVP-1: Allow public pocket parks to satisfy the requirements of POMC 20.127.350 for all development in the subarea. Goal MVP-2: Encourage the development of public plazas and other gathering spaces in the commercial neighborhood core. Policy MVP-2: Designate significant street corners on the block frontage standard maps as shown in Figure 7, to encourage the development of public gathering spaces in the central business district. 12 Goal MVP-3: Provide public and private sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes within the center. Policy MVP-3: Provide bicycle lanes on Old Clifton Road through the center. Policy MVP-4: Ensure that sidewalks are constructed along all public and private roads within the center. 13 Chapter 7 Utilities. 7.1 Introduction. The McCormick Woods subarea and center is served by City of Port Orchard water, City of Bremerton water, City of Port Orchard sanitary sewer and stormwater, Puget Sound Energy (electric and gas), Xfinity, Wave, Century Link, and KPUD (cable, phone, and/or internet). In terms of the utility services provided by the City of Port Orchard, some upgrades to the City of Port Orchard and City of Bremerton water systems are needed in support of subarea development. The Developer should coordinate with the City of Bremerton for water system requirements. In the City of Port Orchard, additional water storage (the 660 reservoir) and wells 11 and 12 are needed to support the buildout of the subarea and center. Goal MVU-1: Ensure that adequate fire flow is available to support development in the McCormick Urban Village subarea. Policy MVU-1: Provide employment and population assumptions for the subarea to the City of Bremerton for inclusion in the next Bremerton water system plan update. Goal MVU-2: Ensure that adequate stormwater facilities exist to serve the public streets and sidewalks in the McCormick Village Center. Policy MVU-2: Build low impact development (LID) stormwater facilities within the center where practical, to manage stormwater created by new public and private streets. Figure 8: Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Techniques Incorporated into Street Design. This sort of design is encouraged in the McCormick Village Subarea. Goal MVU-3: Ensure that telecommunication facilities are adequate to support 21s' century users. Policy MVU-3: Ensure that KPUD has access to trenches as roads and utilities are installed. Policy MVU-4: Provide for integration of 5G wireless facilities in the streetscape in the subarea. Chapter 8 Transportation. 8.1 Introduction. The McCormick Village Subarea is established along the Old Clifton Road corridor between 14 Campus Parkway and Feigley Road. The Old Clifton corridor provides an important link between SR-16 and SR- 3 and allows some motorists to bypass congestion in Gorst. At the present time, Kitsap Transit does not provide bus service in the area, but with future development this could change. Kitsap Transit plans for future transit service once an area has grown enough to justify deployment of that service. Old Clifton Road is identified as a Collector A street according to the City's street classifications. Pursuant to the City's Public Works and Engineering Standards, Old Clifton Road is planned to be improved as a complete street through the center, although pedestrian connectivity could be rerouted to parallel road networks through some sections, including through the subarea. To achieve countywide center requirements, several conceptual road sections specific to the subarea have been created to improve walkability. While conceptually approved, the roads are still subject to a road deviation approval process to deviate from the city's standard road sections. The proposed conceptual sections proposed in the center provide widened sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and low impact development landscape treatments. The woonerf section "Village Lane" in the core of the center is designed to slow traffic, facilitating a safe walking and shopping environment as well as on -street parking. Finally, nearly all residential development in the subarea is served by alleys to ensure an attractive streetscape that encourages walking. The proposed conceptual subarea road section drawings are shown in Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12. Figure 9: Main Collector. NINE.... L�1.5'cu 9a 1VCUU& I GI R GUTTER Wn% I TI—T' I?.NF I TRAVELF E I PMMG 5' SIDEWALK \P PIANTER 4' �TER A MAIN COLLECTOR NOT TO SCALE 15 Figure 10: Village Lane. 1.0' RIBBON 1.0' RIBBON CURB CURB SIDEWALK 14' 19' SIDEWALK W/TREE WELLS TRAVEL LANE ANGLED PARKING W/ TREE WELLS Figure 11: Woonerf (residential). B VILLAGE LANE (QNE-WAY) NOTroscaLE PRIVATE C WOONERF (ONE-WAY) nor ro scale 16 Figure 12: Alley ALLEY (NO PARKING) NOT TO SULE Figure 13: Proposed Location of Road Sections 11 I The development of the McCormick properties is subject to a development agreement for transportation, approved on February 9, 2021. This agreement has provided concurrency approval and limits the extent of any offsite transportation improvements that might be required. However, since some portions of the subarea remain unentitled, the contents of this plan related to onsite transportation improvements would apply to future development. Goal MVT-1: Develop local access roads in the subarea in accordance with Figures 9-12 above. Serve the central neighborhood core with a woonerf street. Provide vehicular parking for most residential units via alleys. Policy MVT-1: Provide pedestrian crossings at regular intervals on local access streets through the 17 subarea. Policy MVT-2: Provide on street parking on most local access streets within the subarea. Policy MVT-3: Design roads in the subarea to encourage reduced vehicle speed and increased pedestrian safety. Policy MVT-4: Integrate urban low impact development stormwater management features in roadway designs, including landscaped infiltration galleries between on -street parking lanes and sidewalks. Ensure that infiltration galleries allow ample opportunities for access between parking areas and sidewalks. (See Figure 8.) Goal MVT-2: Provide connectivity between the subarea and McCormick West, McCormick Woods, McCormick North, McCormick Village Park, the future school sites on Feigley, and other destinations within the western portions of Port Orchard. Policy MVT-5: The City should develop a corridor plan for Old Clifton Road from Anderson Hill Road to the western City limits (west of Feigley). Goal MVT-3: Provide for flexibility in parking quantity standards. Policy MVT-6: Include alternative parking ratios in the overlay district as it applies to the commercial core to recognize the peak parking demands of all uses, and the ability for on -street parking to be shared between residential and non-residential uses. Policy MVT-7: Expand the McCormick Woods Golf Cart zone in areas south of Old Clifton Road. Goal MVT-4: Encourage the development of storefronts along a new woonerf street as shown in Figure 10. Policy MVT-8: Designate a new woonerf street as "storefront block frontage" in the city's design standards (POMC 20.127) and require a build -to -zone along this frontage. Policy MVT-9: Remove block frontage standards in other areas of the subarea. Goal MVT-5: Support the establishment of transit service in the subarea and center. Policy MVT-10: Require the installation of transit pads during permitting and construction in consultation with Kitsap Transit. Goal MVT-6: Support bicycle infrastructure and provide bicycle amenities in the subarea. Policy MVT-11: Provide bike lanes or grade separated pathways running east/west and north/south through the subarea. Policy MVT-12: Ensure that bicycle parking is provided in the subarea consistent with POMC 20.124. Goal MVT-7: Provide pedestrian infrastructure throughout the subarea. Policy MVT-13: Ensure that existing and proposed streets in the subarea are constructed with sidewalks on both sides of the street except for woonerfs and alleys and include landscape strips to provide pedestrian vehicle separation. 11M Policy MVT-14: Provide pedestrian connectivity though -out the subarea. Goal MVT-8: Provide safe multimodal access to the future school site on Feigley Road. Policy MVT-15: Ensure that sidewalks are provided between the subarea and the future school site on Feigley. Consider adding pedestrian crossings at SW Yarrow Street and Feigley Road when the school develops. Goal MVT-9: Ensure that new electrical service is installed underground within the subarea. Policy MVT-16: Undergrounding of powerline distribution and service should be required through the subarea. 19 • r +f. pr _•fir•, � —..:� �7F•-.�;:-'-_ R. •,6�.-T��y PRE-tiy�c'.� +h � IC - _---}Y ' -ems - $ ti # Walk �. ALA Bethel Lund Subarea Plan DRAFT October 2024 Acknowledgements The Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan would not be possible without the enthusiasm and support of community stakeholders, including the businesses, neighbors, and institutional partners in and around the Bethel -Lund area. A special thanks to everyone who contributed their time and effort to the development of this plan. Mayor Rob Putaansuu City Council Members: Mark Trenary Jay Rosapepe Scott Diener Eric Worden Heidi Fenton Fred Chang John Morrissey Planning Commission: Annette Stewart Stephanie Bailey Tyler McKlosky Wayne Wright Louis Ta Paul Fontenot Joe Morrison City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Community Development Director Jim Fisk AICP, Principal Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Shaun Raja, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist, Assistant Planner Consultant Team: AHBL MAKERS Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Plan Background and Context................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Area................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework..........................................................................................3 2. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Transportation............................................................................................................................17 Previous Transportation Planning Efforts......................................................................................... 17 Vehicular Circulation and Access..................................................................................................20 Pedestrian Circulation and Access................................................................................................23 BicycleFacilities................................................................................................................................24 Transit.................................................................................................................................................. 25 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.................................................................................27 Parksand Open Space....................................................................................................................27 CriticalAreas..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment................................................................................................29 EconomicProfile...............................................................................................................................29 DevelopmentPipeline......................................................................................................................32 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity................................................................................................35 3. Goals and Vision..........................................................................................................................39 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges..................................................................................39 3.2 Alternatives...............................................................................................................................41 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework..........................................................................42 Values................................................................................................................................................. 42 PlanConcept....................................................................................................................................43 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies.........................................................................................................47 LandUse............................................................................................................................................47 Transportation.................................................................................................................................... 49 CommunityDesign........................................................................................................................... 51 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.........................................................................................53 4. Action Plan...................................................................................................................................54 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1-1 EXHIBIT 2-1 EXHIBIT 2-2 EXHIBIT 2-3 EXHIBIT 2-4 EXHIBIT 2-5 EXHIBIT 2-6 EXHIBIT 2-7 EXHIBIT 2-8 EXHIBIT 2-9 EXHIBIT 2-10 EXHIBIT 2-1 1 EXHIBIT 2-12 EXHIBIT 2-13 EXHIBIT 2-14 EXHIBIT 2-15 EXHIBIT 2-16 EXHIBIT 2-17 EXHIBIT 2-18 EXHIBIT 3-1 EXHIBIT 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-3 EXHIBIT 3-4 • • A Bethel -Lund Study Area.............................................................................................. BethelJunction............................................................................................................ ExistingLand Use......................................................................................................... ExistingZoning............................................................................................................. Block Frontage Map #7 and Map #8...................................................................... Looking west from Lund Avenue............................................................................... Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual Rendering ........................................ Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan.................................................................................. Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections................................................................. Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map ............................ Planned Non -Motorized Routes................................................................................ Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities............................................................ Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.................................................................... Age in Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023............................................ Household Incomes in the Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023.......... Top Job Sectors in Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2012 and 2021...................................... Commuting Patterns in the Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2021........................................ Existing and Pipeline Units and Commercial Development in the Bethel -Lund Subarea........................................................................................................................ Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Bethel -Lund Subarea .............................. Bethel -Lund Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges ............................................... Bethel -Lund Subarea Framework Map.................................................................... Bethel -Lund Height Overlay Districts......................................................................... Bethel -Lund Concept................................................................................................ .2 .6 .7 .9 14 16 17 18 19 22 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 36 40 44 45 52 TABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers...................................................3 TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary.......................................................................5 TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types.................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses......................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2-3 Port Orchard 6/20-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024-2029/2030- 2043)...................................................................................................................................21 TABLE 2-4 Kitsap County 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024-2029) ................23 TABLE 2-5 Planned Nonmotorized Routes.......................................................................................24 TABLE 4-1 Bethel -Lund Action Plan...................................................................................................55 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 1. Introduction 1.1 Plan Background and Context The centers approach to planning was first introduced in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. This approach fosters a sustainable future by accommodating growth through concentrated development patterns and preserves the community's valued traits through collaborative planning efforts. This centers approach is also reflected in Vision 2050, the regional plan adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and in the Countywide Planning Policies managed by Kitsap County. According to Vision 2050, centers are hubs that serve as important focal points for jobs, housing, shopping, and recreation, and are supported by multimodal transportation including transit. Centers create spaces where people can gather, live, and thrive. In alignment with PSRC's criteria outlined in Vision 2050, the 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan designates six "countywide centers" and three "local centers." Bethel -Lund is a countywide center. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 The City of Port Orchard gathered community input to inform this Subarea plan. Input was collected through a an in -person workshop and an online survey to evaluate alternative concepts. This feedback informed the locally preferred land use and urban design vision in the plan. The plan presents a vision for Bethel -Lund to be a walkable, mixed -use urban neighborhood by updating development regulations, encouraging transit -oriented development and redevelopment, and increasing open space and recreational opportunities in the area. 1.2 Study Area The Bethel -Lund Subarea is centrally located at the intersection of Bethel Road and Lund Avenue. It is bounded on the west by Blackjack Creek and on the east by Port Orchard's unincorporated area. The Subarea covers a total of 211.2 acres. Following a thorough evaluation, the Bethel -Lund Subarea is larger than initially mapped in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. The larger area includes more areas of potential development along Bethel Road and recently constructed residential subdivisions. This updated boundary better aligns with PSRC guidance for countywide growth centers. *M11:llidl Bethel -Lund Study Area SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 2 Introduction - DRAFT October 2024 1.3 PSRC Reaional Centers Framework PSRC 2018 Regional Centers Framework establishes eligibility requirements for Countywide Growth Centers, for which designation criteria is listed below: TABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers Identified as a countywide center in the countywide The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies planning policies Appedix D: List of Centers identifies Sedgwick/Bethel Center as a countywide center candidiate. Located within a city or unincorporated urban area Bethel -Lund is located within the Port Orchard city limits. Demonstration that the center is a local planning and investment priority: ■ Identified as a countywide center in a local comprehensive plan; subarea plan recommended ■ Clear evidence that the area is a local priority for investment, such as planning efforts or infrastructure The center is a location for compact, mixed -use development; including: ■ A minimum existing activity unit density of 10 activity units per acre ■ Planning and zoning for a minimum mix of uses of 20 percent residential and 20 percent employment unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. ■ Capacity and planning for additional growth This area is identified as a countywide center in the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Centers Strategy as found in the Land Use Element Section 2.8. In addition to the development of this plan, various transportation investments are planned within Bethel -Lund, detailed in Section 2.2. These include: ■ Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan ■ Kitsap Transit Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-2042 ■ Port Orchard - 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Program ■ 2024-2029 Kitsap Couny Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary indicates that Bethel - Lund meets the minimim existing activity unit density, and has capacity to accommodate 13.6 activity units per acre. Existing mix of residential (53%) and employment (47%) use surpass the minimum mix requirement. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 3 Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 The center supports multi -modal transportation, including: Transit service Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities Street pattern that supports walkability Bicycle infrastructure and amenities There is existing transit service in the Subarea and some limited pedestrian infrastructure. The Subarea plan identifies multi -modal transportation investments that are in various stages of planning and design (see the `priority' checklist item above), including projects for enhanced bus service, new sidewalks and crossings, potential off-street trails, and bike facilities. The Subarea plan also identifies conceptual locations for multiple new streets to create a more compact street pattern. Development regulations will incrementally result in higher -quality private develoment with walkable frontages and pedestrian - oriented site and building design. Compact, walkable size of one -quarter mile squared The Bethel -Lund Subarea is 211.2 acres. (160 acres), up to half -mile transit walkshed (500 acres) Capacity In addition to the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers framework above, Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies establish that Countywide Centers must show a minimum of 10 activity units per acre. An activity unit is one person or one job. TABLE 1-2 below summarizes the existing, pipeline, and additional land capacity for housing and jobs in the Subarea. The additional land capacity is based on the development pattern outlined in this plan (see Planning Framework). As shown, the Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 13.1 activity units per acre. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 4 Introduction - DRAFT October 2024 TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary Bethel -Lund Existing Pipeline (as of Sept. 2024) Acres Vacant/Redevelopable Residential Acres Existing + Pipeline 211.2 Additional Land Capacity 49:516.9 Total 211.2 Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Acres 0.1 Housing Units 259 213 472 3-59301 838773 Single Family 174 39 213 34737 247-592-58 Condo 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 85 174 259 2673_2-� 5268 People per Household Single Family 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Condo 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Multifamily 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Population 665 460 1,124 6327-49- 1,756M Jobs 988 0 988 21 1,009 Activity Units 1,653 460 2,112 6537-7-9 2,7658K AUs / Acre 10.0 13.16 Requirements Required Acres 160-500 160-500 Actual Acres 211.2 211.2 Surplus /Shortfall 51.2 51.2 Required Use Mix 20% Res. / Emp. 20% Res. / Emp. Actual Res. Mix 53% 645657o Actual Emp. Mix 47% 36-5357o Required AUs/Acre 10 10 Actual AUs/Acre 10.0 13.16 Surplus /Shortfall 0.0 SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 5 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Bethel -Lund is a commercial hub that is EXHIBIT 2-1 Bethel Junction surrounded by residential neighborhoods. It contains a mix of land uses including detached single-family homes, mobile/manufactured homes, grocery stores, restaurants, and a variety of retail and service businesses (see EXHIBIT 2-2). At the heart of Bethel -Lund lies a commercial cluster that includes big box store shopping centers with anchors like Safeway and Walmart, alongside smaller retail and restaurant establishments. SOURCE: Google Earth, 2024 Additionally, civic uses and religious institutions, such as East Port Orchard Elementary School and Christian Life Center, are located just beyond the Subarea extent to the north. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 6 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Clusters of residential uses are located to the east and west, including Orchard Bluff Mobile Home Park, an 88-lot low-income affordable senior living community owned and managed by Housing Kitsap, and two multifamily residential complexes, Lund Pointe and Lund Village. Along Harold Drive, pockets of detached -single family homes are expected to expand with new subdivision development. Several multifamily projects are in the pipeline (see 2.4 Development Pipeline). EXHIBIT 2-2 Existing Land Use Lundberg Park Life Center IFN. Rom. M SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 j Retail d � Community Shopping Center fe / Grocery/Market / d � Restaurant/Eateries Bank _ Auto Service/Convenience Store Office Church School veierinary Hospital Siorage Warehouse Single Family Housing Duplex,Townhouse / Multifamily Housing (5+ Units) Manufactured home Greenbelt / Parks and Recreation Undesignated J Bethel Lund Q Port Orchard / /// Port Orchard UGA SESALIv p 0 400 800 Feet Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 7 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 The Subarea is currently zoned Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Commercial Heavy (CH), Commercial Corridor (CC), and Residential 1 (RI), Residential 2 (R2), and Residential 3 (R3). (EXHIBIT 2-3). TABLE 2-1 and TABLE 2-2 list the building types and land uses permitted in these zoning districts. Generally, the maximum building height allowed within Sedgwick-Bethel is three stories or 35 feet. Port Orchard's subarea policies (established in the Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan) describe a need to support focused growth with compact development forms. Low height limits can be a barrier to achieving the added dwelling units and vertical mixed -use buildings necessary to concentrate growth in the Subarea, as envisioned by the City's land use and centers policies. The increased cost and risk of developing mixed -use structures and leasing ground -floor commercial space (compared to a single -use, low-rise apartment building) can be offset by a higher amount of residential floor area. This is because allowing additional dwelling units which can help spread out of the cost of construction across more units. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, developers are indicating increased risk associated with commercial development due to continued uncertainty about retail and office markets (this is a nationwide trend but was also confirmed in local stakeholder interviews for the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan). This further increases the attractiveness of developments with a higher share of residential floor area. Port Orchard allows height increases through the use of a transfer -of -development - rights (TDR) ordinance adopted in 2019 in partnership with Kitsap County (Chapter 20.41 POMC). TDR programs are complex and require savvy and willing participants. To date, no project has used Port Orchard's TDR program and other Washington jurisdictions have found it difficult to attract participants to TDR programs outside of the highest - priced markets. Increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be mitigated by a broad set of multifamily and commercial design standards that Port Orchard already has in place (Chapter 20.127 POMC). These include but are not limited to standards for building massing, light and air access, useable open space, building materials, and windows and entries. According to the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP), the economic benefits of light wood frame construction are maximized with height limits in the 65-85 feet range. The HAP makes specific recommendations for height limits in several zones that exist in the Subarea. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 8 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-3 Existing Zoning Lunube y r F nrk s�j sroroge i r en er - a wash K r Klisap V t9e-:inury Mubile Home. 1�aLICr1p wa yI CL'n1 .r tL 4& Riig � Aid T �.�. 3il fsfl Rs Ba nk,� F{] si Fart Orchard El emeniary • • F school ti Forl OTChard lewd land Falnt !L ISt� V�Ifnrar. Gr9e-'bmr Re4dentloi I pt�F Re 9�er flat 2 lR2F xl ResMeMaJa CH3F Commerexnl Corfickn jr-Cl _ Con1rrer6Cd Heavy ICHI 3usinem fmi. hYAnd Uca (8Pr,1L1[ Commercrol Mh ,ed Use ?0AUl _ G%iCc id tul tr1Larlal5GIJ Public Fo Him%iPFI -'mks and Pn=aotian Frj o111heI L uhtl 'arc Orchard Corr Orchard uG,% '7 ?et I SOURCE: City of Port Orchard 2023 Zoning TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types Building Type Residential Zones R1** R2** R3 Townhouse -- P* P Fourplex (and Triplex) -- -- P Apartment -- -- P Mixed Use Shopfront -- -- -- Single-Story Shopfront Detached House P P P Commercial Zones CMU CC CH P -- -- P -- -- P P -- P P P Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 9 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Building Type Backyard Cottage Cottage Court Duplex: Side -by -Side Duplex: Back -to -Back Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1** R2** R3 CMU CC CH Attached House -- P P -- -- -- Live-Work -- -- -- P P -- General Building -- -- -- P P P Shopfront House -- -- -- P P -- Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.32.015 Building type zoning matrix *Note: In the R2 zone townhouses are limited to three or four units (POMC 20.32.090.2) **Note: Permitted building types in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses Land Uses Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 CMU CC CH Residential Single-family detached P P P -- -- -- Two-family -- P P -- -- -- Single-family attached -- P P -- -- -- (2 units) Single-family attached -- P P P P -- (3-4 units) Single-family attached -- -- P P P -- (5-6 units) Multifamily (3 or more units) -- -- P P P -- Permanent supportive C C C C C C housing Commercial Group day care (7 to 12) C C C P P -- Day care center (13 or more) -- -- -- C P P Indoor recreation* -- -- -- P P P Outdoor recreation* -- -- -- C P P Hotel -- -- -- P P P Medical* -- -- -- C P P Office* -- -- -- P P P Personal service* -- -- -- P P P Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 10 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Land Uses Residential Zones R1 ** R2** R3 Restaurants -- -- -- Retail sales: Up to 5,000 SF GFA -- -- -- Commercial Zones CMU CC P P P P CH P P 5,001 - 15,000 SF GFA -- -- -- P P P 15,001 - 50,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- P P Over 50,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- C P Convenience store w/ fuel -- -- -- -- -- C Convenience store w/o fuel -- -- -- C P P Drive -through facilities -- -- -- C P P Industrial Light manufacturing -- -- -- -- -- -- Brewery, distillery: Up 5,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- P 5,001 - 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- C P Over 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- Food processing, boutique -- -- -- P P P Self-service storage -- -- -- C C C Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.30.040 Use Table *Note: Some specific types of uses within these categories have further restrictions per POMC 20.39.040 **Note: Permitted land uses in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. Commercial zoning represents a large share of the Subarea. The CMU zone offers the most flexibility for residential uses because it allows single -purpose apartment buildings, townhouses, and mixed -use buildings. The CC zone allows apartments only in mixed -use buildings and residential use is mostly prohibited in the CH zone. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 11 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Middle Housing The City is taking proactive measures to ensure compliance with Washington State's new middle housing bills, HB 1110 and HB 2321, adopted during the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions respectively. HB 1 1 10 mandates cities of specific sizes and locations to permit multiple dwelling units per lot in areas that are traditionally exclusive to single- family detached homes. HB 2321 modified the requirements created under HB 1 1 10. The law is codified primarily under RCW 36.70A.635. What is Middle Housing? "Middle housing" includes duplexes, townhouses, cottages, courtyard apartments, and other building types that fall between the scale of single-family detached houses and larger apartment buildings. Middle housing units tend to be more affordable to build than single-family homes and offer greater varieties of layout and sizes that are suited for a wider range of households. Expanding the areas where middle housing is allowed offer greater opportunities for "starter homes", or homeownership, to all residents of a community. ADUs Duplexes/ Triplexes Fourplexes Cottage Clusters Townhouses Courtyard apartments Small apartments (5-10 units) Source: MAKERS, 2023 Currently, Port Orchard is a Tier 3 city as described by the Department of Commerce Middle Housing Model Ordinance User Guide. Tier 3 cities must allow at least two units per lot. Port Orchard is anticipated to cross the 25,000-person population threshold and become a Tier 2 city. Tier 2 cities are required to allow at least two units per lot and also at least four units per lot when a lot provides one affordable housing unit or a lot is near a major transit stop. Should Kitsap Transit implement bus rapid transit in the Bethel corridor, stops for that service will be considered major transit stops. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 12 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 To implement middle housing effectively, Port Orchard proposes the redesignation of properties currently within the R1 zone to R2, effectively repealing existing R1 zoning standards and implementing middle housing building types mandated by HB 1 110 in the R2 zoning district. The Port Orchard HAP provides guidance to promote middle housing while the middle housing compliance strategy is part of the broader update and adoption of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan. Block Frontage Standards Chapter 20.127 POMC provides citywide multifamily and commercial design standards. Article II provides block frontage design standards that emphasize compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment. Many of Port Orchard's streets are designated on block frontage maps for which specific standards apply to different frontage designations. In this Subarea, Bethel Road and Lund Avenue are both designated as "varied" in the community design framework maps (POMC 20.127.130) meaning developments fronting these streets are subject to either "storefront" or "landscaped" block frontage standards. Storefront frontages feature traditional ground -floor commercial spaces at the edge of the public sidewalk. Landscape frontages feature landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and building. In some cases, parking is restricted from being located and visible adjacent to public sidewalks. The large commercial site hosting Safeway and other stores on the southeast corner of the Bethel Road and Lund Avenue intersection is designated as subject to "optional community design framework master plan approval." This designation allows such recently rezoned sites the option to propose alternative and/or additional block frontages. It is intended to promote the arrangement of streets, buildings, open space, parking, and service areas that enhance the pedestrian experience and reinforce Port Orchard's community character. In addition to the existing streets, EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #7 and Map #8 use black dashed lines to indicate planned locations for new streets. Such streets can be created through a public capital project or as a condition of approval for private development occurring on applicable lots. Planned streets are subject to the "other block frontage standards" under POMC 20.127.210. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 13 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Block Frontage Map #7 and Map #8 a - r ow ■ ■ ■ a t • ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ i 4 ■ �r,Mra r k.•��. -r§fir �}F Ailrc��oa•� 1a i��x gwrrtie�ybr Y�w�w••�r �ywv� SOURCE: POMC 20.127.130 Community design framework maps Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 14 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Existing Aesthetics and Design Standards The Subarea aesthetic is typical of low -density, auto -oriented commercial and residential development in the Puget Sound region. Most commercial properties contain one-story buildings set back from the street by expansive parking lots. There are multiple drive -through businesses. Commercial signage is typical for the region and mostly consists of monument and wall -mounted signs. Larger commercial buildings typically have service access in rear -facing areas, while smaller commercial buildings have screened trash collection located in in parking areas. Travel in the area is primarily by automobile and likely related to the long distances between residential and commercial land uses and the incomplete nature of the sidewalk and bicycling infrastructure network. See more information in 2.2 Transportation. Residential development mostly consists of detached single-family homes. Older subdivisions are typically isolated on dead-end side streets while newer subdivisions in the northwest portion of the Subarea include street networks that provide multiple external connections. There are a few single-family properties on larger lots fronting Bethel Road and Lund Avenue. Orchard Bluff Mobile Home Park, owned by Housing Kitsap, is located behind a wide landscape buffer along Lund Avenue. Multifamily residences include three small apartment complexes located on the eastern and southern fringes of the Subarea, all of which consist of two-story buildings. Landscaping is inconsistent across the Subarea. Some properties have landscaped perimeters and parking lots, while other developed areas, including segments of Bethel Road and Lund Avenue, are void of any plantings. Several vacant and/or undeveloped properties are densely vegetated and contain stands of mature trees, particularly to the west. The Subarea is mostly flat with the exception of the Blackjack Creek ravine. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 15 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-5 Looking west from Lund Avenue SOURCE: Google, 2024 Subarea aesthetic and pedestrian experience are expected to improve with the implementation of the Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan, which calls for continuous sidewalks and landscape strips along the length of Bethel Road. Aesthetics will also improve over time through redevelopment and required compliance with the Port Orchard multifamily and commercial design standards under Chapter 20.127 POMC, which ensure that new development is high quality and positively contributes to Port Orchard's community character These design standards consist of: • Article II - Block Frontage Standards (described above). Most importantly, new buildings must be located adjacent to Bethel Road and Lund Avenue rather than set back behind parking. • Article III - Site Planning Standards o Standards for light and air access to residential dwelling units o Nonmotorized circulation standards, including minimum connectivity o Vehicular circulation standards for internal roadways o Open space standards o Standards for the design of service areas and mechanical equipment • Article IV - Building Design Standards o Prohibition on corporate architecture o Building massing and articulation standards that reduce the perceived scale of large buildings o Building detail requirements for commercial ground floors o Exterior material standards o Requirements for treating blank walls Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 16 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 2.2 Transportation Previous Transportation Planning Efforts Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive plan and conceptual design for two major corridors in Port Orchard: Sedgwick Road (State Route 160) and Bethel Road. These are major arterials that serve the Bethel -Lund Subarea and provide connections to State Route 16, Downtown Port Orchard, and the Southworth Ferry Terminal. Elements of the study were centered on: Ensuring safe mobility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders Supporting existing businesses and future commercial growth in the area Guiding future development of the corridors through design considerations and funding tools The proposed conceptual design introduces roundabouts on key segments of both roadways. Additionally, the study recommends enhancing sidewalk connectivity, bicycle facilities, and implementing green stormwater infrastructure. The multi -phase reconstruction of Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road offers a unique opportunity to transform these corridors into attractive, pedestrian -friendly streets, while strengthening connections SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road among the area neighborhoods. Phase I of Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 the Bethel Road corridor improvements includes roundabouts at the intersections of Bethel Road with Blueberry Road and Salmonberry Road. EXHIBIT 2-6 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual Rendering "'- Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 17 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-7 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan LEGEND Bethel Road- Typical Section A — Beihel Road - Typical Section 0 — Sedgwiek Road - Typical Section Eidming Single -lane Roundabout Proposed Single -lane Roundabout ProDcsec� Multi -lane Roundabout Tremont ALIIEGL12 We Hill Drive SR 1 S r SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan I Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-8 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections Bethel Road - Typical Section A LZ ry' lY 1J'.:I". = . = . fi . YNd'i. Beth6 Load - Typical Section B B A' S' -: 3 U' i 8' &kw.( 14 "j, •140-rr Wh C017:in, Or aw br£ualC Sedgwick Road -Typical Section SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 19 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Vehicular Circulation and Access Bethel Road and Lund Avenue are crucial streets providing access and mobility through Bethel -Lund. Salmonberry Road is a residential street that connects the outlying neighborhood within the Port Orchard Urban Growth Area to the Bethel Road commercial corridor. Bethel Road is a key north -south connection that provides access to transit centers, ferry terminals, and other major commercial centers, such as Downtown Port Orchard. Bethel Road also links State Route 160 and State Route 166, connecting the City to other parts of the County. Bethel Road is generally a three -lane street with a center turn lane, and carries 11,500 to 16,900 Average Weekly Daily Traffic (AWDT), depending on the segment. The Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan analyzed the crash frequency along the study segments from 2013-2017. Intersections with the most crashes were at Lund Avenue, Salmonberry Road, and Mitchell Road. Crashes related to turning movements s were more common on Bethel Road than Sedgwick Road, due to Bethel Road having more driveways and intersections which increases the likelihood of crashes occurring. The study recommends access management strategies along Bethel Road to address these issues and preserve safety, function, and capacity of the corridor. Lund Avenue is a minor arterial street connecting neighborhoods between Tremont Center and East Port Orchard. Lund Avenue is primarily a three -lane street with a center turn lane and serves 16,000 AWDT. West of Bethel Road, Lund Avenue transitions to a four -lane street and changes names to Tremont Street. Salmonberry Road is a two-lane east -west connector that runs through unincorporated residential neighborhoods in the urban growth area connecting Jackson Avenue to Bethel Road, serving an estimated 2,300 AWDT. The subarea does not have a conventional grid system. Vehicular traffic is limited to a few streets, leading to increased congestion, safety concerns, and road deterioration associated with those streets. Side streets primarily function as low -volume, local residential streets and connectors to East Port Orchard Elementary School. This plan envisions a few new streets, particularly between Walmart and Salmonberry Road, to allow greater options for vehicular access and circulation. See EXHIBIT 2-9. The City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) identifies planned transportation projects and enhancements including intersection improvements, street extensions, pedestrian and bicycle facilities upgrades, and installation of stormwater infrastructure. TABLE 2-3 lists the planned transportation projects related to Bethel -Lund, and EXHIBIT 2-9 illustrate these projects. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 20 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 TABLE 2-3 Port Orchard 6/20-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024-2029/2030-2043) Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel/Lincoln/ Safety and capacity improvements to 1 Phase 5a - Lunberg/Mitchel intersection 2022 $3,674,000 Bethel/Lincoln RAB Bethel Road / Road extension and intersection 2 Vallair Ct Walmart Drive improvements previously included in 2027 $1,000,000 Connector Intersection the Bethel Road Corridor ROW & Construction project Bethel/Corridor Bethel Road: Phase 1 b. Bethel/ Salmonberry RAB 3 Phase 1 b - Salmonberry Round and roadway segment design 2023 $1 1,467,000 Salmonberry RAB intersection from Blueberry to Salmonberry NOTE: Table 2-3 and Exhibit 2-9 will be updated once TIP is finalized. Salmonberry Ramsey Road to Widen road to two travel lanes with 4 Road Widening Bethel Road bike lanes, sidewalks and stormwater 2028 $225,000 system improvements Bethel/Sedgwick Design, ROW acquisition and 5 Corridor Phase 4 Bethel Road: Lund construction of the fourth phase of the 2021 $8,744,000 - ROW and to Salmonberry street improvements per the Construction Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Ramsey Road Design, ROW acquisition and Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel Road: Mile construction of the fifth phase of the 6 Corridor Phase 5 Hill Drive to Lund street improvements per the 2036 $1 1,467,000 - ROW and Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Construction Walmart to 7 Salmonberry Salmonberry Complete roadway connector 2040 $800,000 Connector SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2024-2029 and Tier 2 2030-2043 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 21 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-9 Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map W. Lu ndberq I pwk Eml Port Orchard .�.r.t Elementary School ';I I :s, $tGf S7Q4 Lffc , ' confer - hlQnstm Cqr -- S11oih - r E Kihap Veierinafy Epsr Hospital M Fort Qrch.md h V.11arft Walgrowns .i_ .'. saiewuy Rile ' Foil Aid BETHEL _ ;,,„r J[tNcriDN ' TronsPWtalCon �' �t'inlfi I ■ 14ilsap �•�... Bank 1rnpror•menls FragMM (11P} Plnr,neci irrinFxnrt"Inn . + ....� J Safeway nlp rpvprowl 4 s PWnrladI 1 JJrn rnprowcrr"il ` 14tndy'!l vsrwf sneCt _ f Vfalmari ` ..orin-c:tion f' rip Project Tler ricr 1 2024-2029 a ura, Bras fer 2 2M0--X.Q coMee r . _ _ _ � � B�ihel�5eripw3rx f Y C:ooiAar Study Beihel Lund Part LKrhard f f Port (.*chardi uGA 4 J 4W +if..1 •elel L L I SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2024-2029 and Tier 2 2030-2043 Note: Additional transportation improvements are planned for Lund Avenue as part of the County capital projects, see Table 2-4. As shown on TABLE 2-4, the Kitsap County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024 - 2029) also includes planned transportation enhancements for Lund Avenue. Planned transportation projects include roundabouts and pedestrian and bicycle facility enhancements. These transportation improvements will create safer, more accessible routes for all road users in the area and improve connectivity between Bethel -Lund and East Port Orchard. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 22 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 TABLE 2-4 Kitsap County 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024-2029) Road Segment Description P hase Start Total Est. Cost Median, sidewalk, and bike lane from Harris to Lund - Harris to Chase 2024 $4,586,000 Chase. Rounabout at Harris Median, sidewalk, and bike lane from Harris to Lund & Hoover 2024 $3,318,000 Chase. Rounabout at Hoover Lund & Chase Rounabout 2027 $3,335,000 Lund - Chase to Median, sidewalk, and bike lane, and u-turn 2023 $3,275,000 Jackson SOURCE: Kitsap County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Pedestrian Circulation and Access The majority of existing Subarea sidewalks are located along Bethel Road and Lund Avenue. Sidewalks are being installed in concert with new development, such as residential subdivisions Many older sidewalks have substandard widths and curb cuts. Sidewalks along arterial streets are fragmented and usually not present on both sides of a street. Most streets outside of the commercial areas have paved or gravel shoulders, which forces pedestrians to share high -volume roadways with vehicles and bicyclists. Safe pedestrian crossings are limited to the two signalized intersections on Bethel Road. Side street intersections and private driveways often have wide turning radii, which increases pedestrian crossing distances and allows vehicles to turn at higher speeds. Street lighting is limited, which can reduce the safety and comfort of walking at night. The fragmented active transportation network has resulted in a lack of safe and attractive connections to neighboring destinations and car dependency. Notably, there is no attractive active transportation option for travelling east -west between Bethel Road and Harris Road for a distance of one-half mile although Harris Road has numerous residential developments that are physically close to the shopping and job opportunities in the Bethel -Lund Subarea. A similar challenge exists for the Hoover Avenue/Green Dale Drive neighborhood northeast of the subarea. Overall, the environment in the Subarea is unpleasant for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other wheeled device users, such as wheelchairs, strollers, and scooters. Continuous active transportation infrastructure would improve the functionality of the existing network and quality of the pedestrian environment, providing a convenient, safe, and attractive option alternative to driving. The City has planned nonmotorized routes that are intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the City. Those within the Bethel -Lund Subarea are listed in TABLE 2-5. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 23 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Bicycle Facilities There are no existing bicycle facilities within Bethel -Lund. However, the City's planned nonmotorized routes will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and connection from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, recreation areas, and other nonmotorized routes outside of the city limits. These routes include Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road), Tremont Lund (State Route 16 to Jackson Avenue), and Salmonberry Road West (Bethel Road to Jackson Avenue). Both Bethel Road and Tremont Lund connect to Kitsap County nonmotorized routes and are included the Kitsap County Non -Motorized Facilities Plan. The Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan includes street improvements on Bethel Road. The Tremont Street Improvement project is partially constructed, and other phases of development are ongoing. The Kitsap County TIP identifies four improvement projects along Lund Avenue including sidewalks and bicycle lanes and three new roundabouts from the Port Orchard city limits to Jackson Avenue. The eastern end route to Jackson Avenue extends beyond the city limits requiring collaboration with Kitsap County. Continued design improvements for Salmonberry Road West are part of the Bethel Phase 1 project. TABLE 2-5 Planned Nonmotorized Routes Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Arterial Street - Bike Lane/Sidewalk 2.62 Planned Art Road) Tremont Lund On -Street - Bike Lane/Sidewalk 2.63 Partialy Built (SR 16 to Jackson Avenue) Arterial Salmonberry West (Bethel Avenue to Jackson On -Street - Residential Bike Lane/Sidewalk 0.98 Planned Avenue) SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 24 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-10 Planned Non -Motorized Routes r r lu naberq Eos1 ti Pori Orchwd 7. 111116511414 ANal11111liiei Nen-hS*terLxed Raw Pei 11111 Arteriol Mnnod i.r f s: kr 'ra _7L milli kesdwnflniPlanrmd Be+h4ldp+lck Carnckw Study 'arks 150hel Lund ®® J Port;kd-�ra uGA R7�TIlIIn a arXI aos Fn I t r SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Transit Kitsap Transit currently provides bus service in the Bethel -Lund Subarea six days a week with half-hour headways via Routes 8 and 9. Route 8 serves the Bethel Corridor operating between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Fred Meyer at Sedgwick Road. Route 9 serves East Port Orchard with stops at Town Square, Annapolis Ferry Dock, and the Port Orchard Ferry Dock. Projects outlined in the Kitsap Transit 2022-2042 Long -Range Transit Plan are expected to bring significant improvements to the transit service in Bethel -Lund. In the near -term, frequency upgrades for Route 9 will reduce transit service headways to fifteen minutes. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 25 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 In the long-term, Bethel Road has been identified as a potential location for high - capacity transit options, such as bus rapid transit (BRT) (See EXHIBIT 2-1 1). Additionally, a new fixed -route bus route is planned on Lund Avenue, connecting to McCormick Woods. These projects and expanded services are expected to enhance accessibility and convenience while providing more travel options for people living and working in the Subarea. EXHIBIT 2-11 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities _ .-." F T Lu ndberg ra•k EOFr .—.—.—.." Port Orr;hard 1 Elementary 1 �•�.�y School j '! dorrudil; C�Ylsita -- _ u+ 5lproyt Llfe y M1. r_eMer _ - MIn$tgi ,4r r Wash - i Kihap Veierir4dr} ' East Nosplral T M Port Orchord chard 9Jurr L tiJ n�lnbffr r0brm! ........... Pucrtv vigr"M _ Yallarla Soleway Rilr. Aid BETHEL Fu el t- Mind JUNCTION ?q'n 1 ICltsap 4.—.—• .�.—.41 Bank safeway 1 13%?ap Trarmt 1 bL * 1 EAsIIngRloiit� R ti4end y E54SIlnQ Route 8 S"ops it + Vfalmat - j Si 'it}:h'{� E�isliris; Rvuic B E;asling Route 9 s.olm utch Bras Ptanned Part N. Coffee Orchacl- mccorTYllck woods RoUIC Flp7na,-j MT Route Parks 1 Sylvan �._� Bethel Lord Y4rc.YCYrond + vcr Orchard L.L'.A p e FA KAI Feri 1. I L SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap Transit Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 26 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Parks and Open Space The Port Orchard Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) identifies Lundberg Park, South Kitsap Regional Park, and East Port Orchard Elementary School as the nearest existing parks and recreation spaces to the Bethel -Lund Subarea. Lundberg Park is an undeveloped, forested city -owned property located just outside the northwest Subarea boundary. It currently has no public access or amenities, but its proximity to Blackjack Creek and a steadily growing residential area makes it suitable to become a neighborhood park. South Kitsap Regional Park, also known as Jackson Park, is on 209 acres one mile east of the Subarea and provides a range of amenities including sport fields, a playground, skate park, and walking and biking trails. Additionally, East Port Orchard Elementary School includes a playground and large playfield open for use by residents. There are opportunities to promote local neighborhood parks or park plaza spaces within the subarea through mixed -use and residential developments, particularly near the planned commercial development in the south and pending multifamily homes on Salmonberry Road. A large park could be sited on the undeveloped parcels south of Vallair Connector, which, due to its size, has the potential to include a mix of recreation facilities and/or programming (playground, picnic shelters, nature trail, etc.) (see EXHIBIT 2-12). Critical Areas Wetlands are vital to the local hydrologic cycle and offer a range of beneficial functions, such as wildlife habitat, improving water quality, reducing flood risks, and retaining stormwater. The City aims to preserve and protect wetlands and their buffers, but when impacts are unavoidable, wetland replacement or wetland mitigation banks must be utilized to mitigate impacts in accordance with Chapter 20.162 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Blackjack Creek is the largest stream system in Port Orchard, spanning a length of approximately three miles within the city limits (not including tributaries) and is considered one of the largest and most productive fish producing streams in South Kitsap. In recent years, the City has taken steps to protect the Blackjack Creek corridor and preserve and/or restore ecological function. Blackjack Terrace Open Space, located west of Vallair Connector, acts as a dedicated natural wooded buffer and much of the area surrounding Blackjack Creek is zoned Greenbelt. There is no public access to Blackjack Creek near Bethel -Lund, presenting an opportunity for a potential new trail connecting Blackjack Creek to adjacent Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 27 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 subdivisions. The creation of such a trail would promote outdoor recreation and cultivate environmental stewardship within the Subarea. The 2023 the Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan assessed stormwater system impacts on local receiving waters based partly on impervious surface land coverage. Lower Blackjack Creek was ranked Moderate/High, indicating a greater level of water quality degradation. Impacts to water resources could increase due to new and upcoming development in the area. Surface water and stormwater capital improvement projects were developed to address the problems identified in the plan. Among the ten prioritized projects is the Salmonberry Road Lower Blackjack Creek Culvert Retrofit, which will remove and replace an existing culvert with a new storm conveyance system (see EXHIBIT 2-12). The Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan also programs stormwater infrastructure along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road to protect critical downstream creeks and waterways (i.e. Blackjack Creek). EXHIBIT 2-12 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Lvnd h'crq 'q1K ZEtal t.F�.�.�.�. Pad 0FchQd ! Eke ntwy dolradll C hrisila 4 Nampo Ur* - # Cenlrr hSUFI�IOF GOr Wash �- F-!'Kilsop Velmiocry Hosplhal 1 0r hOrd Nuff ktobilc Nnmc,, '' PVPriO walgms w 4allarfa jam:' f a Me Aid Kilsop Sank e � � wendys Vuleh eras r CalfQra r SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS 2024 walmorl 5�-,,th Flr; fltj Rugic nay Pa i k East , pool prrhard Y � Open' .ce Pozks Pt�kCpparludlirs r. BlackjodlOcak welikrwh feyark: $q8 cs ce rIr rcehurcl H I Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan m Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment Economic Profile Demographics Port Orchard is a rapidly growing city with population growth rates in recent decades exceeding those of the county and state due to annexation, in -migration, and natural population growth. This has driven a rapid increase in housing unit demand and production, including in the Bethel -Lund Subarea. Overall, Port Orchard's population is younger and more diverse than regional averages, with smaller household sizes than the county and the state, and somewhat lower incomes than county and statewide averages. The Bethel -Lund area has very similar age breakdown to the City as a whole with a relatively large share of young residents, as shown below in EXHIBIT 2-13. EXHIBIT 2-13 Age in Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 23% 24% 15% 15% 14% 14% Lund Port Orchard SOURCE: ESRI ■ 65+ ■ 45-64 ■ 35-44 25-34 ■ 15-24 ■ 0-14 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 29 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Incomes in the Subarea are somewhat higher than in Port Orchard as a whole, based on American Community Survey data, however, estimates for smaller geographies can be subject to significant margins of error. EXHIBIT 2-14 Household Incomes in the Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lund Port Orchard SOURCE: ESRI Employment ■ $200,000+ ■ $150,000 - $199,999 ■ $100,000 - $149,999 ■ $75,000 - $99,999 $50,000 - $74,999 ■ $35,000 - $49,999 ■ $25,000 - $34,999 ■ $15,000 - $24,999 ■ <$15,000 According to 2023 data received from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), there are 988 jobs in the Bethel -Lund Subarea. PSRC does not provide a detailed breakdown of these jobs by sector, but the U.S. Census's OnTheMap tool does provide estimates for job sectors in the Subarea, shown below. Retail jobs comprise the majority of employment in the subarea, with food and other service jobs also present in smaller quantities. The employment mix has shifted in the past decade towards retail, and, with the forthcoming Home Depot, this shift is likely to continue. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 30 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-15 Top Job Sectors in Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2012 and 2021 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% ,a MI Retail Trade Food / Lodging Other Services SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap ■ 2021 ■2012 Wholesale Health Care / Arts, Social Entertainment, Assistance and Recreation Commuting The map below shows estimated commuting patterns in the Subarea. As shown, essentially no residents of the Subarea also work in the Subarea. Given the commercial activity in the area, there is a significant net inflow of commuters into the Subarea. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 31 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-16 Commuting Patterns in the Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2021 4 M1lnre� ° orwe ,Poplar ifreet� I a� 580+�°mk'kr�, r Port orcMard I/ ios East Por, cro),rd 5°ulheaa,a o�"CrayyMgeav —�... f°�l9eah 3julAeaLf sal fry n utyp st9lye (/((��/) � 6erry'Poad �Vtr � � SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Development Pipeline The map below, EXHIBIT 2-17, shows the current housing unit counts as well as pipeline development in the Subarea. There are currently 174 single-family units and 85 multifamily units, for a total of 259 existing units. There are an additional 39 single-family units and 1794 multifamily units currently under construction or in the development pipeline (as of September 2024). Once completed, this will total 47-92 units in the Subarea. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 32 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-17 Existing and Pipeline Units and Commercial Development in the Bethel - Lund Subarea Port Orchard Lund Existing and Pipeline Units Legend I 0 Pori nrl�we.d Cf, . alA CU raid uGa. wao�r 6adlas — see I�IglrreK t — wi uxe• kamd Evirmg Unfits by Pamel d u- Pipeline Units by PaFEE1 L I Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 33 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Port Orchard Lund Existing and Pipeli Legend Q Port Orchard City Limits Port Orchard UGA Water Bodies Roads — State Highway — Collector/Arterial Local Road Existing Units by Parcel Oo l� Lipp 2 3-5 - 5+ Pipeline Units by Parcel / 02 3-5 5+ Commercial Pipeline a' 3 "s 0 --�Flreweed St -- SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Note: Pipeline data is as of September 2024. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 34 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity The map below in EXHIBIT 2-18 shows parcels classified as Vacant, Underutilized, or Partially Utilized in the Subarea. These classifications were based on the 2019 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report and updated to reflect recent development in the Subarea. After deducting critical areas, future infrastructure, right-of-way, and market factor considerations, there are a total of 16-1�.95 acres available for residential development and 0.1 acres available for commercial development in the Subarea. This equates to a capacity for 301-55.9 housing units (347 single-family and 26732-� multifamily), and 21 jobs, given the assumptions used in the Land Capacity Analysis for Port Orchard's 2023 Comprehensive Plan (see TABLE 1-2 -Bethel-Lund Subarea Capacity Summary). Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 35 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-18 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Bethel -Lund Subarea Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 36 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 1-0" WFUvarem Lund Pairet-Mawifixations Lagpow P.-I rjchad City ti,k, Riq IDIrhji;I USDA 1araL.r miles Emadk Sane I livrfeav v� admr 1 WX8 atl v%rm SIAM �ARnAILWurRr7m UALIRU'l-12W Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 37 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 -J Port Orchard Lund Parcel Classifications ,------ Le end , Port Orchard City Limits y ! L_J Port Orchard UGA 1 Water Bodies Roads - State Highway -- — r � Collector/Arterial 4t — — - — - - Local Road — _ 4p4 Parcel Status PARTIALLY UTILIZED 111 s1 UNDERUTILIZED hI !� VACANT 1!p' aoldenR,d sr M — { 2� 6acebo 5t , t 3 _._ A�aL:1 1 3a [77� 1 flrewecd.51��--� ■ ' Leora P?rk St ,14 county, city o/Port Orchard, LCC SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 38 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 I Goals and Vision 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges Bethel -Lund is rich with economic opportunities and community assets, but faces challenges from a disconnected, auto -oriented environment. EXHIBIT 3-1 summarizes the assets and challenges this plan addresses. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 39 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-1 Bethel -Lund Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges Ci15ap Irls:sil n pl;ulrlinp Lru� R + ins rier rna ry,, �'.y afr 3x 3rl in aoic ransir [fang IScthd l oad rocteule a mare canlinuasx `nary, Dax� lot+a7 rxtd cr pranrknj?�oa and stroarrAnc yadr�. Wal lspardafar7"oveiriiwNls 1,;: " 1 r]re 1 _'-t''5 is scwu Mor- 5lrt p sILF_ 9remonf - Soma.xJii�:M ri_xr ,: r wrrtrad'ho sUbrrit- ;L,r 5hjdcn7 -.to wak and M= d W j I c - 1 , Ram Fhesubcwoo do rtra [Iermxltary School. but F � tlrv#fs nle r'rrl tip ravrrenf {-�---, L A. 5are+y511Und0vt .61Iy�riuMly irx a irol i ~ �x kaki Far �chara u6ong Er ,,ckii L-k Creek -r r- ; Elrrinanialy pcG,_ . v.11h COrO&Crinns ,r, ;o�kom y.lbdreio ry � •'f I Less iraor, anu I r majr�cr�lorsol I� k�'l I II6Avnflur. $pVSrr[71 r7fJtr Nli1 slay I__ -- Ia�I S iOle wlcYK� ppAirrMk:iIk�igO1Itq r j ;�, ulr.:LxkilIfjoi-ti s hdorr 47d ithe wboveo e.oLkJ { 4 I + beredevel4py n•7lve'l •aA'Iertilheyre8G35 x+t . arltltA104.L7RF h,nil}rlar L.._ _ �,,, ,� ommeq lfll t nehr;dl P* JrAkJ 4 #Itor7#or A _Ih O vomr rrclal venrer mr,+@trrrl *Y C51t rin scYvcG asa -pub for the } nei offtood an:J c1^yir ide M t �asl Iwo i7^Oc'4ry iYtl] S rna'Ckl Lao Pelt 01chwo Jalads sloras pro+�ir0es �aiy I I•f.Ods and s`Jpwh labs Neighbulhoud Y4 dr,'j" Ar: IS a"ar LmL� tsw—s In IMra: 1r.�1',I I'. U•• •.rl'I: IL'1 Lsls unli€ely to charge '�fi Salr $aL'o-errY I41 r _ pa'4.I.ry :'1' Irwro . - - I �n •. r.-.Aria7in rfk'Fc _nr n H.xn I { _ pepor ;y�+alaprrlenl + t'r_h wAUct o r t Ridge smj�v pwp'�- V"N oulsldc rA'1'eP;barcr r r _ MY General QpporFurlHletiQhselwdlwrs: �rdg"ic _ , • Kt,a;s irolls-7ris_nlner: B-N rpule011Pethel Ragc: eHtiel - Cou$d icloitafe emote coq". C1 Cievelepmen! TV* R*INl+I jSesLtn' ii[-k c eyridU+ �iOnrdF p 4pport4n1her EKNIngC■ndram pcdcsiria•r+bcx•_Ia;nrruslructtncwillcrcatc .--. Mul x _urrlecllorrs tort-cr.'rnoft trafrcl Aiscl, Bemier(sadmw+c-k saFer raOes far al trcivelers twor a Colridar5ludy ' NeLdjopporlunityRx pindo ard, or g&heirtng bP +- SFco I axsanslan dR6niii".7 aces to Sen+e the suborea f Inlill devekr,�rnent PeesWn 0,ollenoed .Jr. rrk)P', aril M Natural oreos inrers821iOri. Flft� owrw�eshlp and Ruoff shaet r2di$ rnrM POt1tS If Q Pk opi: nlllei ■ ISus craps , hghly fragmented yyw Land use — Skearu v Nahue hail di 6ciprfu!rnl hrsr�-r d� CU�rNnSrCla1 " Ekt+arl4� 5�#i�r 5711t1 . €�9ti9101Y7�rld 040`1rS Ic; :.PifllP.if t _ ; 4•' Nathel Lund grihunco Cbr mol:li7riiy Po�ral5lral p'Inmg1kin prgp • N&�ghtnvht6il5 .,.)PcoOFc`rard • 5(twt, Pori omelow l.L'sA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 40 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 3.2 Alternatives Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use alternatives presented potential development scenarios tailored to the unique characteristics of the Subarea, informed by a thorough analysis of existing assets, challenges, and opportunities. These alternatives provided a framework for evaluating different development pathways. The chart below described the key features considered in the alternatives. For greater detail about the distinction between each alternative, see Appendix C: Bethel Subareas Alternatives. Alternative 1 No Action Utilize current zoning and move forward with existing policies and planned public improvements. A notable exception will be zoning changes necessary to comply with the State's middle housing legislation. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Light Touch Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Create flexible regulations and implement strategic zoning changes to accommodate growth and promote an efficient mix of uses. Improve pedestrian mobility and access to parks and open space. Leverage planned transportation improvements and expand growth through mixed use opportunities to support walkable neighborhoods and economic vitality. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 41 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework Values The following values were developed from the plan's purpose and context and shaped by community engagement. • Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility. Prioritize the development of a transportation system that ensures safety, efficiency, and comfort for all users — whether they are walking, biking, driving, or using public transit. This value underscores the importance of creating a well-connected and accessible neighborhood where residents and visitors can easily navigate using various modes of transportation, fostering greater mobility and reducing reliance on single - occupancy vehicles. • Thriving center with diverse uses. Foster the growth of vibrant community center that offers a harmonious blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. This center will act a hub where people can work, live, and play. The neighborhood is economically resilient and has a lively, multifaceted environment that meets many needs of the community. • Access to recreation. Provide convenient access to high -quality recreational facilities, parks, and open spaces. These amenities are essential for fostering physical health, mental well-being, and social connections, significantly enhancing the overall quality of life within the community and creating inviting spaces for leisure and interaction. Open spaces support important ecological functions such as wildlife habitat and stormwater management. ■ Resilient and sustainable community. Build a community that is resilient to environmental, economic, and social challenges. Sustainable practices are used in development, including the implementation of green infrastructure and the preservation of critical areas. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 42 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 Plan Concept The plan concept is informed by the community engagement, an analysis of existing assets, and a review of challenges and opportunities. The concept consists of a set of actions to transform Bethel -Lund into a more active urban center. The vision is to create a vibrant, sustainable, and well-connected neighborhood. Plan recommendations include: Invest in public spaces, such as streetscapes, parks, and plazas. This will foster a sense of community and improve the overall urban experience for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Enhance walking, biking, and rolling connections to make it easier and more comfortable for people to navigate the neighborhood and access neighborhood amenities such as grocery stores schools, transit stops, and future BRT stations without needing a car. Update zoning, design standards, and regulations strategically to encourage private investment in new homes and workplaces. This approach aims to create a balanced community that meets the evolving needs of residents and supports economic growth. EXHIBIT 3-2 illustrates the key features recommended in the subarea plan that align with and support the neighborhood vision for Sedgwick-Bethel, highlighting areas for transit investment, public space enhancements, and potential development zones. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 43 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3, Bethel -Lund Subarea Framework Map Support efforts to activate Lundberg Park Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations, including height overlay zones, and parking requirements to allow for more housing and a mix of land uses Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund SALMONBERRY PARK. {NAME TBD) Create a central park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area /Lundberg r Park r , f r.,�•�� SE LUNG U N ' sue! R3 } R2 _ o %ZZ //r. / Gtio R3;R2 z Kihap �� j .� Je CC r j i E �t r 1 s i r � 5 I r r �✓ Connect to Sedgwick-Bethel frail O O U 0 400 800 Feet N 0 m �E v East a P Portorchard `Sp Elementary F<i^� school _ MCKINLEY PL SE v� Christian Li le sF South Kitsap Center o Regional Park 0 w� w a a 0 > o reens SE BASIL CT a_ East SE TIBURON CT SE SE SERENADE WAY CC >PF h z° 4 "—'�-Berner •— ° +Saloon \ r rr•+ _ SE SALMONBERRY RI) Mauar, h Improve connectivity and explore other active transportation improvements, such as midblock crossing and sidewalk buffer enhancements, along key routes to schools and other destinations Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects will occur as planned Support Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning Existing Conditions o ar;o fexbleJ Mobility »i Safe routes Residential I (RI) Commercial Corridor (CC) — Blackjack Creek Park/plaza improvements to school Residential 2 (R2) Commerical Heavy (CH) M Greenbelt Potential street FI Support BRT Residential 3 (R3) 0ZW Commerciol Mixed Use (CMU) M Parks and Recreation r - + Ravine trail connection Public Facilities (PF) AW Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU) C 3 Bethel -Lund ��► Planned Potential new 0 Port Orchard �1►� Roundabout bus routes =Zoning change 0 Port Orchard UGA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 44 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-3 Bethel -Lund Height Overlay Districts Lundberg yFS Park r? East + ---------- Port Orchard \AGO i % ...;. s yp Elementary F(iNO SE LUNDBERG.RD �� School a(^, y MCKINLEY FL SE Christian F s life N South Kitsa p U ; Center Regional Park 1 a4 Monstar Car m 1 sF� o wash o 1 p 0� Q = Kitsap Veteri ary U > Hospital 116........ Puerto Vallarta Walgreens Rite Aid B I J 'i ateway, SE VALLAIR CT > O o SE BASIL Cr East Port Orchard 1 � almart s`-'riBURory cr i SE BERGER LN ��. SE SERENADE WAJ 1 w w i Bethel s Saloon �, 1 1 Z o r i 0 r r.r.........i 0 400 800 Feet SE SALMONSERRY RD N I I Maxar, Microsoft Bethel -Lund Height Overlay District (BLHOD) Existing Conditions BLHOD 5: 55 feet -five stories Blackjack Creek BLHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories Bethel Lurid BLHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories Part Orchard Part Orchard UGA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 45 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 46 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies Land Use Goal LU-1 Develop a compact land use pattern to accommodate additional housing and businesses. LU-1 Allowed uses, building types, and height limits should accommodate at least 1,873 residents in the Bethel -Lund Countywide Center. LU-2 Adopt the Bethel -Lund Height Overlay Districts (BLHOD) as shown on EXHIBIT 3-3. BLHOD height limits are established as follows: • SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories • SBHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories ■ SBHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories LU-3 Promote incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing within the Subarea, including multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) and other development standards bonuses that prioritize a wide range of housing affordability. LU-4 Right -size minimum off-street parking requirements in the Subarea to incentivize economical housing construction and housing prices, reduce impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, reduce the urban heat island effect, and improve the aesthetic appeal of development. W-41.11.11-5 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to be developed, with a focus on attached and compact housing. Support the citywide middle housing strategy to expand middle housing options for individuals and families at all stages of live and income levels living in Bethel -Lund. W-51.11.11-6 Provide flexibility in building types and land uses along Bethel Road using one or more commercial mixed -use zones and varied block frontages. W-611.U-7 Encourage growth of retail businesses and services in clusters at key locations to create economic relationships and places for people to mix and mingle, like Bethel Junction. "F1.11.11-8 Ensure adequate utility systems are available to support the development and buildout of the Bethel -Lund center. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 47 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Goal LU-2 Support growth of neighborhood -serving retail, dining, services, and amenities. L-U--FLU-9 Encourage ground floor shopfront development along Bethel Road and Lund Avenue through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. J4LU-10 Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. LU-10LU-11 Invest in public realm improvements such as streetscape updates, sidewalk improvements, and public plazas to strengthen retail clusters. Goal LU-3 Ensure that development in Bethel -Lund is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. LU-11 LU-12 Amend POMC. 20.127.350(3) to require at least 3% open space for new non-residential development. LU-12LU-13 Designate high visibility street corners as defined in POMC 20.127.250 in strategic locations. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 48 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Transportation Goal T-1 Design streets to complement desired future land uses and ensure safe, comfortable mobility for all. T-1 Ensure new streets carry forwards streetscape themes found in other parts of the Subarea. Key streetscape elements include landscape, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and other hardscape elements. T-2 Plan a transportation network that reflects future land use goals. T-3 Support the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan to transform Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road as a pedestrian and bicycle - friendly complete streets and promote safer mobility for all users throughout these corridors. T-4 Where appropriate, integrate urban low impact development (LID) stormwater management features in roadway design, including bioswales and raingardens. T-5 Support Kitsap County planned improvements on Lund Avenue, including roundabouts at Hoover Road, Harris Road, and Chase Road, and medians, sidewalks and bike lanes from the city limits to Jackson Avenue. Complete streets are designed to ensure safe, convenient mobility options for all users, which vary based on community context. These may include a wide range of elements, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus lanes, transit stops, crossing opportunities, medians, and landscape treatments. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation T3T-6 Where contextually a appropriatefea-sible, design bike lanes to be protected from automobile traffic with curbs, horizontal separation, or other techniques that improve safety and comfort. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 49 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Goal T-2 Provide a robust multi -modal transportation network that serves all users. T--0-7 Support Kitsap Transit planned transit frequency and service upgrades. T-7T-8 Adjust transit stop locations to maximize convenience as Bethel Road and Lund Avenue develop, accommodating future road improvements and transit services, including bus rapid transit "T-9 Plan for safe and convenient access to transit services for all modes of travel, including wayfinding and signage. Urban low impact development (LID) refers to systems and strategies that mimic natural processes to manage and mitigate stormwater runoff. Examples of LID practices include bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. These practices can be applied at both site and T4T-10 Support bicycle infrastructure regional scales. and provide bicycle amenities, Source: U.S EnvironmentalProtection Agency include secure bicycle parking. Goal T-3 Plan a well-connected and efficient road network. T40T-11 Plan a street pattern that improves internal street connectivity and provides multiple travel route options within the Subarea to access neighborhood destinations. T- 4T-12 Explore opportunities to include well -marked, highly visible midblock crossings at intervals no greater than 500 feet. Goal T-4 Provide safe multimodal access to schools. T-12T-13 Evaluate options for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at key routes to East Port Orchard Elementary School. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 50 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Community Design Goal CD-1 Transform Bethel -Lund to a vibrant walkable neighborhood. CD-1 In conjunction with transportation improvements along Bethel Road and Lund Avenue, integrate placemaking strategies such as plantings, lighting, public art, or other techniques to create a more engaging and human - scaled walking environment. CD-2 Leverage redevelopment to obtain wider sidewalks and pedestrian - friendly building design. CD-3 Promote planting of street trees to improve livability, reduce urban heat islands, and reduce stormwater runoff. CD-4 Work with property owners and existing business to integrate murals and public artworks that promote neighborhood identity. Goal CD-2 Encourage the development of public plaza and other gathering spaces. Urban heat island effect can cause higher temperatures in urban areas compared to their rural surroundings, primarily due to the concentration of buildings, paving, and human activities that absorb and retain heat. Source: U.S Environmental CD-5 Work with property owners, Protection Agency developers, nonprofit organizations and other agencies to invest in indoor/outdoor community spaces, such as a YMCA, event spaces, and community gardens. CD-6 Explore public -private partnerships to designate significant corners as public plazas to create a central public gathering spaces within the business corridor and gateway feature into the neighborhood. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 51 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-4 Bethel -Lund Concept �I -- *6 Ead Plawl . 'Covmhaw�2S H P�. y°y�Sihv� 1 SOURCE: MAKERS 1.9 rA Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 52 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Goal POC-1 Expand park and recreational assets within Bethel -Lund. POC-1 Use open space and recreation uses to buffer Blackjack Creek Greenbelt from new commercial and residential development. Encourage neighborhood parks to incorporate natural or environmental features. POC-2 Provide trail connections to parks and open space that are accessible and designed for both walking and biking. POC-3 Explore options for developing a new "Salmonberry Park" as a community park with walking and biking trails, playgrounds, and nature observation, while conserving Ruby Creek Greenbelt. POC-4 Support opportunities to activate Lundberg Park to serve the growing neighborhood on Harold Drive. Goal POC-2 Create a well-connected low impact trail system that capitalizes view opportunities of Blackjack Creek and connects open spaces. POC-5 Explore opportunities to provide a multi -use trail along Blackjack Creek that provides viewpoint and linkages to parks and open space areas between Sedwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund, provided that habitat mitigation is implemented in accordance with the critical areas code. POC-6 Foster relationships with surrounding property owners to facilitate trail development. POC-7 Incorporate wayfinding, orientation, educational historic/cultural interpretive signage or kiosks into the trail design. Goal POC-3 Ensure critical areas and wildlife habitats are protected consistent with critical areas regulations. POC-8 Partner with other government entities and non-profit organizations to manage natural areas and ensure healthy ecosystem functions that contribute to site and community resilience. POC-9 Promote extensive use of low impact development in project and street design. POC-10 Plan for active and passive recreational opportunities within parks adjacent to sensitive areas and greenbelts. POC-11 Support efforts to acquire property for conservation and mitigation around the Blackjack Creek tributaries. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 53 Action Plan • DRAFT October 2024 4, Action Plan This chapter describes the key steps to achieve the vision for Bethel -Lund. Although this is a long-term plan that includes actions to take place over the next 20 years, several priority actions should be accomplished over the next few years. For this plan to be realized, public and private investment will be required. Trends over the past 20 years show that, without change, private investment alone will not achieve the Subarea vision, goals, and policies. The following steps lay the groundwork for attracting private investment and shaping the built environment. Port Orchard will need to dedicate staff resources for code updates and secure additional funding sources for capital investments. The following table of actions summarizes the recommended steps with ideal timing, priority, and potential costs (represented generally from low to high as $, $$, and $$$). Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 54 Action Plan - DRAFT October 2024 TABLE 4-1 Bethel -Lund Action Plan Action Timing Priority Cost Land Use and Zoning Residential zoning: Expand middle housing options with 1 year High $ the adoption of the citywide middle housing zoning strategy. Commercial and mixed -use zoning: Increase 1 year High $ commercial capacity and flexibility. Rezone along Bethel Road, west of Walmart and the northwest intersection of Bethel Road and Lund Avenue, to promote a more pedestrian friendly mix of uses. Adopt height overlay districts: Reference EXHIBIT 3.3 of 1-2 years High $ this plan. This will provide more opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and vertical mixed -use buildings. Decrease parking requirements. This will provide more 1-2 years High $ opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and reduced environmental impacts of development. Expand and adjust the community design framework 1-2 years Medium $ maps (POMC 20.127.130). The maps should reflect existing conditions from recent/near-term developments, and add desired new streets that reduce block sizes to promote connectivity. Designate high visibility street corners in strategic locations (POMC 20.127.250) . Increase non-residential open space requirements. 1-2 years Low $ Within the subarea boundaries, require at least 3% open space for new non-residential development (POMC 20.127.350(3) ). Transportation Construct the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan to build a 2-5 years High $$$ complete transportation network along Bethel Road. Improve pedestrian and bike connectivity to access 2-5 years High $$ key neighborhood destinations, such as East Port Orchard Elementary School and South Kitsap Regional Park. Some improvements may go beyond what is identified/designed in the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Potential improvements could include new or rebuilt sidewalks, midblock crossings, protected or buffered bike facilities, street trees, traffic diverters, and other features that enhance mobility and comfort. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 55 Action Plan • DRAFT October 2024 Specific enhancements will be determined through further study. Support the Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements, 5-10 Medium $$ including the planned BRT route and new fixed -route years bus routes on Lund Avenue with service to McCormick Woods. Coordinate on placement of bus stops, pedestrian improvements (including sidewalks and crosswalks), and BRT bus -priority features (such as queue jumps and signal priority). Blackjack Creek trail: Study design options and 5-15 Low $$ construct a trail that offers more transportation options, years access to nature, habitat protection, and healthy recreational activities. Capital Facilities and Parks Lundberg Park: Design and operate a park on this City- 2-5 years Medium $$ owned site to improve access to recreation and open space for residents. The park design should incorporate protective features for Blackjack Creek. "Salmonberry Park": Study the potential development 5-10 Medium $$ of park near the intersection of Bethel Road and years Salmonberry Road to improve access to recreation and open space for residents. Identify a location, funding, and partnerships for a 5-15 Low $$$ community facility, such as a recreation/athletics years center, culture and arts center, library branch, senior or teen center, event venue, or similar gathering space. This could be a publicly -operated facility or created and operated by a private or non-profit partner. The facility should be located with good transit access and sized to serve all Port Orchard residents. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 56 11 UN: FIND 1771 41? . Sedgw*ick Bethel Subarea Plan DRAFT October 2024 Acknowledgements The Sedgwick-Bethel Plan would not be possible without the enthusiasm and support of community stakeholders, including the businesses, neighbors, and institutional partners in and around the Sedgwick-Bethel area. A special thanks to everyone who contributed their time and effort to the development of this plan. Mayor Rob Putaansuu City Council Members: Mark Trenary Jay Rosapepe Scott Diener Eric Worden Heidi Fenton Fred Chang John Morrissey Planning Commission: Annette Stewart Stephanie Bailey Tyler McKlosky Wayne Wright Louis Ta Paul Fontenot Joe Morrison City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Community Development Director Jim Fisk, AICP Principal Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Shaun Raja, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist, Assistant Planner Consultant Team: AHBL MAKERS Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan DRAFT October 2024 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Plan Background and Context................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Area................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework..........................................................................................3 2. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Transportation............................................................................................................................17 Recent Transportation Planning Efforts..........................................................................................17 Vehicular Circulation and Access..................................................................................................20 Pedestrian Circulation and Access................................................................................................24 BicycleFacilities................................................................................................................................25 Transit.................................................................................................................................................. 27 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.................................................................................29 Parksand Open Space....................................................................................................................29 CriticalAreas..................................................................................................................................... 29 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment................................................................................................31 EconomicProfile...............................................................................................................................31 DevelopmentPipeline......................................................................................................................34 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity................................................................................................35 3. Goals and Vision..........................................................................................................................36 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges..................................................................................36 3.2 Alternatives...............................................................................................................................38 3.4 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework...........................................................................39 Values................................................................................................................................................. 39 PlanConcept....................................................................................................................................40 3.5 Subarea Goals & Policies.........................................................................................................44 LandUse............................................................................................................................................44 Transportation.................................................................................................................................... 46 CommunityDesign...........................................................................................................................48 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.........................................................................................50 4. Action Plan...................................................................................................................................51 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan DRAFT October 2024 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1-2 EXHIBIT 2-1 EXHIBIT 2-2 EXHIBIT 2-3 EXHIBIT 2-4 EXHIBIT 2-5 EXHIBIT 2-6 EXHIBIT 2-7 EXHIBIT 2-8 EXHIBIT 2-9 EXHIBIT 2-10 EXHIBIT 2-1 1 EXHIBIT 2-12 EXHIBIT 2-13 EXHIBIT 2-14 EXHIBIT 2-15 EXHIBIT 2-16 EXHIBIT 2-17 EXHIBIT 2-16 EXHIBIT 3-1 EXHIBIT 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-3 EXHIBIT 3-4 •A Sedgwick-Bethel Study Area.......................................................................... 2 New Residential Developments in Sedgwick - Bethel .................................. 6 ExistingLand Uses............................................................................................ 7 ExistingZoning................................................................................................. 9 BlockFrontage Map#9.................................................................................14 Looking west from Sedgwick Road..............................................................15 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual Rendering .............................17 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan.....................................................................18 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections.....................................................19 Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map.................23 Planned Non -Motorized Routes....................................................................26 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities................................................28 Parks, Open Space and Critical Areas........................................................30 Age in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 ........................31 Household Incomes in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023................................................................................................................32 Top Job Sectors in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2012 and 2021...................33 Commuting Patterns in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2021.....................33 Existing and Pipeline Units in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea ......................34 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea ........... 35 Sedgwick-Bethel Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges ...........................37 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Framework Map................................................41 Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay Districts....................................................42 Sedgwick-Bethel Concept Plan....................................................................49 TABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers...................................................3 TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary...............................................................5 TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types.................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses for Centers..................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2-3 City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)...............................21 TABLE 2-4 Planned Nonmotorized Routes.......................................................................................25 TABLE 4-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Action Plan.......................................................................................... 52 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 1. Introduction 1.1 Plan Background and Context The centers approach to planning was first introduced in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. This approach fosters a sustainable future by accommodating growth through concentrated development patterns and preserves the community's valued traits through collaborative planning efforts. This centers approach is also reflected in Vision 2050, the regional plan adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and in the Countywide Planning Policies managed by Kitsap County. According to Vision 2050, centers are hubs that serve as important focal points for jobs, housing, shopping, and recreation, and are supported by multimodal transportation including transit. Centers create spaces where people can gather, live, and thrive. In alignment with PSRC's criteria outlined in Vision 2050, the 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan designates six "countywide centers" and three "local centers." Sedgwick-Bethel is a countywide center. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Introduction - DRAFT October 2024 The City of Port Orchard gathered community input to inform this Subarea plan. Input was collected through a an in -person workshop and an online survey to evaluate alternative concepts. This feedback informed the locally preferred land use and urban design vision in the plan. The plan presents a vision for Sedgwick-Bethel to be a walkable, mixed -use urban neighborhood by updating development regulations, encouraging transit -oriented development and redevelopment, and increasing open space and recreational opportunities in the area. 1.2 Study Area The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is located at the intersection of Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road. It is bordered by Port Orchard's unincorporated area to the east and by Blackjack Creek to the west. The area includes recent developments and other vacant and developable lands. The Subarea covers a total of 235.7 acres. Following a thorough evaluation, the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is larger than initially mapped in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. The larger area includes more areas of potential development and recently constructed residential subdivisions. The southwestern boundary has also been revised to exclude critical areas. This updated boundary better aligns with PSRC guidance for countywide growth centers. EXHIBIT 1-1 Sedgwick- Bethel Study Area ! � ! Roposed New Su6ono 9andny F Islnp yJbSao Avu�dav SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 2 Introduction - DRAFT October 2024 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework PSRC 2018 Regional Centers Framework establishes eligibility requirements for Countywide Growth Centers for which designation criteria is listed below. TABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers Identified as a countywide center in the countywide The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies planning policies Appedix D: List of Centers identified Sedgwick/Bethel Center as a countywide center candidiate. Located within a city or unincorporated urban area Demonstration that the center is a local planning and investment priority: ■ Identified as a countywide center in a local comprehensive plan; subarea plan recommended ■ Clear evidence that area is a local priority for investment, such as planning efforts or infrastructure The center is a location for compact, mixed -use development; including: ■ A minimum existing activity unit density of 10 activity units per acre ■ Planning and zoning for a minimum mix of uses of 20 percent residential and 20 percent employment unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. ■ Capacity and planning for additional growth The center supports multi -modal transportation, including: ■ Transit service ■ Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities ■ Street pattern that supports walkability ■ Bicycle infrastructure and amenities Sedgwick-Bethel is located within the Port Orchard city limits. This area is identified as a countywide center in the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Centers Strategy as found in the Land Use Element Section 2.8. In addition to the development of this plan, various intergovernmental and agency transportation investments planned within Sedgwick-Bethel, detailed in Section 2.2 Transportation. These include: ■ Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan ■ Kitsap Transit Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-2042 ■ Port Orchard - 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Program TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary indicates that Sedgwick-Bethel meets the minimim existing activity unit density, and has capacity to accommodate 20.8 activity units per acre. Existing mix of residential (74%) and employment (26%) use surpass the minimum mix requirement. There is existing transit service in the Subarea and some limited pedestrian infrastructure. The Subarea plan identifies multi -modal transportation investments that are in various stages of planning and design (see the 'priority' checklist item above), including projects for enhanced bus service, new sidewalks and crossings, Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 3 Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 potential off-street trails, and bike facilities. The Subarea plan also identifies conceptual locations for some new streets. Development regulations will incrementally result in higher -quality private develoment with walkable frontages and pedestrian - oriented site and building design. Compact, walkable size of one -quarter mile squared The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is 235.7 acres. (160 acres), up to half -mile transit walkshed (500 acres) Capacity In addition to the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers framework above, Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies establishes that Countywide Centers must show a minimum of 10 activity units per acre. TABLE 1-2 below summarizes the existing, pipeline, and additional land capacity for housing and jobs in the Subarea. An activity unit is one person or one job. The additional land capacity is based on the development pattern outlined in this plan (see Planning Framework). As shown, the Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 210,919.1 activity units per acre. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 4 Introduction • DRAFT October 2024 TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary Existing Pipeline (as of Existing + Additional Total Sept.2024) Pipeline Land Capacity Acres 235.7 235.7 Vacant/Redevelopable Residential Acres 26.8 Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Acres 5.2 Housing Units 292 457 749 �4855 1,9191,604 Single Family 156 151 307 1 308 Condo 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 136 306 442 --, 854 1,296595 People per Household Single Family 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Condo 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Multifamily 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Population 716 1,042 1,758 2,11-341,715 3,473892 Jobs 619 10 629 388 1,017 Activity Units 1,335 1,052 2,387 2,52-22,103 4,49099R AUs / Acre 10.1 19.12" Requirements Required Acres 160-500 160-500 Actual Acres 235.7 235.7 Surplus / Shortfall 75.7 75.7 Required Use Mix 20% Res. / Emp. 20% Res. / Emp. Actual Res. Mix 74% 77�% Actual Emp. Mix 26% 234-2-�% Required AUs/Acre 10 Actual AUs/Acre 10.1 19.12" Surplus / Shortfall 0.1 SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 5 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 lie 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is an EXHIBIT 2-1 emerging commercial hub at the southeastern corner of Port Orchard city limits. It has long had a mix of rural and suburban commercial attributes, though has recently been seeing more single-family and multifamily residential development. Sedgwick-Bethel contains a mix of land uses including a large grocery store, smaller retail shops, restaurants, and general services (see EXHIBIT 2-2). There are three commercial clusters located along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road including Bethel Centre, SOURCE: Google Earth, 2024 Sedgwick Plaza, and Fred Meyer. There are civic facilities, such as Hidden Creek Elementary School, located just outside of the Subarea to the southeast.. New Residential Developments in Sedgwick-Bethel Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 6 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 In 2017, major residential construction projects began in Sedgwick-Bethel. The first of these projects was Andaiso Village, a single-family subdivision in the northwestern quadrant of the area. Following this came construction of the Magnolia Ridge and Sidney Ridge subdivisions. The first phase of a new multifamily residential complex, Pottery Creek Apartments, was recently built on the southern edge of the Subarea and second phase will be completed in 2024. Another multifamily project located along Blueberry Road is under construction and will likely be completed in early 2025 (see 2.4 Development Pipeline). EXHIBIT 2-2 Existing Land Uses 1 aa� o`F�aG� 1 Magnolia Ridge Andaiso j Village 1 Sidney Ridge Westcoas Fitness / AW 21 IIIIIIII� Retail Medical IIIIIIII� Community Shopping Center Storage Warehouse IIIIIIII� Grocery Single Family Housing IIIIIIII� Restaurant/Eateries Multifamily Housing (5+ Units) Auto Service/Convenience Market Manufactured Home 16 Office School SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 jIIIIIIII� Greenbelt / Undesignated / C;3 Sedgwick Bethel II= Port Orchard ® Port Orchard UGA Q0 400 800 Feei Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 7 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 The Subarea is currently zoned Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Commercial Heavy (CH), Commercial Corridor (CC), Residential 1 (R1), Residential 2 (R2), Residential 3 (R3), and Residential (R4) (EXHIBIT 2-3). TABLE 2-1 and TABLE 2-2 list the building types and land uses permitted in these zones. Generally, the maximum building height allowed within Sedgwick-Bethel is three stories or 35 feet. Port Orchard's subarea policies (established in the Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan) describe a need to support focused growth with compact development forms. Low height limits can be a barrier to achieving the added dwelling units and vertical mixed -use buildings necessary to concentrate growth in the Subarea, as envisioned by the City's land use and centers policies. The increased cost and risk of developing mixed -use structures and leasing ground -floor commercial space (compared to a single -use, low-rise apartment building) can be offset by a higher amount of residential floor area. This is because allowing additional dwelling units which can help spread out of the cost of construction across more units. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, developers are indicating increased risk associated with commercial development due to continued uncertainty about retail and office markets (this is a nationwide trend but was also confirmed in local stakeholder interviews for the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan). This further increases the attractiveness of developments with a higher share of residential floor area. Port Orchard allows height increases through the use of a transfer -of -development - rights (TDR) ordinance adopted in 2019 in partnership with Kitsap County (Chapter 20.41 POMC). TDR programs are complex and require savvy and willing participants. To date, no project has used Port Orchard's TDR program and other Washington jurisdictions have found it difficult to attract participants to TDR programs outside of the highest - priced markets. Increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be mitigated by a broad set of multifamily and commercial design standards that Port Orchard already has in place (Chapter 20.127 POMC). These include but are not limited to standards for building massing, light and air access, useable open space, building materials, and windows and entries. According to the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP), the economic benefits of light wood frame construction are maximized with height limits in the 65-85 feet range. The HAP makes specific recommendations for height limits in several zones that exist in the Subarea. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 8 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-3 Existing Zoning Zanfng M Gieenkrell fG@I = ?=nmmrxinl C"cxridnr (-C% Sedxwlck LU'rtl ResaenrnlI IRl) = Ccmmerlcd-ieawy ?CH) PQr-CiKhary Hrc Y.-.nt al Z Ik"21 �r� Cc-mrroEvcla M"d Usa ff:MUa fort 00'and IICA P.ei:y l ul 3IR3j Pblx: recililiM fP'l Fr. sicir. tli_I A "R41 WF%F .: ` NIHEI I I 11111111111116 A&JNF.— SOURCE: City of Port Orchard 2023 Zuning TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types Building Type Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH Townhouse -- P* P P P -- -- Fourplex (and Triplex) -- -- P P -- -- -- Apartment -- -- P P P -- -- Mixed Use Shopfront -- -- -- -- P P -- Single-Story Shopfront -- -- -- -- P P P Detached House P P P -- -- -- -- Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 9 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Building Type Residential Zones R1 ** R2** R3 Commercial Zones R4 CMU CC CH Backyard Cottage P P P -- -- -- -- Cottage Court P P P -- -- -- -- Duplex: Side -by -Side -- P P -- -- -- -- Duplex: Back -to -Back -- P P -- -- -- -- Attached House -- P P -- -- -- -- Live-Work -- -- -- -- P P -- General Building -- -- -- -- P P P Shopfront House -- -- -- -- P P -- Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.32.015 Building type zoning matrix *Note: In the R2 zone townhouses are limited to three or four units (POMC 20.32.090.2) **Note: Permitted building types in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses for Centers Land Use Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH Residential Single-family detached P P P -- -- -- -- Two-family -- P P -- -- -- -- Single-family attached (2 -- P P -- -- -- -- units) Single-family attached (3-4 -- P P P P P -- units) Single-family attached (5-6 -- -- P P P P -- units) Multifamily (3 or more units) -- -- P P P P -- Permanent supportive housing C C C C C C C Commercial Group day care (7 to 12) C C C -- P P -- Day care center (13 or more) -- -- -- -- C P P Indoor recreation* -- -- -- -- P P P Outdoor recreation* -- -- -- -- C P P Hotel -- -- -- -- P P P Medical* -- -- -- -- C P P Office* -- -- -- -- P P P Personal service* -- -- -- -- P P P Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 10 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Land Use Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH Restaurants -- -- -- -- P P P Retail sales: Up to 5,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- P P P 5,001 - 15,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- P P P 15,001 - 50,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- -- P P Over 50,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- -- C P Convenience store w/ fuel -- -- -- -- -- -- C Convenience store w/o fuel -- -- -- -- C P P Industrial Light manufacturing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Brewery, distillery: Up 5,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- -- P 5,001 - 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- C P Over 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Food processing, boutique -- -- -- -- P P P Self-service storage -- -- -- -- C C C Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.30.040 Use Table *Note: Some specific types of uses within these categories have further restrictions per POMC 20.39.040 **Note: Permitted land uses in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. Commercial zoning represents a large share of the Subarea. The CMU zone offers the most flexibility for residential uses because it allows single -purpose apartment buildings, townhouses, and mixed -use buildings. The CC zone allows apartments only in mixed -use buildings and residential use is mostly prohibited in the CH zone. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 1 1 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Middle Housing The City is taking proactive measures to ensure compliance with Washington State's new middle housing bills, HB 1110 and HB 2321, adopted during the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions respectively. HB 1 1 10 mandates cities of specific sizes and locations to permit multiple dwelling units per lot in areas that are traditionally exclusive to single- family detached homes. HB 2321 modified the requirements created under HB 1 1 10. The law is codified primarily under RCW 36.70A.635. What is Middle Housing? "Middle housing" includes duplexes, townhouses, cottages, courtyard apartments, and other building types that fall between the scale of single-family detached houses and larger apartment buildings. Middle housing units tend to be more affordable to build than single-family homes and offer greater varieties of layout and sizes that are suited for a wider range of households. Expanding the areas where middle housing is allowed offer greater opportunities for "starter homes", or homeownership, to all residents of a community. ADUs Duplexes/ Triplexes Fourplexes Cottage Clusters Nil Townhouses Courtyard apartments Small apartments (5-10 units) Source: MAKERS, 2023 Currently, Port Orchard is a Tier 3 city as described by the Department of Commerce Middle Housing Model Ordinance User Guide. Tier 3 cities must allow at least two units per lot. Port Orchard is anticipated to cross the 25,000-person population threshold and become a Tier 2 city. Tier 2 cities are required to allow at least two units per lot and also at least four units per lot when a lot provides one affordable housing unit or a lot is near a major transit stop. Should Kitsap Transit implement bus rapid transit in the Bethel corridor, stops for that service will be considered major transit stops. To implement middle housing effectively, Port Orchard proposes the redesignation of properties currently within the R1 zone to R2, effectively repealing existing R1 zoning standards and implementing middle housing building types mandated by HB 1 1 10 in the R2 zoning district. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 12 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 The Port Orchard HAP provides guidance to promote middle housing while the middle housing compliance strategy is part of the broader update and adoption of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan. Block Frontage Standards Chapter 20.127 POMC provides citywide multifamily and commercial design standards. Article II provides block frontage design standards that emphasize compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment. Many of Port Orchard's streets are designated on block frontage maps for which specific standards apply to different frontage designations. In this Subarea, Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are both designated as "varied" in the community design framework maps (POMC 20.127.130) meaning developments fronting these streets are subject to either "storefront" or "landscaped" block frontage standards. Storefront frontages feature traditional ground -floor commercial spaces at the edge of the public sidewalk. Landscape frontages feature landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and building. In some cases, parking is restricted from being located and visible adjacent to public sidewalks. Sedgwick Road at the western edge of the subarea is designated as "gateway". This designation is reserved for areas near highway interchanges with heavy vehicle traffic and serve the purpose of providing attractive landscaped frontages. In addition to the existing streets, EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #9 uses black dashed lines to indicate planned locations for new streets. Such streets can be created through a public capital project or as a condition of approval for private development occurring on applicable lots. The block frontage type that applies on planned streets is "other", regulated under POMC 20.127.210. In this subarea, the widening of Blueberry Road and a portion of Geiger Road have been completed as a condition of recent single-family subdivisions. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 13 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #9 SOURCE: POMC 20.127.130 Community design framework maps Existing Aesthetics and Design Standards Located in the far southeast corner of Port Orchard city limits, this subarea is transitioning from a rural setting into a more suburban setting. Aesthetics in the subarea are typical of low -density, auto -oriented commercial and residential development in the Puget Sound region, mixed with larger vacant parcels consisting of forestlands and fields. Most commercial properties contain one-story buildings set back from the street by expansive parking lots. There are multiple drive -through businesses. Commercial signage is typical for the region and mostly consists of monument and wall -mounted signs. Larger commercial buildings typically have service access in rear -facing areas, while smaller commercial buildings have screened trash collection located in in parking areas. Travel in the area is primarily by automobile and likely related to the long distances between residential and commercial land uses and the incomplete nature of the sidewalk and bicycling infrastructure network. See more information in 2.2 Transportation. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 14 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Residential development consists of detached single-family homes and apartment complexes. Most of the residential developments were built within the last decade and have been subject to more contemporary standards requiring good street networks with multiple external connections. There are a few older single-family properties on large lots fronting the western portion Sedgwick Road. On the eastern portion of Sedgwick Road there is a concentration of new apartment complexes with three-story buildings. Some properties have landscaped perimeters and parking lots. The general auto - oriented nature of the environment competes with the aesthetic benefits of trees, particularly due to the lack of street trees on Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road. Many of the vacant properties have stands of larger trees and dense vegetation, particularly to the west. The Subarea is mostly flat with the exception of the Blackjack Creek ravine. Subarea aesthetic and pedestrian experience are expected to improve with the implementation of the Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan, which calls for continuous sidewalks and landscape strips along the length of Bethel Road. Aesthetics will also improve over time through redevelopment and required compliance with the Port Orchard multifamily and commercial design standards under Chapter 20.127 POMC, which ensure that new development is high quality and positively contributes to Port Orchard's community character. EXHIBIT 2-5 Looking west from Sedgwick Road SOURCE: Google, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 15 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 These design standards consist of: • Article II - Block Frontage Standards (described above). Most importantly, new buildings must be located adjacent to Bethel and Sedgwick rather than set back behind parking. • Article III - Site Planning Standards o Standards for light and air access to residential dwelling units o Nonmotorized circulation standards, including minimum connectivity o Vehicular circulation standards for internal roadways o Open space standards o Standards for the design of service areas and mechanical equipment • Article IV - Building Design Standards o Prohibition on corporate architecture o Building massing and articulation standards that reduce the perceived scale of large buildings o Building detail requirements for commercial ground floors o Exterior material standards o Requirements for treating blank walls Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 16 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 2.2 Transportation Recent Transportation Planning Efforts Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan 2018 The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive plan and conceptual design for two major corridors in Port Orchard: Sedgwick Road (State Route 160) and Bethel Road. These are major arterials that serve the Bethel -Lund Subarea and provide connections to State Route 16, Downtown Port Orchard, and the Southworth Ferry Terminal. Elements of the study were centered on: Ensuring mobility for all users, including drivers, people walking and bicycling, and transit riders Supporting existing businesses and future commercial growth in the area Guiding future development of the corridors through design considerations and funding tools The proposed conceptual design introduces roundabouts on key segments of both roadways. Additionally, the study recommends enhancing sidewalk connectivity, bicycle facilities, and implementing green stormwater infrastructure. The multi -phase reconstruction of Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road offers a unique opportunity to transform these corridors into attractive, pedestrian -friendly streets, while strengthening connections among the area neighborhoods. Phase I of the Bethel Road corridor improvements includes roundabouts at the intersections of Bethel Road with Blueberry Road and Salmonberry Road. EXHIBIT 2-6 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 17 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-7 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan LEGEND BaW Road- Typical Section A Bel hd Road -Typical Section B Sedgwick Road - Typical Section EAsking Singleaane Roundabout Proposed Single -lane Roundabout Proposed Multi -lane Roundabout Tremont Avenue 0 ,, Mile Hill Drive Lincoln d4inue! Lund Avenue Salmonherry Road Blueberry Road SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 18 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-8 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections Bethel Road - Typical Section A LZ ry' lY la'.:I". = . = . fi . YNd'i. Beth6 Load - Typical Section B B A' S' _: 3 U' i 8' &kw.( 14 "j, •140-rr Wh C017:in, Or aw br£ualC Sedgwick Road -Typical Section SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 19 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Vehicular Circulation and Access Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are important throughfares, providing crucial access and mobility through Sedgwick Bethel. Salmonberry Road is a residential street that connects the outlying neighborhood within Port Orchard's Urban Growth Area to Bethel commercial corridor. Bethel Road is a key north -south connection. It spans across the southern city limits to the northern waterfront, providing access to transit centers, ferry terminals, and other major commercial centers, such as Downtown Port Orchard. It also links State Route 160 and State Route 166, connecting the city to the other parts of the county. Bethel Road is generally a three -lane road with a center turn lane, and carries 11,500 to 16,900 Average Weekly Daily Traffic (AWDT), depending on the segment. Sedgwick Road (State Route160) is a two-lane highway that serves as the primary east/west ferry commuter route to Southworth Ferry Terminal and provides convenient access to the State Route 16 interchange. State Route 16 is a regional route that connects Kitsap County to Pierce County and ends at Interstate 5. To the north, State Route 16 links to State Route 3, providing access to northern Kitsap County. The Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan analyzed the crash frequency along the study segments from 2013-2017. Between the two corridors, Sedgwick Road has more crashes. Crashes on Sedgwick Road are spread out along the study segment, while on the Bethel corridor, certain intersections such as Lund Avenue, Salmonberry Road, and Mitchell Road have experienced more crashes than others. Crashes related to turning movements were more common on Bethel Road than Sedgwick Road, due in part to the fact that Bethel Road has more driveways and intersections. Additionally, there were no reported crashed involving bicyclists on either study corridor over the period that was analyzed. The study recommends increasing corridor capacity on Sedgwick Road and access management on Bethel Road to address safety issues and preserve safety, function, and capacity of these corridors. Salmonberry Road is a two-lane east -west connector that runs through unincorporated residential neighborhoods in the urban growth area connecting Jackson Avenue to Bethel Road, serving an estimated 2,300 AWDT. The subarea does not have a conventional grid system. Vehicular traffic is limited to a few streets, leading to increased congestion, safety concerns, and road deterioration associated with those streets. Side streets primarily function as low -volume, local residential streets. The City has planned new street connections on Piperberry Way to enhance pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area. This plan envisions several streets, particularly in the northwest quadrant of the Subarea, to allow greater options for vehicular access and circulation. See EXHIBIT 2-9. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 20 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 The City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) identifies planned transportation projects and enhancements including intersection improvements, street extensions, pedestrian and bicycle facilities upgrades, and installation of stormwater infrastructure. TABLE 2-3 are the planned transportation projects related to Sedgwick-Bethel, and EXHIBIT 2-9 illustrate these projects. TABLE 2-3 City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Bethel/Corridor Phase 1 a Bethel Road: Blueberry Phase 1 a. Bethel/Blueberry 2022 - Bluberry RAB intersection RAB $3,341,000 Phase 1 b. Bethel/ Bethel/Corridor Phase 1 b Bethel Road: Salmonberry RAB Round and 2 - Salmonberry RAB Salmonberry roadway segment design 2023 $1 1,467,000 intersection from Blueberry to Salmonberry 3 SR160/Sedgwick Phase New rounabout mid way 2a New intersection between SR16 and Bethel Rd. 2027 ROW acquisition and design NOTE: Table 2-3 and Exhibit 2-9 will be updated once TIP is finalized. $1,550,000 Bethel/Sedgwick Sedgwick Road: SR-16 Design, ROW acquisition and 4 Corridor Phase 2 - ROW construction of Phase 2 per 2030 $16,669,000 and Construction interchange to Bethel the Bethel/Corridor Plan Widen road to two travel 5 Geiger Road Widening Sedgwick Road to lanes with bike lanes, 2034 $375,000 Blueberry Road sidewalks and stormwater system improvements Provide an extention of Geiger Road to Piperberry from Ramsey to 6 Piperberry Way Extention Geiger and a new street 2034 $575,000 Ramsey Road connection to the proposed round about on Sedgwick Bethel/Sedgwick Design, ROW acquisition and 7 Corridor Phase 3 - ROW Bethel Road: Blueberry construction of Phase 3 per 2032 $5,822,000 and Construction to Sedgwick the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Design, ROW acquisition and Bethel/Sedgwick construction of the fourth 8 Corridor Phase 4 - ROW Bethel Road: Lund to phase of the street 2034 $8,744,000 and Construction Salmonberry improvements per the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 21 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Salmonberry Road 9 Widening Ramsey Road to Bethel Road Widen road to two travel lanes with bike lanes, sidewalks and stormwater 2028 $225,000 system improvements Widen road to two travel 10 Ramsey Road Widening Sedgwick Road to lanes with bike lanes, 2029 $2,500,000 Salmonberry Road sidewalks and stormwater system improvements. Widen road to two travel 11 Blueberry Road Geiger Road to Bethel lanes with bike lanes, 2036 $600,000 Widening Road sidewalks and stormwater system improvements SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2024-2029 and Tier 2 2030-2043 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 22 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-9 Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map 9 o. r.._._...... 9 2 e i i Rrd a AnUOisU Ir:nq 4., ChinalSun ir itlttar° I }°: ar:-n B€iHEI x CENTRE y� h4 1 i ■ w ■ � r�r 1NestcoOsl ''�•r`�••• � Sf6G141r~K {� Fitn44s Slarbucks PLAZA Par f4 Fred Meym A, ,iirnlr+ r5 ------------ f :M i s TrampartaHanlmprnvemrnh Program (TIP) 4,1P. Plannea iriersec[ion r4ew s•reet &c h6)Sedprwick %j}r inpnvcn-%ent ■ ■ ■ conrcciian Q4;*Ti0V 5iL4Y f*ew irderseclion nP hoj�rl Tcr ^ Sedgwick Bethel WS Plonne•d street rler 1 XJ4-7074 P{s41 Qrt:r':511<1 91111 snprovcment Ter P W 2D43 Fkri Crchwd uGn o ADO Ko eW K r I SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2024-2029 and Tier 2 2030-2043 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 23 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Pedestrian Circulation and Access Most existing sidewalks are located along a portion of Sedgwick Road (east of Bethel Road) and the portion of Blueberry Road west of Bethel Road. Sidewalks are also being installed in concert with new development, such as residential subdivisions. However, many older sidewalks have substandard widths and curb cuts, and sidewalks along arterial streets are fragmented and usually not present on both sides of a street. Most streets outside of the commercial areas have paved or gravel shoulders, which forces pedestrians to share high -volume roadways with vehicles. Pedestrian crossings are limited to the signalized intersection at Bethel/Sedgwick. Side street intersections and private driveways often have wide turning radii, which increases crossing distances for people walking and allows vehicles to turn at higher speeds. Street lighting is limited, which can reduce the safety and comfort of walking at night. Overall, the environment in the Subarea is unpleasant for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other wheeled device users, such as wheelchairs, strollers, and scooters. Continuous active transportation infrastructure would improve the functionality of the existing network and quality of the pedestrian environment, providing a convenient, safe, and attractive option alternative to driving. The City has planned nonmotorized routes that are intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the City. Those within the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea are listed in TABLE 2-4. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 24 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Bicycle Facilities There are no existing bicycle facilities within Sedgwick-Bethel. However, the City's planned nonmotorized routes will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and connect residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, recreational areas, and Kitsap County nonmotorized routes outside of the city limits. These routes include Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road), Sedgwick Road (Sidney Road SW to Long Lake Road), and Salmonberry Road West (Bethel Avenue to Jackson Avenue). Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road also connect to the Kitsap County nonmotorized routes, and therefore, these trails are identified as part of the nonmotorized routes in the Kitsap County Non - Motorized Facilities Plan. Improvements to Bethel Road have already been programmed through the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Most of Sedgwick Road is designated as highway and future improvement requires collaboration with Kitsap County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Continued design improvements for Salmonberry Road West are part of the Bethel Phase 1 project. TABLE 2-4 Planned Nonmotorized Routes Bethel Road On -Street Bike (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road) - Arterial Lane/Sidewalk 2.62 Planned Sedgwick Road (Sidney Road On -Street Bike 2.98 Planned SW to Long Lake Road) - Arterial Lane/Sidewalk Salmonberry West On -Street (Bethel Avenue to Jackson - Bike 0.98 Planned Avenue) Residential Lane/Sidewalk SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 25 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-10 Planned Non -Motorized Routes :1 1 lrlsrir�ill Lj Village :ChlnaT.Sun 4 j etiyr _ 'IF BETHEL r, :f CENTRE rh Wesieoash �'�•�• East Plineu Stalbucka `SELL Y�I IS Pouf Orchard r ....- PIA2A I r' .1111 11 i.Fi � spill k1 ��N 11111111l�I * `t:ffr..er • �w j ;} � c=rook ' L'— Frei Mayer 5crhmenPa *tom .—.—.r Man-4141arixvd Rowto; 1sr?hwlS�ilz]xlr_k 11111 !serial Plorned {_nnklm Stiiny r;: 11111 krs: ici lic l l'Icu wtcd 5�,dgwick 60111Q1 l� PXXI oro.1 Is �_. Prx1 Cr .I7w:rd 00A SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 26 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 Transit Kitsap Transit currently operates Route 8 along Bethel Road in the Subarea which provides transit service between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Fred Meyer at Sedgwick Road. Route 8 operates six days a week with half-hour headways. There is currently no transit service offered on Sedgwick Road. Kitsap Transit's 2022-2042 Long -Range Transit Plan identifies several major projects that will improve transit service and access in Sedgwick-Bethel. These include the implementation of high -capacity transit options, such as bus rapid transit (BRT) along Bethel Road and constructing a new SR 16 Transit Center with a park -and -ride lot on Sidney Road, located in the Ruby Creek neighborhood west of the SR 16/Sedgwick Road interchange (see EXHIBIT 2-1 1). Additionally, a new fixed -route bus route is planned on Sedgwick Road, to connect Southworth to the SR 16 Transit Center. These projects and expanded services are expected to enhance accessibility and convenience while providing more travel options for people living and working in the Subarea. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 27 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-11 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities 4logrro5v Nudge Antiorso '. VJJcnr hlnaFsun 6uffe1 4-Uge E ETHEL CENTRE WOthr.4nsi SED6WICK FiFnv$$ Slorbutks PLAZA - S East Pori Orchard 44 - P i y f'Otpefy Creek ,k. Fred Meyer Aporrmerils + u N L 171'sap TrarWt P Ffd61j � n[} _ _ a<�ned �.� Sedg,•rickBethel Raul 9 Saiih-orih - rart Orchard FBCS-Iro Ydney Rand R4uto 9 P&R Rouf$ Part Orchard UOA F, Slops Plonr,cd _ BRT Roule 0 AW 800`e d Ir SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap Transit Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 28 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Parks and Open Space Sedgwick-Bethel has few formal open spaces and parks, with South Kitsap Regional Park being the closest park at approximately two miles away. One notable feature of new subdivisions are private HOA-managed parks and playgrounds. These amenities enhance the quality of life for residents and offer a greater sense of community through shared spaces. The Port Orchard Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) identifies a large site on Sedgwick/Geiger/Blueberry/ Ramsey as a potential local or neighborhood athletic park equipped with picnic shelters, playgrounds, multi -purpose fields, and skateboarding features to provide more outdoor recreation opportunities in the area. Other potential parks identified include a park plaza centrally located in the Subarea (see EXHIBIT 2-12). Critical Areas Wetlands are vital to the local hydrologic cycle and offer a range of beneficial functions, such as wildlife habitat, improving water quality, reducing flood risks, and retaining stormwafer. The City aims to preserve and protect wetlands and their buffers, but when impacts are unavoidable, wetland replacement or wetland mitigation banks must be utilized to mitigate impacts in accordance with Chapter 20.162 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Blackjack Creek is the largest stream system in Port Orchard, spanning a length of approximately three miles within the city limits (not including tributaries) and is considered one of the largest and most productive fish producing streams in South Kifsap. In recent years, the City has taken steps to protect the Blackjack Creek corridor and preserve and/or restore ecological function. There is no public access to Blackjack Creek near Sedgwick-Bethel, presenting an opportunity for a potential new trail connecting Blackjack Creek to adjacent subdivisions. The creation of such a trail would promote outdoor recreation and cultivate environmental stewardship within the Subarea. The 2023 the Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan assessed Stormwater system impacts on local receiving waters based partly on impervious surface land coverage. Lower Blackjack Creek was ranked Moderate/High, indicating a greater level of water quality degradation. Impacts to water resources could increase due to new and upcoming development in the area. Surface water and stormwafer capital improvement projects were developed to address the problems identified in the plan. Among the ten prioritized projects is the Salmonberry Road Lower Blackjack Creek Culvert Retrofit, which will remove and replace an existing culvert with a new storm conveyance system (see EXHIBIT 2-12). The Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan also Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 29 Existing Conditions • DRAFT October 2024 programs stormwater infrastructure along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road to protect critical downstream creeks and waterways (i.e. Blackjack Creek). EXHIBIT 2-12 Parks, Open Space and Critical Areas dM •: � C s.n; i:so L s I h EETHEL CENTRE 1 11 Wesrcouit Eqs! SEDGWICIC Fltmess Stflrbuaks PLAZA ` Port Orchard 11 Potf-ry Creek Fred Meyer Apor—h ,im � Gia!_m:c> Park Opporh.nlnes +fenands (—_')secigwi^k Mr.-' l ElmkjackC: Ck OPul Orchcvd N'-� Skim ...— I Pori CrchLYd UGA Hydric 5oV saw 7- 1 '.I...t:H 1a1'-!sW1 ye 13-d h a -re Il-e G!S Use! C= SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 30 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment Economic Profile Demographics Port Orchard is a rapidly growing city, with population growth rates in recent decades exceeding those of the county and state due to annexation, in -migration, and natural population growth. This has driven a rapid increase in housing unit demand and production, including in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea. Overall, Port Orchard's population is younger and more diverse than regional averages, with smaller household sizes than the county and the state, and somewhat lower incomes than county and statewide averages. The Sedgwick-Bethel area has very similar age breakdown to the City as a whole with a relatively large share of young residents, as shown below in EXHIBIT 2-13. EXHIBIT 2-13 Age in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 15% 15% ■ 65+ ■ 45-64 ■ 35-44 25-34 14% 14% ■ 15-24 ■0-14 Sedgwick Port Orchard SOURCE: ESRI Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 31 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Incomes in the Subarea are somewhat higher than in Port Orchard as a whole, based on American Community Survey data, however, estimates for smaller geographies can be subject to significant margins of error. EXHIBIT 2-14 Household Incomes in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sedgwick Port Orchard SOURCE: ESRI Employment ■ $200,000+ ■ $150,000 - $199,999 ■ $100,000 - $149,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $50,000 - $74,999 ■ $35,000 - $49,999 ■ $25,000 - $34,999 ■ $15,000 - $24,999 ■ <$15,000 According to 2023 data received from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), there are 619 jobs in the Sedgwick-Bethel subarea. PSRC does not provide a detailed breakdown of these jobs by sector, but the U.S. Census's OnTheMap tool does provide estimates for job sectors in the Subarea, shown below. Retail jobs comprise the majority of employment in the subarea, with various retail centers along the Sedgwick corridor. Food and other service jobs are also present in smaller quantities. As shown, the employment mix in the Subarea has not changed significantly over the past decade. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 32 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 2-15 Top Job Sectors in Sedgwick- Bethel Subarea, 2012 and 2021 70.0% ■ 2021 60.0% ■ 2012 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Retail Trade Food / Lodging Other Services Wholesale Health Care / Arts, Social Entertainment, Assistance and Recreation SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Commuting The map below shows estimated commuting patterns in the Subarea. As shown, essentially no residents of the Subarea also work in the Subarea. Given the commercial activity centered around the Bethel-Sedgwick intersection, there is a significant net inflow of commuters into the Subarea. EXHIBIT 2-16 Commuting Patterns in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2021 -'Y Pyre t{ ❑ T SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 33 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Development Pipeline The map below in EXHIBIT 2-17 shows the current housing unit counts as well as pipeline development in the Subarea. There are currently 156 single-family units and 136 multifamily units, for a total of 292 existing units. There are an additional 151 single-family units and 457-306 multifamily units currently under construction or in the development pipeline (as of September 2024). Once completed, this will total 749 units in the subarea. Overall, developments nearer to the arterial roads are apartments and those set farther back are single-family subdivisions. EXHIBIT 2-17 Existing and Pipeline Units in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea I � Port Orchard = Sedgwi€h existing and Pipeline Units Legend Q Pan Lk&Y d lily LnS i } P.-t Qmwrd JJW.-ftr HrAk G �W --- Swse Ilicll'VMY — Cn-III:bwIartcrlal Lacalrwad Ekbirng Unh3 by NmM �a llll■ � I t . Wpolino Umu by ftn3d t WI° a I SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Note: Pipeline data is as of September 2024. } Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 34 Existing Conditions - DRAFT October 2024 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity The map below in EXHIBIT 2-16 shows parcels classified as Vacant, Underutilized, or Partially Utilized in the Subarea. These classifications were based on the 2019 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report and were updated to reflect recent development in the Subarea. After deducting for critical areas, future infrastructure and right-of-way, and market factor considerations, there are a total of 26.8 acres available for residential development and 5.2 acres available for commercial development in the Subarea. This equates to a capacity for 1,064855 housing units (one single-family and 1,063 854 multifamily), and 388 jobs, given the assumptions used in the Land Capacity Analysis for Port Orchard's 2023 Comprehensive Plan (see TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary). EXHIBIT 2-18Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Part Orchard M• 5edgirvick Parcel "Classifications Fi Lnd—,.s,. •.. Q Ibi: CJ-chwd City Limib { Wakrk+adics 4 ti }1 Style lflu: nax 1 3 — 6,1 Co lacicr� Ar7oml _ 1 •_ucy �_-du paraea ?Afi`I - ARTI-1 TIAI '� ilTlLli'_p Et - kJNL:?JIILILJS R, V+4Cafs— SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG M A + 'r k / { f TY Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 35 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 I Goals and Vision 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges Sedgwick-Bethel is rich with economic opportunities and community assets, but faces challenges from a disconnected, auto -oriented environment. EXHIBIT 3-1 summarizes the assets and challenges this plan addresses. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 36 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges 'RFx:11{rY'y I(71 [k ' Irpi k Lund 1 Ilrx'g -1Iprkjrsk Crr-ft I I r�pinllLYlsit olu 1^y Lk�Yel 13oortJ IL) 13 EI'2 lc 1] a: f6erry �r4 r � I Ridge Village ` L--' I r'ij� rcior erZZ I I_ owcf. More prcmdes ak K 1lreds a11d I �,ilh S"4r� Ftig�rw€rl•S. •`' whi--h PVpudstl�o .,rfrrrn-ciri 1)tr5 r .h w + Fit:-F lrcad ac?+ �]S. y5l--al barri6r f.Dr acdestrians East Nefgbboirhaodi , �iiill�4�111 I!I# la. r lJc mUMeti- rou-� . ' . r x and Ljice horn IFr= sur &L<3 10 91-1 MI-Ian+alr Oppadwnilio-s cho1lenges BlrlikgCondil•Dns 4-0 uruifx � cC —ricdions rllrl F'asl rrowi-u Iraflvl ngyl_ s L3r.IrYel�ScdQr ir't •- r Sirflr:tcklr )i.N3n barrier PendingCorridor S14* Irlrrll drvrinrrnrnr F$destrpn-clydlonged lkwelopment Nuiurd arum Prxk Wpnrtunifi{aa nlersec lk:n • Bus slaps paw Nature troll v hand use dve iapmenl bcxrler COrrmO�CkJ1 - - Streams Sk 16 Centers t1 w;rk P.pthr.1 i-` _�.S.� 4 Tru1 ail cnrUes ty`- Fl Ihr3O•dS 4'! Port Orul arc • SCYlools Port Orvrard UCrA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS (;eneral Qppertonitlesi obte- welrlow • Khsap Transit pinnned 6R1 mute on Bethel Road ult� !4G;Ilipt r111)F * r:r--nr�fJr_t Cr Rwz-lnrx))&m * 7ho BulhlsleSlfdgwick corridor prannod peaevrionjbicYcle inkastrictwe -LYill create safes routes far all trowelers • Needlopportuni-y for parxs anctJ r gathering spaces to serve the subarea • t raptly ownenNp and ptibllc Street 8rld 1€ hiWilY trb�rrrWed * Wend street grid as development occurs 1c enhance oonneaiivily Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 37 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 3.2 Alternatives Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use alternatives presented potential development scenarios tailored to the unique characteristics of the Subarea, informed by a thorough analysis of existing assets, challenges, and opportunities. These alternatives provided a framework for evaluating different development pathways. The chart below described the key features considered in the alternatives. For greater detail about the distinction between each alternative, see Appendix C: Bethel Subareas Alternatives. Alternative 1 No Action Utilize current zoning and move forward with existing policies and planned public improvements. A notable exception will be zoning changes necessary to comply with the State's middle housing legislation. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Light Touch Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Create flexible regulations and implement strategic zoning changes to accommodate growth and promote an efficient mix of uses. Improve pedestrian mobility and access to parks and open space. Leverage planned transportation improvements and expand growth through mixed use opportunities to support walkable neighborhoods and economic vitality. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 38 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 3.4 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework Values The following values were developed from the plan's purpose and context and shaped by community engagement. Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility. Prioritize the development of a transportation system that ensures safety, efficiency, and comfort for all users — whether they are walking, biking, driving, or using public transit. This value highlights the importance of creating a well-connected and accessible neighborhood where residents and visitors can easily navigate using various modes of transportation, fostering greater mobility and reducing reliance on single -occupancy vehicles. Thriving center with diverse uses. Promote the development of a vibrant community center that offers a harmonious blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. This center will act as dynamic hub where people can work, live, and play. The neighborhood is economically resilient and has a lively, multifaceted environment that meets the many needs of the community. Access to recreation. Provide convenient access to high -quality recreational facilities, parks, and open spaces. These amenities are essential for fostering physical health, mental well-being, and social connections, significantly enhancing the overall quality of life within the community and creating inviting spaces for leisure and interaction. Open spaces support important ecological functions such as wildlife habitat and stormwater management. Resilient and sustainable community. Cultivate a community that is resilient to environmental, economic, and social challenges. Sustainable practices are used in development, including the implementation of green infrastructure and the preservation of critical areas. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 39 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 Plan Concept The plan concept is informed by the community engagement, an analysis of existing assets, and a review of challenges and opportunities. The concept consists of a set of actions to transform Sedgwick-Bethel into a more active urban center. The vision is to create a vibrant, sustainable, and well-connected neighborhood. Plan recommendations include: Invest in public spaces, such as streetscapes, parks, and plazas. This will foster a sense of community and improve the overall urban experience for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Enhance walking, biking, and rolling connections to make it easier and more comfortable for people to navigate the neighborhood and access neighborhood amenities such as grocery stores schools, transit stops, and future BRT stations without needing a car. Update zoning, design standards, and regulations strategically to encourage private investment in new homes and workplaces. This approach aims to create a balanced community that meets the evolving needs of residents and supports economic growth. EXHIBIT 3-2 illustrates the key features recommended in the subarea plan that align with and support the neighborhood vision for Sedgwick-Bethel, highlighting areas for transit investment, public space enhancements, and potential development zones. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 40 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-2 Sedgwick- Bethel Subarea Framework Map Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects will occur as planned GEIGER SEDGWICK. (NAME TBD) Create a large iconic park and public gathering space within mixed -use developments that make use of active transit corridors Support Kifsap Transit's planned bus service enhancements and propose extending the planned BRT route to the SR 16 Transit Center to link Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek Connect to Bethel -Lund troll � � � f SE $ALMONBER RY RD� , i r � R2 R3 SE FAY L7 o� r z ti J7 -IL}Jy+ Q u R2-RI i. a - w ChinaiSun � I i ��� SE-BLUEBERki RD r 1� -• - CM U 6 Buffet f w 1r 1 IY1 - SE SY.rvIS LN w a I 1, L R3-RI BETHEL f� II R? R3 SE KODACIR CENTRE-_ m 1 1 SE PIjERBERRY�WAY- „� � o V 1 SR 76 r- r" �I Wesic ast East Transit Center Fitness Storbucks SEP AIA K Port Orchard east of Sidne T 1 1 a - Fred Meyer j w 1 �41, ■ 16 �♦ ■ SE IVES MILL RD Hidden Creek 0 400 S00 Feet Elementary School N I Mahar, Microsoft SALMONBERRY PARK. (NAME TBD) Create a central park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations, including height overlay zones, and parking requirements to allow for more housing and a mix of land uses Encourage the development of a gateway plaza through public - private partnerships Improve connectivity and explore other active transportation improvements, such as mjdblock crossing and sidewalk buffer enhancements, along key routes to schools and other destinations Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning Existing Conditions (rocorion rlexibrei «Mobility Safe routes O SR 16 Transit Residential I (RI) Commercial Corridor (CC) Blackjack Creek •Mixed use Improvements to school Center Residential 2 (R2) il Commerical Heavy (CH) IIIIIII■ Greenbelt Parks and Recreation hub; investment E-* Potential street -01 Support BRT Residential 3 (R3) 7//, Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) _M focus area connection - Potential new M Residential 4 (R4) 5W Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU) ,2 Sedgwick-Bethel Park/plaza i 0 Planned bus routes Public Facilities (PF) 0 Port Orchard �► Roundabout =Zoning change 0 Port Orchard UGA .- - Ravine trail SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 41 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-3 Sedgwick- Bethel Height Overlay Districts � �iiiair. �'�Ur•r: kRi r.. r . . . . . 4.01 d — r i i Etilit Pcrf Oschwd � srGrjrncK av u � t ld Hlddon Oa ak 0 40O 600 rcnl Ekrnrnl:} k1mul ++f.LNERG Sedywlok-WthW Hatghi Overlay GJihict (SBHM) SRHO 5: 56 fact - f v,o stories SRI K', 4: 45 feet - femr sdorl�s SGHO-3 3: 35 feet -three smri¢s SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 EKisfing Coltdi ws — 61ac:kjtxk Crock !n 5cclg mink 6clhc'l mrt C>m.K xri Prarl Ord-Kxd UGA Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 42 Goals and Vision • DRAFT October 2024 Mrom._ RM Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 43 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 3.5 Subarea Goals & Policies Land Use Goal LU-1 Develop a compact land use pattern to accommodate additional housing and businesses. LU-1 Allowed uses, building types, and height limits should accommodate at least 3,892 residents in the Sedgwick-Bethel Countywide Center. LU-2 Adopt the Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay Districts (SBHOD) as shown on EXHIBIT 3-3 map. SBHOD height limits are established as follows: • SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories • SBHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories • SBHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories LU-3 Promote incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing within the Subarea, including multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) and other development standards bonuses that prioritize a wide range of housing affordability. LU-4 Right -size minimum off-street parking requirements in the Subarea to incentivize economical housing construction and housing prices, reduce impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, reduce the urban heat island effect, and improve the aesthetic appeal of development. W-41.11.11-5 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to be developed, with a focus on attached and compact housing. Support the citywide middle housing strategy to expand middle housing options for individuals and families at all stages of live and income levels living in Sedgwick-Bethel. "F1.11.11-6 Provide flexibility in building types and land uses along Bethel Road using one or more commercial mixed -use zones and varied block frontage. W-611.U-7 Encourage growth of retail businesses and services in clusters at key locations to create economic relationships and places for people to mix and mingle, like Bethel Centre and Fred Meyer. "F1.11.11-8 Ensure adequate utility systems are available to support the development and buildout of the Sedgwick-Bethel center. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 44 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Goal LU-2 Support growth of neighborhood -serving retail, dining, services, and amenities. L-U--8LU-9 Encourage ground floor shopfront development along Sedgwick Road and Bethel Rood through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. J4LU-10 Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. LU-10LU-11 Invest in public realm improvements such as streetscape updates, sidewalk improvements, and public plazas to strengthen retail clusters. Goal LU-3 Ensure that development in Sedgwick-Bethel is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. LU-11 LU-12 Amend POMC. 20.127.350(3) to require at least 3% open space for new non-residential development. LU-12LU-13 Designate high visibility street corners as defined in POMC 20.127.250 in strategic locations. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 45 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Transportation Goal T-1 Design streets to complement desired future land uses and ensure safe, comfortable mobility for all. T-1 Ensure new streets carry forwards streetscape themes found in other parts of the Subarea. Key streetscape elements include landscape, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and other hardscape elements. T-2 Plan a transportation network that reflects future land use goals. T-3 Support the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan to transform Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road as a pedestrian and bicycle - friendly complete streets and promote safer mobility for all users throughout these corridors. T-4 Where appropriate, integrate urban low impact development (LID) stormwater management features in roadway design, including bioswales and raingardens. T-5 Coordinate with WSDOT to improve SR-160 and the interchange at SR-160 and SR-16. T-6 Where feesibiecontextuall Complete streets are designed to ensure safe, convenient mobility options for all users, which vary based on community context. These may include a wide range of elements, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus lanes, transit stops, crossing opportunities, medians, and landscape appropriate, design bike lanes to be treatments. protected from automobile traffic with Source: Washington State Department of curbs, horizontal separation, or other Transportation techniques that improve safety and comfort. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 46 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Goal T-2 Provide a robust multi -modal transportation network that serves all users. T-ST=7Support Kitsap Transit planned transit frequency and service upgrades. Explore potential bus rapid transit service from Bethel Road to SR 16 Transit Center (via Sedgwick Road) to improve connectivity between the Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek Subareas T-4T_8Adjust transit stop locations to maximize convenience as Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road develop, accommodating future road improvements and transit services, including bus rapid transit. T-7T-9PIan for safe and convenient access to transit services for all modes of travel, including wayfinding and signage. Urban low impact development (LID) refers to systems and strategies that mimic natural processes to manage and mitigate stormwater runoff. Examples of LID practices include bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. These practices can be applied at both site and regional scales. Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency T-8T-10 Support bicycle infrastructure and provide bicycle amenities, including secure bicycle parking. Goal T-3 Plan a well-connected and efficient road network. T4T-11 Plan a street pattern that improves internal street connectivity and provides multiple travel route options within the Subarea to access neighborhood destinations. T40T-12 Explore opportunities to include well -marked, highly visible midblock crossings at intervals no greater than 500 feet. Goal T-4 Provide safe multimodal access to schools. T- 4T-13 Evaluate options for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at key routes to Hidden Creek Elementary School. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 47 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Community Design Goal CD-1 Transform Sedgwick- Bethel to a vibrant walkable neighborhood. CD-1 In conjunction with transportation improvements along Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road, integrate placemaking strategies such as plantings, lighting, public art, or other techniques to create a more engaging and human -scaled walking environment. CD-2 Leverage redevelopment to obtain wider sidewalks and pedestrian - friendly building design. CD-3 Promote planting of street trees to Urban heat island effect can improve livability, reduce urban heat cause higher temperatures in islands, and reduce stormwater runoff, urban areas compared to their rural surroundings, CD-4 Work with property owners and existing business to integrate murals and public artworks that promotes neighborhood identity. Goal CD-2 Encourage the development of public plaza and other gathering spaces. primarily due to the concentration of buildings, paving, and human activities that absorb and retain heat. Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency CD-5 Work with property owners, developers, nonprofit organizations and other agencies to invest in indoor/outdoor community spaces, such as community gardens and event spaces. CD-6 Explore public -private partnerships to designate significant corners as public plazas to create a central public gathering spaces within the business corridor and gateway feature into the neighborhood. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 48 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 EXHIBIT 3-4 Sedgwick-Bethel Concept S IIIIII IIIIII w arm 11111 11111 11111 1111111111 SOURCE: MAKERS ffi11111111 � IIIIII � ME! 11111I 0 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 49 Goals and Vision - DRAFT October 2024 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Goal POC-1 Expand park and recreational assets within Sedgwick-Bethel. POC-1 Use open space and recreation uses to buffer Blackjack Creek Greenbelt from new commercial and residential development. Encourage neighborhood parks to incorporate natural or environmental features. POC-2 Provide trail connections to parks and open space that are accessible and designed for both walking and biking. POC-3 Explore options for developing "Salmonberry Park" into a community park, featuring walking and biking trails, playgrounds, and nature observation, while conserving Ruby Creek Greenbelt. POC-4 Support the PROS Plan to develop "Geiger Park" as a multi -purpose athletic park with playgrounds, athletics court, sports fields, and skate features. Goal POC-2 Create a well-connected low impact trail system that capitalizes view opportunities of Blackjack Creek and connects open spaces. POC-5 Explore opportunities to provide a multi -use trail along Blackjack Creek that provides viewpoint and linkages to parks and open space areas between Sedgwick-Befhel and Befhel-Lund, provided that habitat mitigation is implemented in accordance with the critical areas code. POC-6 Foster relationships with surrounding property owners to facilitate trail development. POC-7 Incorporate wayfinding, orientation, educational historic/cultural interpretive signage or kiosks into frail design. Goal POC-3 Ensure critical areas and wildlife habitats are protected consistent with critical areas regulations POC-8 Partner with other government entities and non-profit organizations to manage natural areas and ensure healthy ecosystem functions that contribute to site and community resilience. POC-9 Promote extensive use of low impact development in project and street design. POC-10 Plan for active and passive recreational opportunities within parks adjacent to sensitive areas and greenbelts. POC-11 Support efforts to acquire property for conservation and mitigation around the Blackjack Creek tributaries. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 50 Action Plan • DRAFT October 2024 4, Action Plan This chapter describes the key steps to achieve the vision for Sedgwick-Bethel. Although this is a long-term plan that includes actions to take place over the next 20 years, several priority actions should be accomplished over the next few years. For this plan to be realized, public and private investment will be required. Trends over the past 20 years show that, without change, private investment alone will not achieve the Subarea vision, goals, and policies. The following steps lay the groundwork for attracting private investment and shaping the built environment. Port Orchard will need to dedicate staff resources for code updates and secure additional funding sources for capital investments. The following table of actions summarizes the recommended steps with ideal timing, priority, and potential costs (represented generally from low to high as $, $$, and $$$). Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 51 Action Plan - DRAFT October 2024 TABLE 4-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Action Plan Sedgwick-Bethel Action Timing Priority Cost Land Use and Zoning Residential zoning: Expand middle housing options with 1 year High $ the adoption of the citywide middle housing zoning strategy. Upzone select areas west of Ramsey Road. Commercial and mixed -use zoning: Increase 1 year High $ commercial capacity and flexibility. Adopt height overlay districts: Reference EXHIBIT 3.3 of 1-2 years High $ this plan. This will provide more opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and vertical mixed -use buildings. Decrease parking requirements. This will provide more 1-2 years High $ opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and reduced environmental impacts of development. Expand and adjust the community design framework 1-2 years Medium $ maps (POMC 20.127.130). The maps should reflect existing conditions from recent/near-term developments, and add desired new streets that reduce block sizes to promote connectivity. Designate high visibility street corners in strategic locations (POMC 20.127.250) . Increase non-residential open space requirements. 1-2 years Low $ Within the subarea boundaries, require at least 3% open space for new non-residential development (POMC 20.127.350(3)). Transportation Construct the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan to build a 2-5 years High $$$ complete transportation network along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road. Improve pedestrian and bike connectivity to access 2-5 years High $$ key neighborhood destinations, such as Hidden Creek Elementary School and Fred Meyer. Some improvements may go beyond what is identified/designed in the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Potential improvements could include new or rebuilt sidewalks, midblock crossings, protected or buffered bike facilities, street trees, traffic diverters, and other features that enhance mobility and comfort. Specific enhancements will be determined through further study. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 52 Action Plan • DRAFT October 2024 Support the Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements, 5-10 Medium $$ including the planned BRT route and new fixed -route years bus routes on Lund Avenue with service to McCormick Woods. Coordinate on placement of bus stops, pedestrian improvements (including sidewalks and crosswalks), and BRT bus -priority features (such as queue jumps and signal priority). Support extension of local or BRT bus service between 5-10 Medium $$ Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek. This can facilitate years desired transit -oriented development within both neighborhoods. Blackjack Creek trail: Study design options and 5-15 Low $$ construct a trail that offers more transportation options, years access to nature, habitat protection, and healthy recreational activities. Capital Facilities and Parks Geiger Sedgwick Park: Support the Port Orchard Parks, 2-5 years Medium $$ Recreation, and Open Space plan to develop this park as a central, publicly accessible gathering and recreational space for the community. Public works and/or public safety facilities: Identify a 5-15 Low $$$ location(s) and funding for necessary public works and years public safety facilities to support this area of the city and future annexations of the eastern urban growth area. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 53 IN Puget Sound Regional Council 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101-3055 1 psrc.org 1206-464-7090 October 21, 2024 Nicholas Bond, AICP, Development Director City of Port Orchard 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 Subject: PSRC Comments on City of Port Orchard Draft Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Bond, Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to review the City of Port Orchard's draft comprehensive plan. We appreciate that the city has invested a substantial amount of time and effort in developing the draft plan and appreciate the chance to review while in draft form. This timely collaboration provides an opportunity to review plan elements for the 2024 comprehensive plan and prepares the city well for certification by PSRC once the full plan has been adopted. We suggest the city consider the following comments as further work is completed for the comprehensive plan update to align with VISION 2050 and the Growth Management Act. Importantly, we encourage the city to work towards a final draft that clarifies the city's capacity for housing to meet various income levels and includes a complete long-range transportation project list and financing plan. We reviewed the draft plan using the VISION 2050 Consistency Tool. Key sections of the consistency tool are listed below on the left along with relevant comments on the draft plan on the right: PSRC Comments on City of Port Orchard Draft Comprehensive Plan October 2024 Page 2 Housing Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Plan Expand the diversity of housing types for The city should clarify the capacity for all income levels and demographic housing to meet various income levels. groups, including low, very low, In the draft plan, ADUs are shown as extremely low, and moderate -income meeting 0-80% AMI housing needs. households (MPP-H-2-6, H-9) Guidance from Commerce shows ADUs as moderate income (>80-120% AMI) for higher -cost communities. All central Puget Sound cities are considered higher -cost communities. Increase housing supply and densities The plan must document the city's to meet the region's current and existing housing tools and incentives projected needs at all income levels and discuss regulatory and financial consistent with the Regional Growth barriers to affordable housing. Strategy (MPP-H-1) Commerce's Adequate Provisions checklists can help document this work. Address affordable housing needs by The city is commended for developing developing a housing needs an in-depth Housing Action Plan. The assessment and evaluating the comprehensive plan should summarize effectiveness of existing housing the findings of the Housing Action Plan policies, and documenting strategies to in the housing element or include it as achieve housing targets and an appendix. Describing housing needs affordability goals. This includes will help the reader understand the documenting programs and actions need for the strategies listed in the plan. needed to achieve housing availability including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations (H-Action-4) Transportation Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Plan Include a reassessment strategy to The plan must include a reassessment address the event of a funding shortfall strategy to address the event of a (RCW 36.70A.070(3), RCW funding shortfall. Further guidance on 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv), WAC 365-196-415, how to address the financial analysis in WAC 365-196-430, MPP-RC-11-12, T-6) the plan can be found in the PSRC Comments on City of Port Orchard Draft Comprehensive Plan October 2024 Page 3 Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Plan Department of Commerce's Transportation Element Guidebook, pages 202-212. Identify racial and social equity as a The city should consider ways it can core objective when planning and incorporate racial and social equity as a implementing transportation core objective in transportation improvements, programs, and services planning. PSRC's Equity Planning (MPP-T-9) Resources for Comprehensive Plans resource includes more information. Ensure mobility choices for people with The draft plan includes a policy about special needs (MPP-T-10) mobility choices for people with special People with mobility and accessibility needs, but this would be strengthened needs/priority populations: by including further analysis on the • Youth topic. A brief discussion in the narrative • Older adults portion of the plan about mobility • People with low incomes options for people with special needs or • People with disabilities locations where mobility barriers may exist would be beneficial. Regional Collaboration Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Plan Coordinate with other jurisdictions, The plan should describe and include agencies, tribes, ports, military policies on tribal treaty rights, consistent installations, special purpose districts, with MPP RC-1 and MPP-RC-4. PSRC's and adjacent regions (RCW Coordination with Tribes resource provides more information on this topic. 36.70A.070(6)(a)(v), MPP-RC-1, RC-4-5) Environment and Climate Change Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Plan Identify open space, trail, and park Consistent with VISION 2050 and resources and needs, and develop national best practices, PSRC programs for protecting and enhancing recommends including a policy and these areas (MPP-En-11-12, En-15, En- parks level -of -service to provide parks Action-4) within a 10-minute walk of all residents. This will set the foundation for adding or expanding parks to create equitable access. PSRC uses the Trust for Public PSRC Comments on City of Port Orchard Draft Comprehensive Plan October 2024 Page 4 Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Plan Land's ParkServe mapping tool to identify park gaps. ParkServe shows that 58% of Port Orchard's residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. The city's PROS plan already provides substantial analysis on this topic and the comprehensive plan would benefit from the inclusion of a summary of those findings and a 10-minute walk policy. Address impacts to vulnerable The city is commended for including a populations and areas that have been variety of policies aimed at reducing or will be disproportionately affected by environmental impacts to vulnerable climate change (MPP-CC-6, CC-8, CC- populations. These policies could be Action-3, CC-Action-4) furthered strengthened by including analysis identifying where vulnerable populations are located and the potential environmental impacts they face. Economy Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Port Orchard Plan Address and prevent potential physical, Consistent with VISION 2050, the city economic, and cultural displacement of should consider identifying potential existing businesses that may result from physical, economic, and cultural redevelopment and market pressure displacement of existing businesses (MPP-Ec-12) that may result from redevelopment and market pressure. PSRC Comments on City of Port Orchard Draft Comprehensive Plan October 2024 Page 5 PSRC has resources available to assist the city in addressing these comments and inform development of the draft plan. We have provided links to online documents in this letter, and additional resources related to the plan review process can be found at https://www.psrc.org/planning-2050/vision/vision-2050-planning-resources. We appreciate all the work the city is doing and the opportunity to review and provide comments. We are happy to continue working with you as the draft progresses through the adoption process. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 206-464-6172 or ddixon(a)_psrc.org. Sincerely, David Dixon, Growth Management Puget Sound Regional Council cc: Review Team, Growth Management Services, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation CITY 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 - OCTOBER 1 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number 1 Chapter 8 - Transportation Element 2 Appendices F and G - Bethel Subarea Plans Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. This element needs more specific direction related to an interconnected protected biking network throughout the City, particularly in areas along the waterfront, near schools, and near businesses. These should be protected Public - Hartsell bike facilities physically separated from traffic. The Waterfront Park provides a good example of this type of facility. The rise of a -bikes makes this idea more feasible for all users and more likely members of the community would use these types of facilities. Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. The City settled on an inferior option in the subareas in relation to multimodal transportation planning by not providing or identifying protected multi -use pathways within the subareas. Public - Hartsell Policy language in the Transportation Element has been revised in association with this comment to strengthen the language supporting connected and protected bike and pedestrian paths in locations that are appropriate for the uses. This logistically gets established in association with development proposals within private land, as the City cannot require specific alignments to be established on private lands unless there is a clear Comment accepted and incorporated connection to the impact of the development proposal. into the revised draft element_ -A Strengthening Policy T-17 to include the following underlined language will allow the City to apply this policy in development review of projects to encourage these facilities: "T-17: Promote and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian travel as important modes of transportation by providing facilities and navigable connections, including connected and protected bike and Dedestrian Dathways where contextually appropriate. The following policy has been included in both subarea plans to encourage safe and comfortable bicycle facility design for planned and future improvements: 7-6 Where contextually appropriate, design bike lanes to be protected from automobile traffic with curbs, horizontal separation, or other techniques that improve safety and Comment accepted and incorporated comfort." into the revised draft subarea plans. The subarea plans have identified 'safe routes' to schools, prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements (i.e., seperated bike lanes, buffered sidewalks) along these corrdiors. Further study is required to assess the feasibility and implementation of these improvements. 3 4 5 Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. Concerns related to impact fees identified in the Land Use Element. Impact fees increase housing development Chapter 3 -Land Use Element costs (particularly for affordable housing products), which get passed onto buyers. City must be prepared to justify impact fees and provide a nexus for fee amounts related to development impact. This is specifically relevant to policies referencing modifying impact fees in response to growth rates. Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. Chapter 4 - Housing Element Would like to see incentives for developers to build multi -family housing, like the return of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. Chapter 4 - Housing Element Would like more details regard ing'stream lining' the permit process for multi -family housing. What would like actually look like? Public - Harkins / Kitsap Building Association Public - Harkins / Kitsap Building Association Public - Harkins / Kitsap Building Association This is a valid comment and concern for how impact fees can increase the cost of housing production, and in turn, raise the price of housing. Given the legal framework Comment accepted and incorporated related to establishing impact fees, references to into the revised draft element. modifying impact fees in relation to growth rates and growth targets has been removed from Policies LU-7, LU- 42, and LU-43. Included new policy in support of this comment: "HS-17 Explore the re-establishment of a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program as a means of increasing the Comment accented and incorporated Citv's affordable housing suaaly. Consider the into the revised dra Comment accepted and incorporated recommendations of the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan on eligible zones and properties, qualifying income levels, program duration, development incentives, and other standards." The Housing Action Plan recommended several ideas related to the permit process and development regulations, with a focus on simplifying the code and encouraging larger attached homes. Revised policy HS-14 (strikethrough text) to include HAP strategies: "HS-14: Streamline development . „latiens into the revised draft element. arseemmedate farm^ • siied , -Rits Promote middle housing and multifamily housing with family size units. Consider the recommendations of the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan on refining the building type and form/intensity standards, adjusting the locally adopted building code, supporting staffing needs, and funding strategies." 6 General - Plan -wide Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. The Plan needs more attention on global formatting, spelling, and terminology consistency, including: - Consistent formatting for individual Element Vision statements - More references to figures/graphics when the text can be supported by the visual information - Global formatting style consistency for all individual Elements The updated Plan continues to revise and polish Comment accepted and incorporated formatting, style consistency, and terminology PC - Wright into the revised draft element. document -wide. This process will continue throughout the Council review phase as comments/revisions from their review are incorporated into the document. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - GENERAL COMMENTS 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 - INTRODUCTION COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number 1 1.2 - 3rd bullet 2 1.2 - 4th bullet 3 1.2 - 5th bullet 4 5 11 7 E3 Ir 10 Does this "targeted outcome" address infrastructure needs up to 2044? 1 do not think so. We have flooding downtown that must be addressed. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Power grid vulnerability, uneven service to the internet, Cell phone dominate into the revised draft element. communications with limited or spotty service. Keep this and drop the last bullet. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated (bullet reads: Housing has remained available to all members of the community, and the into the revised draft element. diversity of housing types has expanded.) I'm curious about the plan to achieve this. PO is not very conducive to connections other than PC -Wright driving. I'd like to see an new waterfront vision. Parking lots and car dealerships are counter to this 1.2 - 6th bullet goal. Is there a plan to accommodate relocation PC -Wright reasonably? This implies there is not a comfortable and productive relationship with city government. 1.2 - 8th bullet PC -Wright Seems negative. 1.2 - 13th bullet Native American cultural and historic resources (archeological sites) &441E will be protected PC -Wright It seems to me it shouldn't matter someone's color ... if an individual/family is in need of 1.2 - 15th Bullet access to services and opportunities, and he/she/they are lacking the resources to do so, then he/she/they should receive assistance, regardless color. 1.2 - 15th bullet not a fan of this term. I question the need for this bullet point altogether. 4th bullet covers (referring to term 'equity') this. Maybe tweak it a bit to make PSRC happy. I have questions about what this really means. Again is this necessary? tweak 4th bullet if needed but drop this. 1.2 - Last bullet (bullet reads: Establish a robust housing stock that provides affordable options for all incomes at a variety of housing densities.) This comprehensive plan seeks to lay e t a vi 4eolays out a vision for Port Orchard that is 1.3 founded on connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to a stronger community. Comment will not be incorporz into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. L This target outcome refers to reducing lane miles and miles of pipe per capita that need to be replaced and maintained. Sea -level rise is addressed in the SMP. Flooding downtown is being addressed as part of specific projects on the TIP, CFE, and Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. The City does not have 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. The last bullet is being added to address new requirements of state law under HB 1220. The City's transportation element addresses this, especially for non -motorized transportation. Our PWESS include requirements for complete streets. The City completed a new downtown plan in 2021. We will not be reopening the downtown plan until at least 2031. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised phrasing to add the words "Residents continue into the revised draft element. to enjoy..." 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: Comment will not be incorporated "Prioritize services and access to opportunity for people PC -Bailey into the revised draft element. of color, people with low incomes, and historically underserved communities to ensure all people can attain the resources and opportunities to improve quality of life and address past inequities. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated This item is pulled verbatim from MPP-RC-2 of Vision into the revised draft element. 2050. k Comment under additional Revised language to: "Housing has remained available PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for and affordable to all members of the community, and analysis. the diversity of housing types and densities has expanded." PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested language. into the revised draft element. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 M Is there a reference to this? Is "the established connections framework" a concept of or an 1.3 PC -Wright established planning practice? I am curious about the "how" to these actions. Will the Comp Plan lay out specific actions the 1.3 PC -Wright city will take to achieve these connections? What does this mean? I'd like an example of this to better inform the residents what we are 1.3 PC -Wright talking about. What is this regional trail network? Should we have a reference to where the details of this 1.3 PC -Wright are located? 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 1.3 infrastructure? Sounds great but in practice.... PC -Wright 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 21 1.5 I'm having trouble with the entire "Connectivity" concept. Is this a strategy the City wants to try and follow through 2040? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorpor into the revised draft element Comment will not be incorpori 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. The theme of connections was something that came out of our public outreach for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. None of our outreach thus far has suggested removing this theme. The city has heard previously about the importance of preserving views of the waterfront, allowing access along the waterfront (bay street pedestrian pathway), and by providing 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 and historic markers. It can also be done through historic preservation. These are being planned at the new community event center. Connect neighborhoods within the city and connect the city to the region through trails and bike lanes. See our non -motorized transportation section in the transportation element. This refers to not motorized connections such as sidewalks and trails. See our non -motorized plan. See the greenbelt zone on the zoning map. Blackjack Creek is an example. This was produced in the previous Comprehensive Plan Update and has helped promote connectivity between individual Comprehensive Plan Elements. Insert -Topography and critical areas, PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Text has been revised to include topography and critical into the revised draft element. areas in the list of physical elements. II would consider this to be open space and that natural Not sure what "natural amenities" is. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated environment. This can be public or private. Physical into 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 understand their concerns. The We cannot please everyone. Majority must have the overall say with considerations for PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated POBSA is not a majority of the community, but they minority concerns. into the revised draft element. have valid concerns about downtown Port Orchard. The McCormick Woods HOA may not provide input on other areas of the city, but they are a large voice in one area of the city. A lot of PO history is linked to the Mosquito Fleet isn't it? Maritime transportation is a huge Comment under additional Noted - are there specific revisions for the part of our past. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Comprehensive Plan addressing this? analysis. 22 23 24 25 W 27 OZ. O c 31 Comment under additional Sawmills and shingle mills are part of the lumber industry. Let's ask the historical Museum to Noted - outreach to the museum will be conducted for 1.5 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for take a look at this section and beef it up. Also adds community involvement. suggested edits to this section. analysis. 3% used twice, unsure if one is a typo. "...would need to grow at 3%..." and "...therefore Comment under additional The phrasing for this section will be revised for clarity 1.6.1, pg 1-6, second pars, blue only needs to grow at 3%...". The way the sentence reads it seems the second 3% would be a PC -Bailey consideration, identify next steps for and to incorporate 2024 OFM population numbers, once highlighted area lower number (or the first a higher). analysis. finalized and issued (expected June 2024). Revised to add language identifying slight deficit of 1.6.1, pg 1-7, first para, second employment capacities have been struck but no replacement numbers are inserted. Perhaps Comment accepted and incorporated employment land. Also added language pointing to the PC -Bailey sentence left out on purpose but wanted to point out just in case. into the revised draft element. Land Use Element, which provides more detailed employment capacity information. Language revised to: "Based on extensive public input Comment accepted and incorporated 1.6.1 Do we have "extensive" public input? Give a reference if so. If not, do not say so. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that has occurred over the last Comprehensive and Periodic updates..." 0: Comment will not be incorpora This applies to all City programs utilizing the 1.6.1 Which programs?? PC -Wright into the rev" raft element. Comprehensive Plan for goal and policy guidance. (Population Employment Allocations and Capacity) Not a sentence. Is this a header that is Comment accepted and incorporated 1.6.1 PC -Wright Formatting for this text has been revised. mis-formatted? into the revised draft element. Reference to the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report has been provided in this section. 1.6.1 Give reference. Date and publication? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/FINAL into the revised draft element. 20BuiIda ble%20Lands%20Report_November%202021. pdf Comment accepted and incorporatedLanguage 1.6.1 Awkward sentence - use of "of" twice is confusing - reword. PC -Wright has been revised for clarity. into the revised draft element. Per the GMA, Counties are to prepare the BLR. We As determined by Kitsap County. Does the City agree with this assessment? If we do not, 1.6.1 have we made our disagreement known? Did the City participate with that Kitsap County PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated participated in the preparation of the report and used "calculation"? into the revised draft element. our 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 This section concerns me. Has the City of PO done independent growth calculations and do growth. Prior to 2020, we underperformed relative to they correlate? Getting there "too soon" implies much more rapid growth that must be Comment will not be incorporated our targets. Annual growth rates for the last 3 years 1.6.1 managed in terms of overall government, residents attitudes, infrastructure, etc. Too rapid PC -Wright into the revised draft element. were 2.39%, 2.76% and 6.59%. Since 2020, the city growth could cause strife and disgruntlement in residents if infrastructure is not in sync. This needed to target annual growth of 2.169% to reach its can be self-defeating with all the other objectives of the "connectivity" idea. 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. Use of the term surplus implies these jobs (assuming living -wage jobs) or whatever is already Comment accepted and incorporated Section has been revised for clarity and to add 32 1.6.1 here. I disagree. Lots of low -paying jobs around but not processional/skilled technical jobs. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. employment capacity numbers. Final number in text is missing. 2437 is crossed out without a new entry. 33 34 35 cm 37 M cm 40 41 42 43 1.6.1 "Other factors" is used redundantly. Please state what these other factors are. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. This should be reworded to seamlessly stitch the future growth of PO to a smooth Comp Plan Comment under additional vision (this document). We set a vision based on community involvement. Plan growth with Revised for clarity and to better reflect/incorporate the 1.6.1 wisdom and care. Then implement properly with sound fiscal management leading with PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Comprehensive Plan vision statements. infrastructure linked to critical areas management/protection. analysis. Comment under additional Language revised and added UGA population 1.6.1 What is supposed to be the number here? PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for information. analysis. The City provided a public comment to Kitsap County concerning the changes proposed to the UGA. Ultimately, the County decided to table all proposed Will the public be made aware of these conversations? Who is conducting these Comment will not be incorporated boundary amendments to 2025. The existing 1.6.1 "conversations"?Where is the record? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. population of the UGA is over 15,000 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. 1.6.2 What if we do not agree with all 15 goals? "Addressing" them may be "we do not agree" of PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated These goals are listed in state law. we acknowledge the states input". and leave it there. into the revised draft element. 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 Comment will not be incorpora State law does not have a goal to address traffic on city 1.6.2 traffic moving and not stopped at intersections for long periods will cut back on emissions. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. streets. Cars are America's #1 mode of transportation. Remember - during the pandemic, buses, trains, etc. were largely unused. 1.6.2 Are these 15 goals verbatim from the state? Maybe a reference is in order. 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. 1.6.2 Awkward. "Permits.". PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporatedLanguage revised for clarity. into the revised draft element. 1.6.2 I dislike absolute statements like this in a "plan". Can we use "incorporate" policies and PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated This is verbatim from 36.70A.020 (14). objectives into plans, etc to address climate change and resiliency? into the revised draft element. 1.6.2 This is a lot to ask of a small city like PO. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporatedThis is verbatim from 36.70A.020 (14). into the revised draft element. Vision 2050 address the protection of water resources Does PSRC's VISION address the availability of fresh water for these 5.8 million people? in the Environment chapter. It addresses urban services 1.6.3 Heavy growth (use/consumption and impervious surfaces) with decreasing PC -Bailey Comment will not be incorporated including water availability, conservation, and efficiency precipitation/increasing temps warrants concern in regard to water quantity. into the revised draft element. in the Public Services chapter. https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/vision- 2050-plan.pdf 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 1.6.3 I'm curious where in the PO Comp Plan these items are discussed in greater detail. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporatedSee Natural Systems and the Critical Areas Code. into threvised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to "conserve and enhance key fish and wildlife 1.6.3 cut "enhance" makes no sense as inserted. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. habitats". "Targets" and "targeting process". What is this? Is there a reference for the housing plan? Comment will not be incorporated See the population and employment allocations above. 1.6.3 Are existing subarea plans demonstrable of this targeting? McWoods Village may be the PC -Wright into the revised draft element. These are derived from PSRC targets. worthy but others? 1.6.3 Once all the elements are drafted, I'll want to revisit this section to cross-check accuracy. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Noted, revised drafts will be routed for review. into the revised draft element. If referring to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan should be Skinny paragraph here. The "Plan" was shifted to "plan" - are we referring to a different Comment under additional capitalized. In other instances it should be lowercase. A 1.6.3 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for "plan" or this Comp Plan? analysis. consistency check across the entire document will be conducted. 1.6.4 Rewrite to be proper diction. KT, Suquamish, and Port Gamble are associate members. The PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Language revised for clarity and updated information. NBK is an ex officio member. into the revised draft element. 1.6.4 KRCC membership should include Bremerton — unless they quit again. I think perhaps PC -Ashby Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to include Bremerton in the list of KRCC Bremerton was not a member in 2018. into the revised draft element. members. Are these the same 15 elements set by the state noted earlier? If so say so, if not say how Comment will not be incorporated No, there are 15 chapters/elements in the Countywide 1.6.4 they differ. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Planning Policies. The plan in 2014-16 had major deficiencies and significant work was needed to comply with Vision 2040 Where can one view the feedback received from this effort? Is there a web page dedicated Comment will not be incorporatedis and the Countywide Planning Policies. The 2024 update 1.7 for Comp Planning and Community input to the entire process? Looking at the edits, it seems PC -Wright into the revised draft element. a much lighter touch, because the 2016 plan was PO did not really engage the public like 2014/2025/2016. Am I misinterpreting? much more aligned with regional policy and was innovative on housing ahead of recent housing mandates. 1.8 reference for this? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised to add reference to Vision 2050. into the revised draft element. I I'm curious how you propose to deal with climate issues. The City can certainly can add Comment will not be incorporated The draft Climate Element addresses many of these 1.8 resilience into the plan but I'm not sure in a meaningful manner. We can prepare for future PC -Wright into the revised draft element. considerations. catastrophes (with major infrastructure upgrades, but we cannot change the climate. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - LAND USE COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number 1 2.1 (referring to 'intersection point') consider using "nexus" PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised language per suggestion. into the revised draft element. Why did Chapter 2 not have a vision that was styled in a green box? Comment accepted and incorporated Revised style for consistency. Also revised for 2 2.1 Include this same element for each chapter or omit it entirely as it PC-Ta into the revised draft element. consistency in all Elements. ruins the polish of this document. Comment under additional Agreed, will revise Introduction Element Section 1.6 to 3 2.1 Can we explain the significance of the 20-year planning horizon. PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps for add language addressing this. analysis. (referring to sentence 'The goals and policies contained herein...') Can we flip this sentence and instead say "planning thoroughly will Comment accepted and incorporated 4 2.1 result in lower taxes and lower infra and service costs." Having a PC-Ta Language revised for tone and clarity. into the revised draft element. 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 Comment accepted and incorporated 5 2.1 PC-Ta Language revised for clarity. that begins with "the purpose of this section", consolidate pls. into the revised draft element. Maintaining language to highlight common themes, not 6 2.2 (referring to'a common theme heard') Would be more clear to say PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated intending to provide full/exhaustive list of issues within "the first key issue is that..." into the revised draft element. the Element. (referring to first sentence last paragraph) Redundant with above, Comment accepted and incorporated Revised for clarity and to resolve redundancy with 7 2.2 consider removing PC-Ta into the revised draft element. Section 2.1. Insert "expected" 2044 population and employment growth Comment will not be incorporated These are the allocations that the City is required to plan 8 2.2 PC -Wright allocations into the revised draft element. for. I think it makes more sense to change the last bullet point from The mandate (HB 1110) that we are facing has to do "Allow middle housing types..." to a more general "Increase density", with middle housing. We have adequate land supply and then the allowance of middle housing would be a sub -bullet Comment will not be incorporated and densification (other than allowing middle housing) is 9 2.2 point to accomplish that. Other sub -bullet points that I think would Public -Danielson into the revised draft element. not proposed at this time. We don't have ACUs in our be helpful would be Expand mixed -use zoning allowance and code, so it will not be addressed in the Comprehensive "Expand gentle infill through the use of Accessory Dwelling Units Plan. (ADUs) and Accessory Commercial Units (ACUs)" (Last bullet) Section 2.2 was about Key Issues, but I was only able to Maintaining language to highlight common themes, not 10 2.2 identify just 1. Am I confused? This section had a lot of information PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporate intending to provide full/exhaustive list of issues within that was redundant / repetitive. We can tighten our messaging here. into the revised draft element. the Element. Note that in other sections/elements, it is city not City. Lets be sure Comment under additional When referring to the City of Port Orchard, City should 11 2.4 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for be capitalized. A document -wide consistency check will to be consistent in the final version. analysis. be conducted. 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 Interesting statement "reasonable measures". You are suggesting that if we approach the growth projections too rapidly, we 2.4 PC -Wright implement a moratorium on new development? Or, we would consider expanding into the UGA where appropriate. 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 2.5.1 different today? Calling this out because we can't assume the same PC-Ta growth projection if the drivers are different. 2.6 Can we define what an "overlay district" is and how one becomes to PC-Ta be? Gentle infill via ADUs and ACUs seems like a good way to accomplish Goal 1 Public -Danielson this goal Haven't we already done this? I thought centers have been Goal 3 established. If so should this policy be to expansion and development PC -Wright of more centers as appropriate? Comment will not be incorporate into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporate into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorbN into the revised draft element. L Comment under additional Reasonable measures is meant to be open phrasing to allow for appropriate responses in light of the particular situation, which could take various forms. Moratoriums are typically not used for this purpose. The phrasing is intended to indicate there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the allocations throughout the 20-year planning horizon. Population growth is explained in more detail in the next section, and by the time the Plan is undergoing the Periodic Update in 2034 it is likely a large portion of the available land will have been developed. consideration, identify next steps for Revised to reorganize bullet points and add clarity. analysis. MENESEEMENE Comment will not be incorporate The code allows for ADUs (we don't use the term ACU). into the revised draft element. HB 1110 mandates middle housing, not just ADUs. Centers are established in the Comprehensive Plan but Comment will not be incorporated the implementation tools are developed separately. This into the revised draft element. policy is specific to the development of subarea plan and associated development standards. Notably, some centers have adopted subarea plans and others do not. I'm still curious where these neighborhoods are located in PO. How Comment under additional Generally underserved could refer to neighborhoods LU-17 are they underserved? This term and others like it pop up PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for that do not have a park within a 5 minute walk, see Page throughout the Comp Plan and have not been identified/defined very analysis. 24 of the Port Orchard Parks, Recreation and Open well. Space Plan In most instances, barriers to low impact development Comment accepted and incorporated are addressed through the City's NPDES Permit LU-21 Do barriers exist to achieving low -impact development? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. compliance, however new codes and development standards should continue to be reviewed for barriers. Revised language to add some clarity. 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 LU-23 school due to the fact they cannot afford a driver's license. None of PC -Wright 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. 21 LU-24 Not just job centers - schools and major commercial areas too. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporate The phrase "job centers" is inclusive of those types of into the revised draft element. land uses. 22 LU-25 23 LU-27 24 25 26 27 28 LU-28 What does human scale mean? Could we reinforce the importance of impact fees here? 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 Human scale is the deign of surroundings to be on a Comment will not be incorporate scale that allows humans to interact with objects and PC-Ta into the revised draft element. places on foot. Alternatively, designing places to be automobile -scaled would detract from pedestrian activity. Impact fees allow the implementation of Capital Comment will not be incorporated projects. The intent of this statement is to have private PC-Ta into the revised draft element. ventures create connectivity with neighboring properties and (planned) facilities. for many years and it is a waste of a business opportunity in the PC -Wright heart of downtown. Maybe something like: 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 LU-35 homeless/unhoused? I understand that Vision 2050 demands we add PC -Wright this but it seems to me we need to be effective and focused with these policies. Goal 13 Agree! Great move! PC -Wright "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 designated regional centers, but paragraph 3 says that 2.8 the City has 6 designated Countywide Centers. A small table Public -Danielson explaining the different 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? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested language. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add a footnote to the RCW 36.70A.030(47) into the revised draft element. definition. Comment accepted and incorporated This Goal will help the City track progress on meeting its into the revised draft element. growth allocations over the 20-year planning horizon. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add clarity and identify types of centers into the revised draft element. within the City. i 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 as they are designated according to the Kitsap County CPPs 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. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Language revised to add reference to PSRC Centers Guidance. Once we identify centers locally, we can request recognition at KRCC. Once designated a countywide Comment accepted and incorporated center, we could seek to have a countywide center 2.8.2 How does an area become eligible to be considered a center? PC-Ta into the revised draft element. 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. Comment accepted and incorporated Activity units are jobs/housing units. A definition 2.8.3 Can we explain what an activity unit is? PC-Ta into the revised draft element. consistent with VISION 2050 has been added. Not for local centers, only for countywide centers. 2.8.3 Is there a activity unit threshold for local centers? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated Added language to Section referencing PSRC Centers into the revised draft element. Guidance. Comment under additional 2.8.3 - Map Should be McCormick Village (not McCormick Woods) PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps for Revised to address language/map inconsistencies. analysis. I don't see the current number of activity units specified anywhere. Also I believe that this is a very underutilized area due to a large This is addressed in the subarea plan. amount of surface parking lots which don't generate much tax Comment will not be incorporate https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardw 2.8.5.11 (Downtown Port Orchard) revenue and the proximity to the ferry system. Kitsap Transit is the Public -Danielson into the revised draft element. a/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-ADOPTED-Downtown- second largest ferry fleet in WA behind the Washington State Ferry Subarea-Plan-and-Regs-reduced.pdf system, which itself is the largest ferry fleet in the US and additional access to that would benefit both citizens and the 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 There is an existing activity unit threshold for qualifying 2.8.5.2 (Tremont) and have to travel through the corridor to get to their homes. Why Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated as a countywide center. Including too many low density are these not included in the area for increased development? I'm into the revised draft element. areas can bring the activity unit count below the mostly referring to the housing development on Lippert St. west of minimum required. Pottery Ave. and the housing along Sage Ct, May St, and Roland Ave. Kitsap Transit is planning to start construction of a park and ride here in 2024. 1 would like to see an increased density surrounding this Comment will not be incorporate The park and ride is mentioned in the subarea plan. 2.7.5.8 (Sedgwick/ Sidney) Public -Danielson https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/appendix-c-ruby- transit node to make good use of the service. Also the park and ride into the revised draft element. creek -neighborhood -subarea -plan/ addition isn't mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Similar to the Downtown Port Orchard comments, this area could provide access to the best that the state of WA has to offer. The The veterans home is outside the city limits. This is 2.7.5.10 (Annapolis) center's area seems almost laughably small though? I understand the Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated included as a local center because it is a transit hub. If Washington Veterans Home takes up most of the prime real estate into the revised draft element. areas of the UGA in this location were annexed, we within 1/4 mile of the ferry, so is it worth it to focus on this area as a could look at expansion of the center boundary. potential center? CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - HOUSING COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number We should end the sentence here (referring to ...creating more housing Comment accepted and There are some typos and grammatical errors with the 1 3.1 opportunities...) because we don't want to provide an exhaustive list for the rationale PC-Ta incorporated into the revised draft of diverse housing opportunities. element. paragraph that will be corrected. 2 3 4 5 6 Could we make it more succinct? 3.1 Enable housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels that accommodates PC-Ta population growth while balancing new and existing neighborhood characteristics. 3.1 3.1 (2nd paragraph) 3.1 3.1 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 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 A very long and confusing sentence. Break this into two separate sentences. PC -Wright PC -Wright Comment accepted and Agreed with changing the Housing vision. The specific incorporated into the revised draft proposal is a good starting point to revise to. element. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. 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/d efa u It/fi les/2022- 02/vi sio n-2050-glossa ry. 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. There are some typos and grammatical errors with the paragraph that will be corrected. Agreed this can use clarification. The project team will Comment accepted and look at options such as rewording to "Establish (referring to 'Establish ways to avoid displacement') What does this mean? If renters mechanisms to mitigate displacement due to PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft do not pay rent, the landowner must maintain their rights to evict. redevelopment" and/or switch the term "mitigate" to element. "reduce." Note that eviction is only one of many forms of displacement. Comment accepted and There are some typos and grammatical errors with the Addressing housing from various perspectives such as promoting homeownership PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft paragraph that will be corrected. element. 7 3.1 8 3.2.1 9 3.2.1 10 3.2.1 Promote thriving, equitable, healthy neighborhoods. Comment accepted and Agreed that it is unclear what an "equitable PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft neighborhood" is or looks like. The term can be I think there's value in splitting the "5+" category up a bit more, similar to the previous pie chart. Unsure what categories would normally be used, but maybe a 3-5, Public -Danielson 6-19, and 20+ category Instead of saying majority I would like to see the % that are homeowners vs. renters Public -Danielson THIS goes a long way toward achieving the stated housing goals and objectives for PC -Wright Port Orchard 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 prevalence of single-family and larger apartment PC -Wright 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 PC -Wright structures, and 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. element. removed from this bullet. Comment under additional This is a good idea but requires further review of consideration, identify next steps for Census data and coordination with project team to analysis. ensure this level of detail is available. Comment accepted and This sentence will be updated to state the precise incorporated into the revised draft percentages for tenure and made consistent with element. Figure 7 under Section 3.3. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Comment acknowledged. The text speaks for itself. element. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Changes accepted. element. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Changes accepted. element. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Comment will not be incorporate Estimates, Table S2502. Also see Figure 7, Share of into the revised draft element. Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity with source ACS 2020 5-year Estimates, Table B25003. 14 15 16 17 18 The Middle Housing graphic above is excellent! Why not make this a stronger, more More emphasis on the need for middle housing positive perspective. The City wants to encourage expanded opportunities for starter production could be made to support this section. The homes and promote settlement of the new generation in Port Orchard. THAT is the Comment under additional section as currently exists seems out of place. The last reason for the subarea plans. The McCormick Village is a good example but as I 3.2.2 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for paragraph of "Housing and Production" begins to lead understand it the middle housing items will be all rentals. We need to find a way to analysis. into this issue, but it could be expanded upon to make build affordable middle housing without decimating the environment (cutting every a stronger argument and create supporting goals and living tree/shrub) and achieving a desirable community for starter homes that meets the objectives of the entire Comp Plan. policies of that argument. 2.56, 2.53, and 2.55 are all very similar numbers. It doesn't seem fair to say that Port Comment accepted and Sentence referring to single mothers should be deleted. Orchard's average household size is higher than the county average. 3.2.3 Public -Danielson incorporated into the revised draft Text should reflect what is conveyed through the What is the relevance of mentioning single mothers? Figure 6 doesn't even specify element. Figure. whether single parents are mothers or fathers This assumes the size of the household always corresponds to the size of house. Not This comment is helpful. However, the intent of the an accurate assumption. Many people want a larger home than the household size. Comment under additional statement is to provide support for the encouragement 3.2.3 Plus many families are growing. Starting their home purchase with one child and PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for of middle housing options. This statement could be moving on to al larger size home after the family grows in number and household analysis. expanded upon to make that nexus clear. income. Delete the "negative implications statement.This have implications households fond Comment under additional could negative as smaller may not be able to 3.2.3 ,rots need PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for See response above. suitable to their and budget get analysis. From what source? We have relatively little community feedback and I'm concerned 3.3 this implied widespread input and agreement when there may not actually be that PC -Wright much support. See the housing Action vian (HAN) Nuwic 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 HAD ciirvcv rlofn xniith 11Q rccnnnrlcntc- 19 3.3 20 3.3 21 3.3 22 3.3 23 24 25 26 27 3.3 3.3 - Figure 8 3.4 Again, I disagree! WA state raised minimum wages and increased efforts to raise wages. This issue is a direct result of policies messing around with market driven factors. This statement MUST refer back to figure 5. The message is skewed to the negative and does not tell an accurate story of reality in my view. CufrepA-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. Generally, the cost of goods and housing have outpaced wages over the past 40 years. The Housing PC -Wright Comment will not be incorpo Action Plan (HAP) Figure 4 illustrates this. into the revised draft elemen https://If.portorchardwa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?i d=192029&dbid =0&repo=PortOrchard&cr=1 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Statement is factual based on data. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Changes accepted. element. 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 ability to achieve the larger purchases such as a home. PC -Wright 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. 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 this author suggesting Port Orchard provide subsidized housing? There are many State and federal programs geared at helping this segment of society. It seems proper to make this case (if we are compelled to do PC -Wright so) with proper reference to the programs set to address it. I must say this Chapter is not well written and is full of poor grammar/spelling and other issues. Comment under additional Comment under additional consideration, identify next consideration, identify next steps for steps for analysis. analysis. More explanation of terms will be added. Much of this Comment under additional Element relies on data gathered through the Housing consideration, identify next steps for Action Plan (HAP), but some HAP content will be copied analysis. here since Comprehensive Plan readers may not know to refer to the HAP. Comment will not be incorporate Unknown what bar chart this is referencing, but all bar What are these other bars representing? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. charts in the 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 from the CPPs. We are required Is this meant to be an absolute requirement of an objective/goal? Can PSRC and KRCC Comment under additional to plan for the targets, not achieve the targets. If we do mandate housing within a city? This needs more context as to what the city of Port PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for not plan in accordance with the CPPs, we will not have Orchard is to achieve and what the ramifications are if we do not. analysis. 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 Comment accepted and 3.4 Plan, is to manage growth effectively. To achieve that, a land capacity analysis is PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Changes accepted. needed to be perfor to determine how many potential housing units could be element. developed or redeveloped on current land. See my comment above. The housing "requirement" is set without regard to all the Comment acknowledged. The CPPs and Vision 2050 Comment will not be incorporate 3.4 other Comp Plan elements such as critical areas, climate change, infrastructure, PC -Wright address critical areas, climate, infrastructure, and transportation, etc. into the revised transportation. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Comment accepted and 3.4 It is difficult to truly evaluate this chapter without the necessary data. PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Comment acknowledged element. ensure suitable Comment accepted and 3-3 3.5 Goals and Policies Replace with "that promote housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels and PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Changes accepted. enhancing the quality of life found in Port Orchard for all residents." element. The comment is accurate. However, through policy and I fail to see HOW PO will ensure affordable housing. The cost of housing is driven by Comment accepted and development regulations, PO can create mechanisms to Goal 2 the market - cost of materials - cost of land - cost of permitting/regulation - demand - PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft encourage these desired outcome. Revise to "Ensure location - and available services. element. that affordable housing 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 Comment accepted and Goal 2 strong and will lead to more homeownership, increase housing supply and diverse PC-Catey incorporated into the revised draft Comment acknowledged. housing options, and encourages development near transit and employment centers. element. Policies HS-18-20 do a great job addressing walkable communities, building denser Comment accepted and Goal 3 housing, and promotes efficient land use. PC-Catey incorporated into the revised draft Comment acknowledged. element. Redundant with HS-6.. Omit this one. Adjust above to incorporate into one policy - Comment under additional Good observation on an opportunity to combine HS-10 too many to manage. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for separate, but related issues. Options will be considered. analysis. This policy is intended to create walkable neighborhoods where these land uses exist and are What if this doesn't exist? For example McCormick isn't nearby schools (the school Comment under additional planned. This could be revised to clarify the most HS-17 does own a parcel), but the subarea is going to have over 1k+new homes PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for 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" Comment accepted and because all development is currently required to do HS-22 (Deleted Policy) What about redevelopment? See my comments on utilities which are similar. PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft this, but then the policy becomes too general and Redevelopment for housing and utility upgrades should be done simultaneously. element. overlaps with other Elements like the Capital Facilities and Transportation Elements. The policy will be removed. Agreed, annexation should consider the financial ramifications of increased infrastructure maintenance I'd like to see mention of a burden on city funds when annexing to ensure the city Comment under additional costs and the cost of additional services. The policy is HS-23 (Now HS-22) doesn't take on infrastructure burdens without the prior years of tax revenue to pay Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps for confusingly worded, and can be updated to include for those burdens analysis. consideration of fiscal impacts. Alternatively, the policy may belong in a different element since it is less focused on housing. You are suggesting the City of PO do this? Isn't this HUD's responsibility? Frankly - I The comment is correct that the City is not a housing HS-25 (Now HS-24) like the previous HS-20 and HS-23 better than this. This policy as written will increase PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated agency, but the City has a legislative agenda and needs bureaucracy within the City government. Not a fan! into the revised draft element. to advocate for higher levels of government to address various housing issues. 38 39 40 41 HS-26 (Now HS-25) Not a proper sentence. Missing words? Also - the policy is vague and hard to envision. Seems it can be included into another policy. Agreed. Policy is not written in a clear manner. Perhaps something like the following may provide clarity. "Encourage a variety of ownership opportunities and Comment under additional choices by allowing and supporting programs which PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for may include, but are not limited to, land trusts, tenant analysis. opportunity to purchase programs, limited equity cooperative, and sweat equity programs." Alternatively, this policy could be merged with another. This item was not discussed in the main body of the document. There are senior Comment under additional HS-28 (Now HS-27) centers within the city. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Policy needs to be revisited by project team. analysis. Comment accepted and HS-31 (Now HS-30) Redundant PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Comment acknowledged. element. Port Orchard is not Bellevue! Please do not build a Comp Plan for a rural city that IF HS-32 (Now HS-31) emulates a hugely urban setting -that is not what PO residents want. Most of the PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Unclear what the requested change is. HS-32 is about into the revised draft element. aging in place. growth we see in PO is from folks ESCAPING Seattle/Bellevue/King County. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMENTS Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Redundant. Paragraphs 2 and 3 very similar to Comment accepted and incorporated 1 4.1 PC -Wright Revised to consolidate duplicative information. paragraph 1. 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, Revised to resolve conflicting language. The word recreation and open space, maintenance of existing "slowly" is replaced with the word "also" in order to facilities and creation of new facilities would be funded Comment accepted and incorporated 2 4.1 PC-Ta transition to the next sentence, where creating new by annual budget expenditures, grants, impact fees and into the revised draft element. parks to meet the needs of a growing population and other financial means available to the City." These two the means for how they would be funded is discussed. sentences sound like they contradict each other. Are we slowly expanding new park facilities are not? We could join these two sentences together for concision and clarity. Do we have an idea of what the future needs are/will Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS 3 4.1 PC -Wright be? into the revised draft element. Plan, 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 4 4.1 specific amount/range of acreage we need to acquire? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS into the revised draft element. Plan, which provides this information. How many of those acres do we 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 5 4.1 summarize the basics of the expected growth and PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Plan, which provides this information. anticipated need to new facilities. Revised language to replace "ensure" with "In an effort Comment accepted and incorporated to create a plan which meets..." 6 4.2 Do not use "ensure". Global comment. PC -Wright There will be other sections that will use "ensure" into the revised draft element. language when there is regulatory context around incorporating certain sections/information. 7 F E 10 11 12 13 14 First sentence does not make sense. Comma placement and use or the term "outline" is confusion as well as the mail -back option. Drop this unnecessary stuff and just 4.2 PC -Wright say we conducted a survey of the community as part of the 2022 PROS update. Survey questions sought to........ is all OK. 4.2 4.3 4.4 Not sure I understand the rationale of mentioning the PROS plan survey results beginning of chapter 4. Is it to demonstrate that we conducted surveys? As I was PC-Ta reading this section, it felt incongruent to adjacent pieces of the chapters. We cut lot out on the section, why? (referring to 'ensure') Do not use this word NOTE: the trails in McCormick Woods ARE NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Trails within McCormick Woods HOA are maintained by the HOA for use by HOA members and their 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 Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested edits. into the revised draft element. Revised to simplify language and refer the reader to the Comment accepted and incorporated PROS Plan for more detailed information on public into the revised draft element. outreach efforts. The 2022 survey results were included as an update to the 2015 results. 4 Ensure retained in this context. Stronger language in this Comment will not be incorporated PC -Wright section allows the City to promote park connectivity in into the revised draft element. future policy decisions. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Private trails, including those identified in the comment, into the revised draft elenent. are not displayed in the map. does not have a proper trail on it nor does Ross Creek. 1 4.4 am not aware (off the top of my mind) of any natural PC -Wright forested areas open to the 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 PROS. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to strike "full" from the phrasing. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to drop the "s" from "improvements" in CUP. 4.5 Is there a link to this for an easy reference? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Revised to add a reference to Appendix D of the PROS Plan. It will be helpful to list out and enumerate all the Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add a reference to the City's PROS Plan, 4.6 changes we have with parks. Then go into detail of each PC-Ta into the revised draft element. which provides a more detailed look at the park system problem. Helps prime the reader for what's to come. than the Comprehensive Plan provides. 4.6 Use limited, not taxed. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to "strained" phrasing in place of "taxed" into the revised draft element. language. 15 4.6 16 4.6 17 4.7 18 Objective 1 19 Objective 2 20 Objective 3 21 Objective 3 22 Objective 4 (last paragraph) Why say "additionally"? Not needed. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested edits. into the revised draft element. (last paragraph) Drop "therefore". PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised per suggested edits. into the revised draft element. I always find "goals" and "objectives" to be sources of Comment under additional A more detailed description of what Goals and Policies confusion and misunderstanding. If we use these terms PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for are in the context of the Comprehensive Plan and how in any portion of the Comp Plan, we MUST define and analysis. they are used has been added to the Introduction differentiate. between how we use these terms. Element. I'm interested in the "how" to this. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporat The City's SMP addresses how this is accomplished. into the revised draft element. How does "enhancing and improving) existing parks Revised Objective 2 to say "Preserve and enhance active "preserve" active and scenic open space? A well and scenic open space". Enhancing open space could be designed and well written critical areas ordinance will PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated through maintenance or improvements to the existing do that. Buying available land parcels with open space into the revised draft element. park, as opposed to Objective 3 which discusses and scenic features will do this. These objects give me developing new parks or increasing the size of existing concern. parks. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised this item to Objective 4 to better fit with ?? Disagree -this item will not achieve the objective. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. context of objective language. Again - I'm very interested in the "how" to this. PC -Wright ommen wi 1 not be incorporate Parks and open space are required through the CAO, into the revised draft element. POMC 20.100 and 20.127. 1 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 Underserved refers to income. Several older areas segments of our community to target some projects and within the City are considered underserved according to d o our best to build parks and recreation opportunities Comment will not be incorporat RCO. RCO provides a reduced match for projects in to suit the land and opportunity. THAT is the best we PC -Wright into the revised draft element. these areas. RCO has a tool to identify these areas. can do. I get it is from VISION 2050 but we need to be https://rco.wa.gov/recreation-and-conservation-office- real for Port Orchard and not put us in a position of NOT grants/grant-requirements/match-reduction/ 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 24 25 26 27 m 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Safety is an important consideration. We have many Comment will not be incorporated Goal 1 drop "a safe" PC -Wright nonmotorized facilities that are substandard either in into the revised draft element. width, separation, or condition. HOW??? Buses, trails, bikes, etc are color blind and Comment will not be incorporated PK-1 PC -Wright This refers to proximity and condition of facilities. cannot speak. How will you promote this? into the revised draft element. Can we say right now which centers do not have parks Comment will not be incorporat Ruby Creek, Bethel/Lund, Bethel/Sedgwick, and Mile Hill PK-2 PC -Wright or open spaces? into the revised draft element. all lack city parks. This changes from year to year, and to prevent the need Comment will not be incorporatedto PK-2 Again, lets identify these places right now. PC -Wright frequent amendments to identify updated conditions, into the revised draft element. the language will be retained. PK-2 Identify them right now. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporatedSee the RCO map for underserved communities. into the revised draft element. 1 honestly think this is already done. Blackjack Creek Ross Creek, and the waterfront. McCormick Woods is a Comment will not be incorporate Ross Creek is in the process of being acquired. Blackjack PK-5 PC -Wright different issue with the HOA v City into the revised draft element. Creek is mostly privately owned. management/ownership. Really? All? I live in McCormick Woods as do a large There is a planned pathway along Old Clifton Road portion of the PO community. How will you get me to Comment will not be incorporated connecting to the facilities on Tremont. Tremont is PK-9 PC -Wright the waterfront by walking or biking? We need realistic into the revised draft element. connected to downtown by the Bay Street West goals and objectives. _ � Pathway project along PO Blvd. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised PK-12 (referring to "identify areas") conditions PC -Wright "weather" with "conditions" to clarify language. into the revised draft element. Shall be? Hmm. No scotch broom or blackberries on Comment accepted and incorporated PK-15 PC -Wright Revised "shall" to "should". any vacant municipal properties within the city? into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporateThis PK-16 (referring to The Active Club) what is this? PC -Wright is the community building at Givens Park. into the revised draft element. Where? Will the proposed new Community Center suffice? Why not add into the discussion the plans for Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language from "Community Recreation Center" PK-18 that? By 2044, that facility and all the amenities should PC -Wright into the revised draft element. to "Community Event Center". be complete and functioning. Sounds nice a cushy but I honestly do not know what Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language to encourage commercial enterprises Goal 5 this really means. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. to establish private commercial recreation facilities. City -owned? How will the City force private fields to Comment will not be incorporate The fields at Givens Park are publicly owned. Additional PK-22 provide this? Each Little League would be asked to pay PC -Wright into the revised draft element. public fields are identified in the PROS plan. for these upgrades? 36 PK-23 What defines feasible? Why only athletic fields? Why PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language to state that athletic fields should be not a YMCA or larger athletic complex? into the revised draft element. developed in accordance with the PROS Plan. 37 eft: 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 This implies they are not currently encouraged. Why not say we want to continue and help promote private Comment accepted and incorporated PK-24 PC -Wright Revised per suggested edits. sports programs such as pickleball leagues, futsal into the revised draft element. leagues, etc. The SMP and Critical Areas Code provides mitigation Comment will not be incorporated PK-29 Subject to environmental impact? Feasibility? PC -Wright requirements. We have a facility proposed with the into the revised draft element. new CEC that is being reviewed now. The SMP and Critical Areas Code provides mitigation Same comment as before. Subject to environmental Comment will not be incorporated PK-30 impact/feasibility? PC -Wright into 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 at Annapolis Pier but no easy linkage to the Comment accepted and incorporated PK-31 downtown boat launch and the downtown launch is not PC -Wright Revised phrasing to "maintain, enhance, and expand..." into the revised draft element. friendly for kayak launching. Seems an easy one to check. An example... Aren't they already? Critical areas for sure, side yards, Revised phrasing to "Continue to require buffers and Comment accepted and incorporated PK-33 etc. We must respect private property rights and refer PC -Wright open space as a required design element in new into the revised draft element. to the zoning codes for this sort of stuff. developments". "functions as a buffer" is a complex topic and problematic as to use, definition, and poses legal Comment under additional This goal deals with critical areas. The policy deals with PK-36 entanglement. Let the Critical Areas Ordinance do this. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Make a simple reference that the Comp Plan and CAO analysis. open space. More discussion required. should be synergistic (referring to acquisition) Who pays? Who maintains? or Should we have a partnership or MOU with the County Fa4-� PK-37 Comment will not be incorporate The City pays. The County has no money for this and is about future "countywide" open space acquisition? PC -Wright (should be PK-37 numbering is off) into the revised draft element. trying to offload their parks to the City. Homeless encampments come rapidly to mind with this issue. Lets review how long McCormick Village Park splash Comment will not be incorporated Noted - facility maintenance is better addressed in the DID PK-40 zone was out of commission! All last summer. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. City's PROS Plan. See my previous comments. I want to know where this Comment will not be incorporated 6ea�� Goal 12 PC -Wright See the RCO map for underserved communities. place is in relation to parks facilities. into the revised draft element. Noted - retained "consider" language as the City Not sure I agree with this. Not enough parks to warrant Comment will not be incorporated PK 41 PK-44 PC -Wright continues to grow over the 20-year planning horizon of this. into the revised draft element. this Periodic Update. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - NATURAL SYSTEMS COMMENTS Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details 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? Comment under additional 1 5.1 Maximizing open space opportunities implies the City has control over open PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Section revised to address review comments. space. Does the City have this control? I'd like to see the City approach be: analysis. 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 Comment will not be incorporated Noted - this will be expanded on in other sections as 2 5.1 (8th bullet) PC -Wright other sections. into the revised draft element. applicable to those specific Elements. Noted - the intent of the Goals and Policies of both this Comment will not be incorporate 3 5.1 Transportation poses substantial impact avenues to Critical Areas. PC -Wright Element and the Transportation Element is to identify into the revised draft element. and mitigate these impacts. (referring to 'full range') I dislike use of this term. A wide variety is more Comment accepted and incorporated 4 5.2 Revised per suggested language. appropriate. into the revised draft element. Revised language to add language that replanting and Sometimes, we must remove the woody mass to stabilize slopes. The Ross Point management in accordance with the CAO would be fine. Comment accepted and incorporated 5 5.3.1 area is a god example. Removal of the woody mass is proper when mature and PC -Wright This comment is one example of a cost effective form of into the revised draft element. poses danger to life or property. Proper replanting and management are key. preserving slope stability but does not encompass all methods. Added reference to the 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, which provide Comment accepted and incorporated 6 5.3.3 Is this true? I dislike making this statement without facts to back it up! PC -Wright additional information and context. It has been true into the revised draft element. during construction. See the violations at Stetson Heights. 7 5.3.3 1 would like the know what "recent" steps the city has taken in this regard. I disagree these buffers are equally important. If this is true, why are there no 8 5.3.4 laws like the Clean Water Act targeting buffers. Buffers are not regulated by the PC -Wright federal government. I recommend we omit this sentence. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. III 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. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 M3 19 (referring to a new wetland mitigation bank site) Until this is developed and This corresponds to changes proposed in the CAO that approved by the multi -agency task force, this is speculation. I'd rather not Comment will not be incorporated 5.3.4 PC -Wright would outline the role of mitigation banks when mention speculative stuff in the Comp Plan. If the City is developing the into the revised draft element. applying the CAO. mitigation bank - say so - otherwise omit this. Rpinf-.II PAntruh, ites to y wfarp wat r and recharges the greundwateFaS Comment accepted and incorporated 5.3.5 PC -Wright Revised to delete suggested language. pf e0pitation inf;lticat s threUgh theg_A_iI into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised 5.3.5 As in any urban area, ensuring maintaining effective PC -Wright per suggested language. into the revised draft element. A large portion of the city is located in a category 1 or 2 How much development does PO allow within aquifer recharge areas? I suspect Comment will not be incorporated 5.3.5 PC -Wright aquifer recharge area. Most development is allowed in not much and if that is true omit this sentence. into the revised draft element. these areas. This is speaking generally about urban levels of Really, where? I know we are seeing some redevelopment but new urban Comment will not be incorporated 5.3.6 PC -Wright development under the GMA, not shoreline shoreline development? I'm challenging this statement. into the revised draft element. development. Comment under additional Again, I challenge this statement. Hood Canal - I agree, Sinclair Inlet flushes Reviewing comment in association with CAO update for 5.3.6 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for pretty well. analysis. consistency. Sinclair Inlet is listed on the 303d list for fecal coliform This statement also concern me. PSNS Bremerton is the most significant Comment will not be incorporate TMDL. This section is not phrased to identify PO as the 5.3.6 contributor of pollutants in Sinclair Inlet. THIS is well documents. What is the PC -Wright into the revised draft element. primary contributor, rather just identify the Inlet's need to include this sentence? existing condition. This statement is part of the old Comp Plan. What progress was made to date We now have a plan for the downtown basin. The Comment will not be incorporate 5.3.6 with this? If the City has made no progress, the question is how long has the city PC -Wright Orchard Street Plaza and CEC projects are implementing into the revised draft element. been trying to make improvements and why no progress. some of these changes. See State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound https://cig.uw.edu/publications/state-of-knowledge- 5.4 I've not seen documented evidence that Puget Sound water temp is rising. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated climate-change-in-puget-sound/ Water temperature into the revised draft element. increases ranged 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 Comment will not be incorpora This section includes a reference to the Kitsap County 5.4 since we began measuring 10-20 years ago? King tides have always flooded PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Climate Change Resiliency Assessment. downtown what is that frequency over time and how has it changed? This reads like a scare tactic and does not resonate with me well. PO has been here since 1908. Shoreline homes have not been lost to sea level rise. Bay Street Comment accepted and incorporated 5.4 PC -Wright Language revised to soften phrasing used. has not been lost to sea level rise. We need to put this into a reasonable into the revised draft element. narrative. c 21 22 23 24 25 27 W3 w 30 N S-3 Isn't this already done? Comment under additional PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for analysis. Support in what way? Financial? Permitting incentives? The Blackjack Creek mit. NS-4 bank was relatively successful. But would be a good exercise to review that PC -Wright project's history and success/failure issues. And who will do this and what is the cost? Is this mandated by GMA? This could NS-5 be expensive and not a lot to gain for that expense. I suggest we pass on this PC -Wright unless mandatory. Implies absolute. The City will apply the local CAO and applicable state and NS-6 PC -Wright federal regulations to protect.... Pertains to persevering the city's tree canopy. The pushback from legacy McCormick Residents on reducing the number of lots of the Amherst subdivision Goal 3 PC-Ta set the precedent on preserving trees. Opportunity here to set more concrete policy, especially as developers submit plans. Goal 3 1 disagree with this addition. PC -Wright Tagging for further discussion - maintaining a comprehensive mapping of critical area assessments that are submitted on a project -by -project basis is not conducted by City departments. This would create an additional workload that would be fairly significant, however could assist the City in creating and updating a critical areas dataset. Comment under additional This is supported by proposed changes to the CAO that consideration, identify next steps for allow the use of private mitigation banks. analysis. Comment will not be incorporateWe participate in these efforts at a regional level, and this will be a formal requirement in association with the d i ent. Climate Element. Comment accepted and incorporated Slight revision to language used to provide "requiring" into the revised draft element. phrasing. Comment under additional This goal should be discussed at -large at the next consideration, identify next steps for Planning Commission meeting. analysis. Comment under additional This goal should be discussed at -large at the next consideration, identify next steps for Planning Commission meeting. analysis. HB 1181 amends the Growth Management Act and requires cities to include a Climate Change Element. A NS-15 Very $$$$$ for a small city. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate GHG emissions inventory is required, though the City into the revised draft element. may rely on the inventory prepared by the State for Kitsap County. This policy was drafted to provide flexible language that NS-16 I'm not sure anyone knows what this means. Omit - too vague. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate can be responsive to more formal guidance and into the revised draft element. requirements that are established outside of the Comprehensive Plan. Implement Consider and implement where feasible, nature based solutions to NS-17 address climate change, such as tree planting programs to sequester carbon, and PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested language. low impact development strategies to address stormwater runoff, flooding and into the revised draft element. pollution. Where/who is this in PO? Homeless/unhoused? How does one reduce risk of Comment will not be incorporated This language is consistent with provisions of RCW NS-18 natural hazards through mitigation? Do we only let non -at -risk communities near PC -Wright into the revised draft element. 36.70.070(9)(d)(i)(C). areas with natural hazard risk? Same comment as above. This implies we will discriminate between residents of Consistency with Vision 2050 is required, which includes the population one way or the other. What is "equity lens"? Is it fully defined? Is Comment will not be incorporated policies and actions related to equity. Equity lens is a NS-19 that definition changing? I submit it is and this is/will be a quagmire for the City if PC -Wright into the revised draft element. common phrase that is used to describe including equity included as written. in the decision making process when making policy. 31 32 33 NS-22 Doesn't this make the equity statements above? PC -Wright Does the City have management authority over waters of the state? Water Goal 19 PC -Wright quality? That 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 NS-88 PC -Wright consider stating that PO will maintain an open access policy to all public shorelines for all residents and visitors. Consistency with Vision 2050 is required, which includes Comment will not be incorporated policies and actions related to equity. Equity lens is a into the revised draft element. common phrase that is used to describe including equity in the decision making process when making policy. Comment will not be incorporated The City has obligations under its NPDES Permit. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested language. into the revised draft element. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number Investment in what? City saving and retirement account? Infrastructure? Parks and Comment will not be incorporated 1 6.1 PC -Wright This includes any expenditure of city funds. open spaces? What are the priorities with investments? into the revised draft element. This is speaking to the City's identity going forward. While other industries existed in PO, the chosen history Comment will not be incorporated 2 6.1 See my comment on PO's history section... PC -Wright to be identified for future recognition in economic into the revised draft element. development is maritime rather than mill town or any other identity. Create opportunities for small businesses, women -owned businesses, and minority- Comment accepted and incorporated 3 6.1 PC -Wright Revised per suggested language. owned businesses to locate in the City. into the revised draft element. Hasn't this been done? If so, maybe we freshen or update or create new, integrated Comment accepted and incorporated Revised for clarity: "continue to identify and support 4 6.1 centers for PO. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. growth centers" ..have a limited impact on environmentally sensitive areas such as Puget Sound. Comment accepted and incorporated 5 6.1 PC -Wright Revised per suggested language. streams and wetlands. into the revised draft element. The city is no longer a one -hour drive from the region's main international airport in Comment accepted and incorporated 6 6.2.1 PC -Wright Revised for clarity. SeaTac. into the revised draft element. ommen wi no a incorporated The estuary is part of the waterfront. The rest of the 7 6.2.1 What about Creeks? Blackjack flows right through downtown. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. creek is inaccessible. -A The US Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains occupation Comment under additional (referring to city's higher concentrations of workers in industries listed) Really?? What data for states, counties and metropolitan areas. We 8 6.2.4 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for about the City? Where does the City stand in this category? will look for other data sources for city data and add if analysis. available. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised 9 6.2.6 (referring to 'As of 2015...') ?? It is 2023. Hasn't this changed since 2015? PC -Wright for clarity. into the revised draft element. Seems to me we lost the opportunity to keep the "centers" theme here. If business Comment will not be incorporated Noted -promoting development in centers, where 10 Goal 1 centers were properly planned and constructed, linked with public transportation, PC -Wright into the revised draft element. development intensity is appropriate, aids in this. close to residential opportunity, many of these policies will be synergistic. Language revised to remove "shall." Note that this is a Why "shall"? very legal and absolute term. Same comment everywhere "shall" occurs Comment accepted and incorporated GMA requirement. 11 ED-1 PC -Wright Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify in policy statements. Recommend using SHOULD everywhere possible. into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. 12 ED-2 13 ED-3 14 ED-5 15 ED-6 16 ED-6 17 ED-8 Language revised to remove "shall." (referring to the word 'shall') ?? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. " Comment will not be incorporated Rail" removed from this policy. where is rail an option in PO? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Kitsap transit has no plans for rail in Kitsap County. We are out of the Sound Transit service boundary. This is a good goal whether it is working well or not. I think most of these have been a goals for some time. How's that worked out? What PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Infrastructure investment has been a large barrier to will the city do differently to achieve the stated goals? into the revised draft element. development, but the city is starting to put a dent in the capital project list. Language revised to remove "shall." (referring to the word 'shall') ?? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. centers where job opportunities and a diverse mix of retail and professional/techinical office activities are concentrated. PC -Wright what about redevelopment of older segments of the city? These may not be in a designated center but may be linked by general proximity and transit. 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. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per suggested language. into the revised draft element. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Please refer to the centers map in the LU element and into the revised draft element. let us know if there is an area of concern. The recognition and encouragement of tourism sounds great. However, Port Orchard 18 ED-9 and ED-16 PC -Ashby does not have an ocean, a mountain or other prominent attraction for tourists. Port Orchard has 2 motels. Three recognized golf courses are near. I am unclear what type of tourist we attract. 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 19 ED-10 PC -Wright manages it? (referring to diversification and employment objectives) What are these objectives in 20 ED-11 PC -Wright quantifiable terms? When/how do we know we succeed? Comment under additional Noted - we will explore ways to expand on the consideration, identify next steps for expectation for tourism in Port Orchard. analysis. Comment will not be incorporated The first 5 city owned signs were installed along into the revised draft element. Tremont and PO Blvd. Also see our parks signage. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add specificity and some quantifiable into the revised draft element. 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. 22 23 24 25 27 ►W FM 30 (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 ED-16 would argue the emphasis on a minority group would affect the city as much or more PC -Wright so than statewide policies. If the city truly establishes strong relationships with community stakeholder groups - this issue is moot. ED-16 policies affect all city residents PC -Wright 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 should be rethought and refocused on high employment endeavors Goal 4 such as industrial/professional/technical services. All the Policies that follow say PC -Wright nothing about industrial uses. It's all about tourism, arts, recreation, small/cottage businesses. The city needs to attract a whole new segment of businesses to link the increased housing we have seen and are planning. Comment under additional This policy intended to incorporate equity principles into consideration, identify next steps for Economic Development Element. Could be rephrased to analysis. "all" City residents pending PC feedback? Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. Comment will not be incorporate into the revised draft element. This policy intended to incorporate equity principles into Economic Development Element. Could be rephrased to "all" City residents pending PC feedback? There are quite a few industrial business at the industrial park and there is room for expansion. We also have boat manufacturing on the waterfront between downtown and Gorst. Policy ED-21 speaks to industrial uses. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to address "all road users" rather than Goal 5 (referring to walking and biking) drop. We want safe streets. Period. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. identifying specific walking and biking users. Rr iq What is the status of local agriculture? I think is has diminished to nearly non- existent. Comment will not be incorporated Locally produced food doesn't necessarily mean ED-24 Just how much ag occurs within the city or even the UGA? Does the city provide PC -Wright into the revised draft element. produced in PO. property tax credits to ag 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 Comment will not be incorporated There is a transit hub downtown already at the foot Goal 6 get to and from public meetings in person rather than web -based meetings? Note that PC -Wright into the revised draft element. ferry dock. there is no significant bus hub in downtown. Marina launch parking lot may be a good option if this is pursued. Comment will not be incorporated Port Orchard provides services to the wider South Kitsap Goal 6 How is "South Kitsap Area" apart of the city of PO Comp Plan? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Area. Really? Bethel corridor is dangerous! Need to see where "centers" are located and Comment will not be incorporated ED-28 PC -Wright Please refer to the centers map in the LU Chapter. how this will work. into the revised draft element. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-29 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 m 39 40 Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-29 The City shall encourage the redevelopment of strip commercial areas..... into what? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-30 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-31 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. My experience is that this has not yielded the desired results to date. Most LEED Language revised to remove "shall." Comment under additional construction has dropped the moniker and many wished they did not spend the extra Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-31 $$ to achieve LEED status. Using recycled products makes financial sense. LEED does PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for that items are a requirement to implement rather than analysis. not. a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Pretty dated statement. These items - except vegetated roofs - are commonplace and most are mandatory by the Ecology SWM guidelines. Suggest changing to reference Comment will not be incorporated ED-32 PC -Wright Encouraging LID is mandated. the Ecology manual. Also not impervious surfaces are not all accepted by fire into the revised draft element. departments due to load restrictions. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-32 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Comment accepted and incorporated ED-33 drop 'both' PC -Wright Revised per suggested language. into the revised draft element. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-34 (referring to word 'shall') Really? What happens if you don't? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Let's discuss. 1. shall needs to go. 2. How can the city deal with local emission targets Language revised to remove "shall." outside of it's own fleet? Best you can do is say the city will convert to all -electric Comment accepted and incorporated Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to identify ED-35 vehicles. We now know this is a HUGE mistake so please be very careful with our PC -Wright into the revised draft element. that items are a requirement to implement rather than money! Keep traffic moving! Less idling. a vision or goal that may be worked towards. €8-3-5 ED-37 (FYI Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language to add references to City's long-term numbering is Where will the cars go? Is there a plan? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. plans for a parking structure downtown. inaccurate after ED- 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Question this term... How will the city "support"? Is that our job? I suppose we can Comment will not be incorporated _qqThis was a goal from 2016 when Sunday service was not 91) 33 ED-38 promote it as an attractant to PO. But support? Implies financial assistance. I'm not PC -Wright available and when most businesses downtown closed interested in that. into the revised draft element. at 6pm. KPUD is expanding in the city. It requires coordination Comment will not be incorporat €D 36rED-39 Sounds wishy-washy. How do we make this happen? PC -Wright from the city and communication from the city to developers about the availability of fiber. Why not develop an agreement with service providers to drop new lines in a Comment under additional We already do this. We could add a policy statement, €D 37 ED-40 designated city -owned conduit integrated into each road resurfacing and new road PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for but it is something that already occurs. project? This would make a good policy statement. analysis. €8-38-ED-40 Same as above PC -Wright mment will not be incorporated ,This is more complicated and includes cost sharing from into the revised draft element. the city per the franchise agreement. 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- €9-49 ED-42 wide businesses - not just POBSA. Brings in Lowes, Kroger, Ace Hardware, Restaurants, PC -Wright Auto parts/service business, etc. How long has this been a policy? What is the progress over that time? Reads stale and €B-4A ED-42 PC -Wright like it has been achieved or is a failure. Needs a refresh! €D-4-5 (last policy Redundant under Goal 11) PC -Wright 49 Policy ED-44 and 45 Duplicates PC -Bailey 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. 50 Goal 12 Recognize the importance of and integrate this awareness to the extent feasible.... PC -Wright The Port did this with a proposal years ago to highlight the Suquamish Tribe's fishing heritage. The Tribe declined the advertisement. Maybe use the word "celebrate"? €D 44 (1st policy Doesn't this occur already? How is this different? Why not combine these two 51 PC -Wright under Goal 12) policies? Comment will not be incorporat I believe this is focused on the work of KEDA and the into the revised draft element. Chamber. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This is what the Chamber of Commerce is for. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to remove outdated Policy, as Bremerton into the revised draft element. provides service. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to remove redundant Policy. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to remove duplicative Policy. into the revised draft element. 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 This Policy is consistent with MPP-RC-4 language. into the revised draft element. 9 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - UTILITIES COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number 1 2 3 4 5 11 7 W 0 10 Language revised to add references: "consultant Comment accepted and incorporated prepared studies and analysis such as the Water 7.1 Reference please. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Systems Plan, General Sewer Plan, and Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, in collaboration with City staff..." 7.1 Comment will not be incorporated 4 (referring to utilities vision) I like it. PC -Wright to the nt. Noted - will be retained in its current form. Comment under additional This sentence refers to the requirements found in the 7.1 Where does the public view this information? PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for GMA. Local (City) plans are referenced within this analysis. Element. Utility districts and private utilities are not subject to Is there a plan for this? Also, how synced are these Comment under additional GMA planning requirements at this time. As a side note, the legislature is studying the issue to determine when 7.1 providers with the Comp Plan? Are they consulted to PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for districts should be required to plan. This Comprehensive integrate their long range service plans? analysis. Plan update takes into consideration utility providers long-term plans, as available. R I assume the Utilities Element is part of the Comp Plan Comment will not be incorporat Yes, but the "functional plans" are adopted by reference 7.1 and the "functional plans" are likely program -specific PC -Wright and drafted by various departments. True? into the revi d draft elemen into the Comprehensive Plan. 7.1 Capital E? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised for clarity. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised 7.2 collects and delivers PC -Wright into the revised draft element. for clarity. How old are these sewer lines? Say average age and FoRment"wiot be incorporated AM This level of detail is provided in the General Sewer 7.2 what is the life expectancy of the system? Are there PC -Wright certain parts scheduled for replacement? into the revised draft element. Plan. What is the status of our wells? Are they providing Comment will not be incorporated 7.2 stability in delivery? Saltwater intrusion? Pump age and PC -Wright This level of detail is provided in the Water System Plan. into the revised draft element.9 maintenance? 7.3 Telecommunications, first I believe Astound (formerly WAVE) provides landline Comment accepted and incorporated bullet phone service in addition to CenturyLink. PC -Bailey into the revised draft element. Revised for updated information. 7.3 Telecommunications third Comment accepted and incorporated 11 Replace "Wave" with "Astound". PC -Bailey Revised for updated information. bullet into the revised draft element. Not very well written to truly describe the most actively growing part of the city. Consider rewriting this to 12 7.3 PC -Wright reflect the true conditions of runoff controls in the area of the City not directly discharging to Sinclair Inlet. Astound is the new name I think. We should not limit 13 7.3 the various utilities by name, we should make this more PC -Wright wide open for 2044. 14 7.4, Water, third sentence "Water supply needs is..." — replace "is" with "are". PC -Bailey 15 1 would like to suggest rewording, the sentence PC -Bailey 7.4, Water, fourth sentence I'm interested in hearing more about this pilot project. 16 7.4, Water, last para Perhaps during a PC meeting City staff could provide a PC -Bailey summary? I would appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the 7.4 stormwater, last sentence types of runoff prevention methods that are currently 17 in last para used. More specifically, those that shouldn't be used PC -Bailey (some straw sleeves and bales) as they pose a risk to habitat and agriculture. In large part water quality monitoring has switched from fecal coliforms to E. coli as the indicator organism. I just 18 wanted to confirm PO is still monitoring for FC as the PC -Bailey 7.4, stormwater, last para document states, 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 and needs more explanation. As 19 7.4 worded, I have doubt the city understands AMP and PC -Wright how to use it. Which AMP software will 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 20 7.4 line that runs to McCormick Woods for example PC -Wright compared to the lines in older segments of the city. Is there a Sewer/wastewater CIP we can refer to? Comment will not be incorporated 4 Detailed information related to the City's stormwater into the revised draft element. management system and obligations under the NPDES Permit is provided in Section 7.4 related to Stormwater. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised for updated information. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Comment will not be incorporated Staff will provide a summary at the next Planning into the revised draft element. 9 Commission meeting on this item. Element has been revised to include a new Policy Comment accepted and incorporated addressing this: When stormwater BMPs are deemed into the revised draft element. ineffective due to site -specific conditions, explore and apply appropriate site -specific BMPs. See proposed UT- 21. Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. Comment will not be incorpora into the revised draft element. This City will need to confirm with the Public Works Department. This is referring to the software (Open Gov Cartograph) that we have purchased to manage city assets. We have a position in Public Works dedicated to operating the program. Comment will not be incorporated This level of detail is provided in the General Sewer into the revised draft element. Plan. 21 22 23 24 25 pig 27 W O Please guide the reader to the location of these references on the City website. Do this in all cases to 7.4 PC -Wright promote public engagement and to solicit input as is one of the main objectives of the Comp Plan. Redundant use of "emergency". We may want to 7.4 consider getting a technical editor to help. Is this PC -Wright consultant work or staff work? "Foster Pilot Project" is what?? Once something like 7.4 this is mentioned, it demands some context as to what PC -Wright it is, where it is, where it will serve the city, etc. Will AMP better describe this need? A CIP for sewer is 7.4 PC -Wright mentioned above - is there a water system CIP? Have city wells promoted an impact to local streams? 7.4 Where is this documented? Again - is there a Water PC -Wright System CIP that spells all this out? 7.4 Is this the Foster Pilot Project? PC -Wright 7.4 aims PC -Wright Needs proper reference. Typically, city codes must refer to specific documents to guide engineers and contractors for the specifics of the job at hand. nebulous 7.4 references cause difficulties as to version control and PC -Wright 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 7.4 PC -Wright Engineering team. Revised to include footnote references and links to associated documents. https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water- system-plan/ https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchard Comment accepted and incorporated wa/uploads/2017/10/General-Sewer-Plan-Update- into the revised draft element. FINAL1.pdf https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port- orchard-stormwater-and-watersheds-comprehensive- plan/ Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Added footnote reference to state law and where additional information can be found: https://Iawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017- Comment accepted and incorporated 18/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6091- into the revised draft element. S.SL.pdf#page=l More information can be found here: https://ecology.wa.gov/water-shorelines/water- supply/water-rights/case-law/foster-decision Comment will not be incorporated The individual system plans provide additional level of into the revised draft element. detail, and have been summarized in tables included in the Element. Comment will not be incorporated See the water system plan. The City is participating in into the revised draft element. the Foster Pilot Program and this analysis is ongoing. Comment will not be incorporated Yes, this related to the Foster Pilot Project. ito tin rpworund cir t. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. The year has been deleted because the new manual will Comment will not be incorporated be adopted in about 2 years. We don't want an old into the revised draft element. 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). Comment will not be incorpora Yes, including the Public Works Department. into the revised draft element. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 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 7.4 PC -Wright these documents? Please give references to each one in this Plan so the public can see how integrated the city is trying to be with this comprehensive plan. 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 7.4 PC -Wright rewrite to say the 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 7.5 future centers? Is there a document/report that PC -Wright 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 7.5 PC -Wright choose to live and how long they choose to live there if renting or buying. We want to serve all communities and residents equally, efficiently, and cost effectively. I believe it would be beneficial if the City investigated avenues for promoting water conservation efforts for residents, whether through education, credits, steeper 7.6, Water fees for heavier 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. First sentence states projects are intended to address flooding, erosion, habitat, etc. Whether in this section or elsewhere, I think it would be beneficial to also 7.6, Stormwater PC -Bailey include projects that address impervious surfaces/alternatives to conventional stormwater management. UT-9 City limits or UGA? PC -Wright How can we improve older segments of the city? When UT-21 road resurfacing is needed, why not underground those PC -Wright areas too and add high speed internet. Comment will not be incorporated Climate will be addressed in these plans, if not already, into the revised draft element. during the next update to each plan. Footnote references and link have been added to the Element. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add additional language related to the City's into the revised draft element. goal to comply with its NPDES Permit and prevent further degradation of Puget Sound. Comment will not be incorpora This information is contained in the Land Use Element. into the revised draft element. 44 Centers are prioritized for investment because they Comment will not be incorporated serve more people at less cost compared to addressing into the revised draft element. infrastructure in more outlying areas. No specific change has been proposed here. Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. This is addressed in the water system plan. The rate structure was just changed to move in this direction for the first time. Are there specific goal and policy suggestions to include related to this? 1W 1W Comment will not be incorporat The stormwater plan was just completed. This will need into the revised draft element. to wait until the next plan update. Comment will not be incorporated City Limits. If people want service outside of the city, into the revised draft element. they should annex. Comment will not be incorporated This is a general fund expense and is very expensive, into the revised draft element. even under a schedule 74 agreement with PSE per the franchise agreement. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 -OMThere is a difference between 24 and 25. 25 includes Comment will not be incorporated facilities such as sewer lift stations. We would always UT-25 Isn't this redundant with #24 above? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. want to update an existing lift station before adding a AA new one to the system. Why not PO residents too? FYI - in all cases - solar, wind, etc. there will be impacts such as visual Comment accepted and incorporated UT-26 PC -Wright Revised to add residential to the list. disruptions, noise, and other environmental into the revised draft element. consequences. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised UT-27 What does this mean? PC -Wright for clarity. into the revised draft element. Revised to add additional detail to the policy promoting What does this mean -what resources? Is there an Comment accepted and incorporated UT-28 PC -Wright conservation of water This is a requirement for water example of such incentives? into the revised draft element. conservation. See the water system plan. Is there a good and accurate map of Internet service Comment will not be incorporated The City does not have a map of this information for Goal 5 PC -Wright type and provider in the city? into the revised draft element. specific service boundaries of non -City utility providers. If there are enough customers, the private providers will decide to make an investment. KPUD Fiber is being How do we get high speed BB in already developed Comment will not be incorporated UT-30 PC -Wright added as street projects are completed in the city. It is areas of the City? into the revised draft element. up to homeowners to connect from the service line to their house. Comment will not be incorporated Development phrasing is inclusive of redevelopment UT-31 and redevelopment proposals. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. projects. 45 46 UT-32 UT-33 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'Y' magnitude yields higher risk of loss of life and injury. Specifically with higher density dwellings/hospitals/homes. Challenge - Wildfires - Location of infrastructure to native areas or timberlands. Limited access in some PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated locations impacts response times and fire suppression into the revised draft element. 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 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated not necessarily in agreement. into 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, which is appropriate as this Plan is a document that is intended to be updated Periodically, while development regulations can be more responsive/updated to current information, technology, and guidance. This language is meant to ensure consistency with the 19Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. See MPP- CC-6 and MPP-CC-8. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number 1 2 3 4 S 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 General. Response to PC-Wright's some exercise. He also expressed concern that the comment. investments being made in biking would be Public -Danielson underutilized because of the weather, but I think that they would definitely be utilized. I can't say for certain what will 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 8.1 PC -Wright the other elements are minor and meant to reduce dependency on vehicles - not replace vehicles. Very awkward and convoluted sentence. Please rewrite 8.1 PC -Wright to make this clear. "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 8.2 which promote a more efficient multimodal PC-Ta transportation system" This vision 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 8.2 prism, improve drainage and flood control, these items PC -Wright have measurable financial benefits to residents. The comment makes a valid point but does not contain Comment accepted and incorporated a specific proposal for change. The comment is into the revised draft element. supportive of the element's existing language promoting non -motorized transportation. Comment will not be incorporated No revision proposed - this statement indicates equal into the revised draft element. treatment of all modes of transportation. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language to be more specific than just the into the revised draft element. waterfront area. Comment will not be incorporate Existing language is inclusive of the types of into the revised draft element. improvements identified in the comment. M. 7 H 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be 8.2 What are "bicycle facilities"? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture into the revised draft element. 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 "Both motorized improvements at Comment accepted and incorporated intersections and nonmotorized improvements such as 8.2 Again - I disagree. Viability as defined by??? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. bicycle facilities and sidewalks are necessary for an effective and equitable transportation system." ..promotes an mere efficient multimodal transportation Comment accepted and incorporated 8.2 - — system. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested edits. The reality of the length of these six lanes is lost with Comment accepted and incorporated 8.3.1.1 this. I suggest a rewrite to accurately reflect the 6 lanes PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Revised to add length of six -lane section. are very limited in length. Interesting that the traffic lights on Sedgwick at the SR 16 interchange are not discussed as an introduction. 8.3.1.1 These lights are a huge reason why traffic is difficult on PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to acknowledge signalized intersection. Sedgwick. Development on either side of SR 16 into the revised draft element. exacerbated traffic with added lights ill-timed with the interchange. Does the Bethel road belong in the State system portion Comment accepted and incorporated 8.3.1.1 of this element? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Isn't Old Clifton part County? Link to SR 3, Amazon � MW W delivery center. Port Bremerton? Sedgwick rolls into a Comment will not be incorporate Yes, however this is not an exhaustive list of County 8.3.1.2 County road as well and offers a second link to the PC -Wright into the revised draft element. roads, but rather acknowledges that County roads are Southworth terminal and Kitsap Transit P&R as fast part of the transportation system. ferry. Noted - no change to existing language proposed. When 8.3.2.2 I'm not sure this is accurate. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporat it runs on time, the boats are frequently at the into the revised draft element. Bremerton dock at the same time. There is also a lot in the County along Sedgwick near the Table 8.x Park and Ride Lots Southworth terminal that is important to note. Mullinex PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised table and added descriptions of additional is another key piece that helps reduce traffic in PO. Any into the revised draft element. facilities to provide more information. others? Some of these locations will be problematic and located Noted - no change to existing language proposed. This 8.3.2.5 on top of already congested areas. Needs careful PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated information is derived from the Kitsap Transit Plan and coordination with the City. into the revised draft element. have been incorporated here for consistency. 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 Can we go into a little more detail about what each Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add a footnote referencing the Kitsap Transit 8.3.2.5 project will entail? PC-Ta into the revised draft element. Plan, which includes more project details. (referring to Sydney Rd park and ride) If this exists, add Comment accepted and incorporated 8.3.2.5 PC -Wright Revised to add this to the park and ride section. it to the table above. into the revised draft element. Needs more description. This is a very small airport for small aircraft only and largely private aircraft. No Comment accepted and incorporated 8.3.3 PC -Wright Revised to add additional information. terminal, no staff, no services. No bus route service that into the revised draft element. I am aware of. Is it worthy to mention the Amazon fulfillment center and its reliance on the Bremerton airport to ship in Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to add a footnote referencing Bremerton 8.3.3 goods? That is driving demand on the airport at the PC -Wright into the revised draft element. National Airport's Master Plan. moment and will grow in the next 20 years. Just curious - is the new roundabout at Bay St and Mile The Bay Street /Bethel roundabout's apron is designed Hill compatible with freight? I see larger trucks and Comment will not be incorporate 8.3.4 PC -Wright to allow trucks to drive on the apron to accommodate busses rolling over the center circle of the roundabout into the revised draft element. frequently. turning movements. 4 Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be Comment will not be incorporated 4 appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture 8.3.5 (referring to bicycle facilities) Again, what is this? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. 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 - IL all treatment. (referring to 'significant') I want data to prove how Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language to 'meaningful' to soften language 8.3.5 PC -Wright significant this truly is! into the revised draft element. while retaining intent. Revised language for clarity. Note that new This is written as if this is currently the case. If that is Comment will not be incorporated development projects are often required to 8.3.5 the intention, I disagree. Park and Rides are not easily PC -Wright into the revised draft element. provide/identify non -motorized access to transit accessed by non -motorized modes currently. facilities. Some portions of nonmotorized routes can be used for Comment will not be incorporated No revisions proposed -the current language refers to 8.3.5 commuting purposes to potentially reduce dal PC -Wright into the revised draft element. mode choice which would reduce vehicular trips. vehicular traffic volumes. Comprehensive Plan adopts Centers and their 8.3.5 (referring to adopted centers) ?? Established?? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporat boundaries. Subarea plans and development regulations into the revised draft element. implement and "establish" centers. See LU Element for additional information. The City can take measurable steps with this Transportation Element toward the goal s Comment accepted and incorporated Revised per comment, as there is no specific goal PC -Wright eveF8.3.5 , en's r sid ., nt's quality of life b creating a into the revised draft element. language supporting stricken text. safer walking and biking environment. Sidewalks and designated crosswalks are provided in Comment under additional 27 8.3.5.1 some residential subdivisions including McCormick PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Revised to remove all specific examples, as they can Woods, Flower Meadows, Leora, and Indigo Point. analysis. change over the course of the 20-year planning horizon. while the ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of 28 8.3.5.1 the adjacent property owner or HOA as outlined in Port PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate POMC 20.12 does not delegate maintenance Orchard Municipal Code 12.12. into the revised draft element. responsibilities of public sidewalks to HOAs. Noted - no proposed changes to language. This is Have you folks been to school at start/stop times??? written to encourage walking as a mode choice, which is reinforced in the City's subdivision requirements for safe 29 8.3.5.1 NO kids walk or bike to school anymore. Parents drive PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated walking routes to school. This document intends to them if the bus is inconvenient. Parent drop-offand pick t. into the revised draft element. guide policy over the 20-year planning horizon, in which up times are traffic headaches! Let's please be real. walking as a mode choice - particularly to schools - is intentional. Revised language: "The County -designated routes do Interesting. Why not? From the description - they meet Comment accepted and incorporated not cross into the city limits, but the bicycle facilities 30 8.3.5.3 or stop at city limits. Seems a good thing to say these PC -Wright into the revised draft element. they carry are incorporated to the nonmotorized system are the highest potential expansions into the city? vision described in this Element." Revised language: "...provide a connection between the 8.4.2 Port Orchard Boulevard Comment accepted and incorporated Tremont Medical Center and Downtown Port Orchard 31 (Tremont Street to Bay Street) Through a greenbelt or along the Boulevard? Unclear. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. via Port Orchard, a relatively low -volume roadway bound by greenbelt." The roadway design was modeled through the Bethel 8.4.2 Bethel Road (Bay Street to Will implementation of this preclude (prevent) Bethel Comment will not be incorporated 32 Sedgwick Road) expansion for cars and trucks? This may be a big deal! PC -Wright into the 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 8.4.2 McCormick Woods Drive (Old Please refrain from making "impact" statements. We Comment accepted and incorporated study is necessary to identify roadway design, 33 Clifton Road to Glenwood Road) have not made any SEPA decisions. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. engineering, and 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 8.4.2 McCormick Woods Drive (Old Good luck with this. We have real speed issues in Comment accepted and incorporated identify potential roadway design, engineering, and 34 Clifton Road to Glenwood Road) McWoods. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. enforcement 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 standards for nonmotorized vehicles. One added Comment under additional Revised language: "Further study is necessary to 8.4.2 St. Andrews Drive/Hawkstone determine the ultimate design which will facilitate 35 issue is that McCormick Woods is a golf cart community PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Avenue and they also use the widened shoulder. This area is analysis. safety and accessibility for all travel modes on this more complex than this draft Comp Plan describes. route." 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Retsil Rd is very skinny and runs along the Veteran's 8.4.2 Retsil Road (Mile Hill Drive to Comment will not be incorporated Bay Street) cemetery. Widening this 2-lane road will pose PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Revised referenced of "Retsil Park" to "Veterans Park." challenging. (SW Sedgwick Rd) No description like the other Comment accepted and incorporated Added sentence: "The conceptual design and vision for 8.4.5 PC -Wright the corridor is described in the Bethel Road and segments? Why the inconsistency? into the revised draft element. Sedgwick Road Corridor Study. " Noted - no changes to language proposed. This will be Comment will not be incorporate 8.4.5 Redundant with Bay St Ped Path above? PC -Wright programmed separately from the Bay Street pedestrian into the revised draft element. path. 8.4.5 (road diet) ?? Spelling/word selection. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised to add a footnote providing clarifying language. into the revised draft element. ONE" Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be Is this designated bike lanes? Facilities implies bike Comment will not be incorporated appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture 8.4.5 lockers, repair stations, toilets, whatever. Also sounds PC -Wright into the revised draft element. all types of treatments and through implementation expensive. 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 What does this mean in plain words all residents can throughout the Transportation Element. In plain speak, 8.5.1 (Last paragraph) understand? Tremont does not have to meet LOS PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated no matter how bad traffic gets on Tremont, we will not standards in the future? What other streets have this into the revised draft element. make this a 6 lane road. It is 4 lanes and a complete exemption? street and that is the extent of planned improvements for the street the 20-year planning period. 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. Comment under additional The introduction Element has added additional But the GMA is important and is the reason why we are 8.5.3 PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps for information related to GMA to provide context and planning. Why is this introduced so late -> eight analysis. scope for this Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update. 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 or a TON of detail and information that would be much Mandatory Elements RCW 36.70A.070. In addition, the more appropriate in the Transportation Improvement PSRC is the MPO for the region and distributes Plan resting with Public Works. Why is this in the Comp transportation funding. Coordinating land use plans Comment will not be incorporat 8.5.3 Plan? Makes it very hard to read, skews the volume of PC -Wright with the regional transportation system is one of the into the revised draft element. the plan hugely toward transportation and forces loss of primary reasons that we coordinate our local plan attention in most readers. I suggest Planning staff and regionally. This level of detail is required for plan the consultant discuss this to bring the Comp Plan into certification. balance. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Noted - no change to language proposed. This is the Hmm.... My experience with LOS D is not "moderate". Is Comment will not be incorporated accurate description for LOS D. Keep in mind LOS ratings 8.5.3 this a proper description? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. should not be 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 Noted - no change to language proposed. This level of have more structure to lend predictability to developers detail is to ensure consistency with development 8.5.3.2 and the CE to avoid conflict/arguments. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated regulations and engineering standards, and the Element into the revised draft element. as a whole has been structured for compliance with Again - this is a LOT of detail for a Comp Plan. It really regulatory requirements. should be elsewhere and referenced here. It seems very odd to me that a statement within the LOS policy is required to be defined in the Comp Plan say something must comply with the Comp Comment will not be incorporated Comprehensive Plan. It must also be adopted via 8.5.3.2 D.8 PC -Wright Plan.... See my note above about consistency and into the revised draft element. concurrency ordinance. Consistency between the two is bias/subjectivity with the CE. essential. Comment under additional Frankly, my review would be more thorough if I saw the Noted - updated maps provided in this Draft Element LOS Map PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for current state of LOS and other maps too. analysis. version. I've never seen this before. Land Use broken down into households and employees seems odd to me. How do This information is specific to the Travel Demand Model we plan schools without knowledge of children/family (TDM), which requires certain details for analysis that Comment will not be incorporate 8.6.1.1 size? Where does industrial, commercial, residential PC -Wright vary from the information used in other land use into the revised draft element. balance come in? Without employers, we have no planning, such as a land capacity analysis. This is the employees. If only employers are far away, no easy non- standard approach for TDMs. motorized access to work.... Section 8.6.2.1 was intended to answer the question of when: "The Port Orchard model was initially developed When?? When was all this modeling done that is Comment will not be incorporated 8.6.2.2 PC -Wright in 2015 based on the Kitsap County travel demand described in this section? into the revised draft element. model. It was updated in 2019 and most recently in 2022 for this Transportation Element update." These are mandatory elements in association with RCW As before -why all this heavy transportation modeling Comment will not be incorporated 8.6.2.4 detail in the Comp Plan? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. 36.70A.070. Additionally, the City does not have a standalone transportation plan. Comment under additional Information can be summarized/added to the This would be an excellent introduction to the 8.8 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for introduction of this Element - are there specific Transportation element in my view! analysis. suggestions/approaches you would like to see? Comment will not be incorporatedNoted 8.8.1 (one size does not fit all) Completely agree!! PC -Wright - no change to language proposed. into the revised draft element. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised 8.8.1 (Twin Cities) An odd reference without a state location. PC -Wright language for clarity. into the revised draft element. 54 55 56 57 m 8.8.1 VMT? PC -Wright Will need this on the agenda specifically to get that discussion organized. My view is: A TIF works pretty well when the plan is well defined and cost elements are Goal 3 PC -Wright organized to a reasonable level to tell the public costs will be well managed. TIFs can act as a "tax" on specific businesses and consumers so there is caution advised. On this note.... Why not have a policy that attempts to revitalize older areas of the city in the same manner? TR-36 PC -Wright Cost should not always be an issue with good policy making. TR-40 TR-46 (Bicycle facilities) Must be fully and adequately defined. PC -Wright I frankly do not like this loose term. 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. ALSO, we must recognize that many PO residents PC -Wright are over 50, and not likely to embrace alternative commuting methods that are "outside". 59 TR-49 Report to whom? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised to clarify "vehicle -miles traveled (VMT)" for the into the revised draft element. first reference in the Element. The previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Comment under additional Plan. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted consideration, identify next steps for version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning analysis. Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. These statements take a "10,000-foot" approach which is suited for long-range planning. Note that "new development" includes infill development in historic areas. Current City policy Comment will not be incorporat applies nonmotorized requirements to all new into the revised draft element. development. Also note that the upcoming transportation impact fee rate study will analyze a possible impact fee reduction for the downtown area. Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be Comment will not be incorporated appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture into the revised draft element. 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 Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are ML required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of Comment under additional detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive consideration, identify next steps for Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have analysis. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. .e 61 62 63 64 65 Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive TR-50 Seems redundant and unnecessary. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. 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 Goal 13 Combine Goal 12 and 13 into one. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. 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 Has the City done this for itself? Bicycle parking and Comment under additional detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive TR-58 storage? I hate to impose stuff on private development PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Plan and have been removed. Goals &policies have when the City does not adhere to its' mandates. analysis. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. PFMM Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive TR-59 How does this apply to private development? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. 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 TR-60 How does this apply to private development? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. 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 TR-61, 62 Private? Seems misplaced as written. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. 67 m 70 71 Some previous goals and policies went into a level of To provide an adequate system of arterials and collector detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Goal 17 streets which connect the City and adjacent PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have development areas to Kitsap County roads and the State into the revised draft element. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION highway system and adjacent arterials. 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. How about a policy to sync traffic lights to avoid delays Some previous goals and policies went into a level of and traffic backups? Bethel/Tremont, Bethel/Sedgwick, Sedgwick/Sindey, etc. Comment under additional detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive TR-74 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Plan and have been removed. Goals &policies have What about a policy to alleviate traffic congestion by analysis. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION new developments in already difficult areas? IE - don't 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are let them build if traffic is already congested. required for plan certification. or A Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive TR-91 Seems to me a focused policy on traffic mitigation is PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have needed. into the revised draft element. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are OL required for plan certification. This is not just about trucks! Buyers and shoppers have Some previous goals and policies went into a level of to get to the stores to spend money or we will become Comment under additional detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Goal 24 an Amazon dominated community. Buyers will need PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have more than a bicycle or a backpack to take their analysis. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION purchases home. We have to consider the residents 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are and economic power of folks not living in PO. required for plan certification. To be honest, I like these policies better than the old ones above. These are succinct, to the point and not Some previous goals and policies went into a level of overly focused on non -motorized transport. Comment under additional detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive PRSC Transportation Goals and PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have Policies I strongly recommend we start with these, cut out the analysis. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION unnecessary stuff above and build a strong and effective 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are set of transportation policies without overly focusing on required for plan certification. bikes and walking. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not appropriate for a Comprehensive Sustainability Goal Goal: The city's transportation system is well -designed PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have and managed with the intent to minimize into the revised draft element. been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. 72 Human Health and Safety T-: Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health, including exposure PC -Wright to environmental toxins generated by vehicle emissions, fire, electrocution, etc. T-: Develop a transportation system that blends and 73 Human Health and Safety balances the needs and opportunities of residents to 74 Environmental Justice utilize all modes of transportation sa PC -Wright Always remember - low income populations rely on gas vehicles to get around! Many hold several jobs and must get from place A to B to C without delay. PC -Wright Restricting single 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 Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. 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 Comment accepted and incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. 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 Comment will not be incorporated Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have into the revised draft element. been replaced by an 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 - CAPITAL FACILITIES COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number No revisions to existing language. There is no peninsula - When we talk about land use capacity, data is given as to what population and wide study, however the Foster Project does address job growth Port Orchard can accommodate. Is there a study showing what the Comment will not be incorporated 1 General Question PC -Ashby water supply for Port Orchard. There is additional water availability is for the entire peninsula? Do we have an overall picture of into the revised draft element. language related to the water system both in the what the region can support? Or is this what the Foster Project is about. Utilities Element and the City's Water System Plan. Comment accepted and incorporated The Vision statement has been revised to be more 2 9-1 Vision Can we make this more succinct? PC-Ta into the revised draft element. 411111 succinct. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised 3 9-1 (1st paragraph, 3rd sentence) Delete 'first' PC-Ta per suggested edit. into the revised draft element. 4 9-1 5 9-1 11 7 E3 (3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence) This sentence is hard to understand. Can we break PC-Ta it up or reword? (3rd paragraph, last sentence) Why re-evaluate the land use element in PC-Ta particular? Revised language slightly, we want to ensure Comment under additional consistency with GMA Planning Goal #12 in the consideration, identify next steps for document. GMA Planning Goal 12 here: analysis. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70a& full=true Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. No revisions to existing language - The land use element specifies the intensity of land use. Land use changes may be required if there are insufficient facilities to support the allowed use of land. (Last paragraph) We never gave a definition/exhaustive list of what capital Comment accepted and incorporated Revised language for clarity. A list of these facilities is 9-1 facilities include. Therefore, I don't really know what to expect as a reader of PC-Ta into the revised draft element. provided in the second paragraph of Section 9-1. whats to come. Comment accepted and incorporated The functional plans that were reviewed as part of this 9-1 Functional Plans When was the last time each plan was updated? PC-Ta into the revised draft element. element are listed in the "Functional Plans" section. The years of the most recent updates have been added. 9-1 Future Needs A map (of aging infrastructure) would be a great visualization here PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. 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 Plan. A map of this type would require revisions and updates 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. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 No revisions to existing language - This section Why doesn't the FCA simply include this task to assess current and future space recommends each separately to address different issues 9-1 Increased Demand needs, recommend investments, etc. Seems wasteful as written - I suggest one PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate (aging infrastructure and increased demand), however FCA that accomplishes all the facilities assessment, needs, recommendations, and into the revised draft element. these tasks can be done together depending on the future planning. priorities of the Mayor and Council. Comment accepted and incorporatedRevised 9-1 Partner Efforts Awkward sentence - "such as" used twice. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. per suggested edit. 9-1 Partner Efforts Should jurisdictions be plural? What other jurisdictions are we working with? Is PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated Revised for clarity, including a reference to associated there a formal plan we are following? Can this plan be cited? into the revised draft element. plans. No revisions to existing language - The other updated There are too many goals and polices in this section - it is frankly unmanageable. elements were reviewed and this update removes 9-2 There is much redundancy with other Elements and where possible - refer back PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated redundancies and consolidates/simplifies remaining to specific Elements to avoid unnecessary redundancy. I think there are a set of into the revised draft element. goals and policies. Further revisions may require Capital facility policies that can be built that are generic to ANY capital project. additional public and Council input and direction. Revisions to language include identifying the costly maintenance and site selection study within the It's mentioned that the library is "nearing the end of its useful life". What does "Library" section in Administration. It now reads "The 9-2 this mean? I personally would hate to see the library move because the current Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporate building is nearing the end of its useful life, costly to location is very convenient for citizens due to its close proximity to the ferry into the revised draft element. maintain, and requires upgrades or relocation of the library functions. A 2020 site selection process identified im a site for the new library and community events center." Revised for clarity: """- ke facilities investments *"-a* (referring to reducing health disparities) I do not understand what this means in seed Consider investing in sidewalks, trails, and other Comment accepted and incorporated capital facilities that enhance walkability in an effort to CF-12 context of capital facilities. Is this policy needed? Seems this is an implied PC -Wright into the revised draft element. reduce health disparities and improve well-being and objective of the capital facilities overall. 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 No changes to existing language proposed, as it reflects author implying Port Orchard has "marginalized" part of our city community and PSRC Vision 2050: "historically underserved" part of our community? These are dangerous - "underserved populations" in CF-4 references MPP-PS- CF-14 statements and frankly, untrue in my experience living in Port Orchard. In CF-15 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate 16 below - we say underrepresented populations . Are you implying Port Orchard into the revised draft element. - "marginalized communities" in CF-14 references MPP- has excluded some populations? There is no consistency with the way this PS-29 section and other Elements of the Comp Plan draft deals with this issue. We - "underrepresented populations" in CF-15 references must treat everyone equally and fairly. If we use terms like the ones I've RC-Action-4 highlighted, we must define them and explain this is much greater detail. 16 17 IN 19 20 21 22 23 No changes to existing language proposed. These Unnecessary. Implies the city excludes. What are "meaningful inclusive Comment will not be incorporate policies are drawn from the PSRC Vision 2050 Goal 3 PC -Wright (https://www.psrc.org/media/1699), MPP-DP-8 notes opportunities„ in CF-15? into the revised draft element. to "conduct inclusive engagement to identify and address the diverse needs of the region's residents." Minor revisions to introduction section to address how I have not done this yet - but the consultant should do so to help us manage the the goals and policies in this section builds on goals and Goal 4 volume of this overall document. How do these policies align with the Parks PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated policies of other elements. Element? This can be written: In addition to the Policies in the Parks Element, into the revised draft element. Duplicative information is not beneficial in the Plan, the following policies for capital facilities related to parks are as follows:". 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 achieving it. If it is stale and not likely going to happen -drop it and find a Comment under additional No revisions proposed. This was Policy CF-37 in the CF-21 better policy to pursue. I recommend we ask this question of every policy PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for previous Capital Facilities Element. Staff intends on proposed and weed out old, stale policies that will never receive much actual analysis. retaining policy, however further discussion can occur at effort. If this is a new suggestion, I'm all for it! the next Planning Commission meeting. Comment will not be incorporated No revisions proposed. This policy supports other CF-35 Isn't this taken care of through SEPA and design standards? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. policies in the Element and helps ensure consistency across policy language. No revisions proposed. This section recommends each (referring to first 2 bullets) I still think this can be one combined effort to save Comment will not be incorporate in separate bullets to address different issues (aging 9-3 - Future Needs PC -Wright infrastructure and increased demand), however these time and money. FCA and CFP are very linked. into the revised draft element. tasks can be done together depending on the priorities of the Mayor and Council. Comment under additional The GMA requires that capital budget decisions be 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 made in accordance with the comp plan. Once updated, analysis. this table will outline our 5-year spending plan. This information will be updated once obtained. 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 reviewed and eliminated / consolidated / simplified into the revised draft element. many repetitive previous goals and/or policies. Revised for clarity. The number of students was revised Comment accepted and incorporated to over 9,112 to reflect the Spring 2024 Annual Report 9-3 - Fire and Schools When was this data pulled? PC-Ta and the square miles removed as we were unable to into the revised draft element. verify. Elementary was changed to (K-5). "Junior high" was also updated to "middle" schools (6-8) 24 25 26 27 m (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 9-3 -Public Safety Facilities point of the renovation? PC-Ta "The renovation to tackle on this department's critical needs was unfortunately out of scope due to..." Public Safety Facilities, Existing Conditions, Police Shooting Range and Storage: It's mentioned that there's a concern that the outdoor range would be a noise 9-3 disturbance on developing nearby areas, but I'd like to point out that the range Public -Danielson isn't near any proposed/designated/expected/candidate centers Utilities and Transportation, Transportation: Where can I find more info on these 9-3 plans and stages? The current table doesn't mean anything to me as a citizen Public -Danielson Utilities and Transportation, Transportation: There is a greater than 200% increase in 2026 expenditures compared to previous years. I would like an 9-3 Public -Danielson explanation for why this year in particular is so expensive 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 9-3 mentioned. Also does the city still own the area along Blackjack Creek, near Public -Danielson Seattle Ave, which was mentioned on the previous plan? Revised to add additional details: "While 2024 Comment accepted and incorporated renovations will maximize space use and improve into the revised draft element. some operations, they will not address many critical needs or add space to accommodate long-term growth" No revisions to existing language. While it is not located Comment will not be incorporated near identified centers, it is important to note potential into the revised draft element. land use compatibility issues. Note this does not preclude nearby development in any way, but is more of an identification of the use and noise associated with it. 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- Comment under additional system -plan/ consideration, identify next steps for - General Sewer System Plan: analysis. https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/general-sewer- plan-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/portorchard wa/uploads/2022/11/05-Port-Orchard-PROS-Plan-31- January.pdf No revisions to existing language proposed. More Comment will not be incorporateinformation on transportation expenditures can be into the revised draft element. found in the Transportation Element. A major consideration in 2026 expenditure growth is the Bethel Phase 1 construction. Comment accepted and incorporated Revised introductory language to reflect that this list is into the revised draft element. specific to parks with structures. The City's PROS Plan provides a more detailed list for individual parks. 29 30 Parks Facilities, Existing Conditions and Future Needs: We have several large county parks (such as South Kitsap Regional Park and Veterans Memorial Park). 9-3 Public -Danielson Do those need to be factored into parks/ person for current and future goals? Parks Facilities, Existing Conditions, Future Needs: Since the Port Orchard 9-3 Community Center is going to be downtown, I would like to see some mixed use Public -Danielson out of it. Maybe a cafe? Comment will not be incorporated No revisions to existing language proposed. These parks into the revised draft element. are identified in the PROS Plan and need to be accounted for in the County's UP rather than the City's. No revisions to existing language proposed. Staff agrees, Comment will not be incorporhowever this is outside of the context of the a into the revised draft element. Comprehensive 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 - CLIMATE COMMENTS Comment Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number (referring to 2nd paragraph) how about this: Comment accepted and Comment used as the basis for the Vision Statement for 1 10.1 Build an environmental resilient community while ensuring participation in reduction of PC-Ta incorporated into the revised draft the Climate Element. green house gases. element. 2 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/search?q=sea+level+rise For extreme events see: https://cliffmass.b logs pot. 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. Importantly, there is no upward trend of the high temperatures on both sides 10.1 PC -Wright of the Cascades, 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.html into 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. 3 4 5 X 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 students in every program should be of 10.01 the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each individual represents their PC -Wright 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 10.1 counties 4+14�-planning under the GMA to incorporate a dedicated climate element into PC -Wright their comprehensive plan. The City of Port Orchard eemmits te acknowledges the ambitious goals for reducing 10.1 emissions, promoting cleaner energy sources, and minimizing our carbon footprint, PC -Wright consistent with Washington State's GHG goal of net zero emissions by 2050. 10.2 (GHG emissions) How is reduction defined? What is the reduction relative to? PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. 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 Not revised for consistency with RCW 36.70A.040. into the revised draft element. Not revised, language used to identify City's Comment will not be incorporated commitment to establish policies and goals that are into the revised draft element. 9 consistent with Washington State's GHG goals. 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. Comment under additional The Department of Commerce is still preparing consideration, identify next steps for guidance for incorporating this analysis into analysis. 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/ This needs a reference. (referring to the Menu of Measures provided by the Comment accepted and 7 10.2 Department of Commerce PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Added footnote reference for Menu of Measures. ) element. 10 10.3 10.3 10.3 As global temperatures increase, sea levels are rising. This poses a SigRffifieaRt risk to coastal areas, including Port Orchard. Rising sea levels are expected to exacerbate Comment accepted and challenges with flooding and saltwater intrusion in the City's downtown area, which the PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested text edit. City has addressed in its Downtown Subarea Plan and Shoreline Master Program element. 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 This is consistent with the Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment, which details potential 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-oysteracidifi cation. htmI PC -Wright PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft i Comment will not be i into the revised draft i 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 oysters, but multiple types of marine life: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding- ocean- acidification#:-:text=For%20good%20reason%2C%20oc can%20acidification,health%20is%20also%20a%20conc ern. 11 12 13 14 15 16 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 10.4 approximately 2.06 mm a year or 8.1 inches per century. There is no hint of acceleration of the upward trend, even 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. 10.4 I think this table is very premature. We should not include something like this until we are required to. CC-10 I would like to see an expansion of trees used for traffic calming, i.e. in roadway medians CC-11 I am not a fan of a 100% conversion of the City fleet. "All eggs in one basket" CC-11a Encourage, promote, incentivize but not require. CC-12a + 12b Remember how well this worked when COVID hit us? NOBODY took public transportation. PC -Wright PC -Wright Public -Danielson PC -Wright PC -Wright PC -Wright PPM" Comment will not be into the revised draft 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 change element consistent with the Comment will not be incorporated guidance from the Department of Commerce. If PC into the revised draft element. 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 the chapter. Comment will not be incorporated This is required for new streets through the PWESS. into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporated This is a state -level mandate. into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorpora This is currently required under the State Building into the revised draft element. Code, and is required in POMC Title 20. Comment will not be incorporated These policies reduce auto dependence and promote efficient transit service. These results are instrumental into the revised draft element. into creating a walkable environment. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I'm curious how increasing housing diversity and supply will reduce GHG emissions. These forms of housing can promote walkable areas CC-14 This increased density will cause much vegetation loss unless the construction is PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated and reduce vehicle trips. In conjunction with tree redevelopment. into the revised draft element. 1A canopy 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 Goal 3 wondering which policy takes precedence. I think a better option would be to add a PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated dedicated Climate Change element is required "Climate Change Policy" to each of the elements of the Comp Plan rather than have this into the revised draft element. pursuant to HB 1181. redundancy. Comment will not be incorporated The Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Policy CC-15a This is really not a concern for us. Heavy rainfall and poor drainage is the issue. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Assessment and UW CIG CRMW provides a source for the risk of flooding to infrastructure. CC-16a Redundant with general environment and land use policies. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporat Many of the measures will be applicable to other into the revised draft element. chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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 I'll bite -such as??? What are you thinking about here? Some research was done with from the many of measures includes a supplemental high rise window "skins" that were photovoltaic and generated electricity. Some high description that provides some examples such as CC-16b rises have investigated piping infrastructure with in -line energy generators, some PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated consistent and connected awnings over sidewalks can building have incorporated complex heat pumps, and some have incorporated water into the revised draft element. provide shade from heat waves and storms, and could treatment systems to use gray water for flushing, etc. include photovoltaic panels. Cool roofs covered in light colors or reflective pigments can help direct away the suns heat, cooling buildings and surrounding areas. Green roofs can also help insulate buildings from solar heat. This policy is incorporated from the menu of measures and intended to assist communities in drafting goals This is WA state's responsibility, not City of PO. This can say "work with WA state and Comment under additional and policies absent any climate action planning to meet CC-17a federal agencies to "promote the protection ....... Impacted by climate change. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps for the requirements set forth in HB 1181 and the analysis. Department of Commerce's Intermediate Planning Guidance. Policy language modified to include "encourage"language. Comment accepted and Policy revised to identify maintaining current City CC-17b Same comment as above. PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft practices in coordination with the Tribe. element. 24 25 CC-18 CC-22 26 CC-24 27 CC-25 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 individual represents their PC -Wright 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 Scientific data does not support that overburdened communities will suffer more than PC -Wright others under climate change scenarios. The opposite is likely true. As Climate changes, many predictions suggest that transportation disruptions will be localized 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. This section is consistent with Vision 2050's definition of Equity: All people can attain the resources and Comment will not be incorporated opportunities that improve their quality of life and into the revised draft element. enable them to reach full potential. Those affected by poverty, communities of color, and historically Comment will not be in into the revised draft el 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 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. w Prioritizing GHG reductions that benefit overburdened Comment will not be incorporated communities is a requirement of HB 1181. See RCW into the revised draft element. 36.70.070(9)(d)(i)(C). Noted - all new development and redevelopment Comment will not be incorpora projects, downtown and otherwise, will be subject to into the revised draft element. current stormwater regulations that are designed to mitigate these impacts. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (36o) 874-5533 • FAX: (36o) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 5(b) Meeting Date: October 29, 2024 Revisions to POMC 20.20, 20.22, 20.24, 20.25, 20.50, 20.86, 20.88, 20.96, 20.127, Subject: 20.132, and 20.200 — Permit Processing Prepared by: Nick Bond, Development Director Issue: The City of Port Orchard is considering an Ordinance amending Title 20 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC). The amendments are required to ensure consistency with Senate Bill 5290 (SSSB 5290), which was enacted by the Washington State Legislature in 2023 and will take effect on January 1, 2025. These changes relate to project permit procedures and timelines. The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on this matter and provide a recommendation to the City Council. SSSB 5290 amended certain provisions of Chapter 36.7013 RCW, establishing new requirements for local governments regarding project permit processing timelines. Key provisions of the bill include: • Updated deadlines for issuing decisions on project permits. • Introduction of options for local governments to implement to avoid partial permit fee refunds, including budgeting on -call permitting staff, contingent budgeting based on permit revenues, and making preapplication meetings optional. In response to these changes, the City of Port Orchard must update the POMC to ensure compliance by December 31, 2024. Failure to adopt these amendments could result in non-compliance with state law. The proposed Ordinance will amend multiple sections of the POMC, specifically sections 20.20.020(3), 20.22.030(5), 20.22.040(6), 20.22.050(6)(a), and others as listed in the Ordinance. The amendments will: • Align permit processing timelines with the requirements of SSSB 5290. • Implement three options from the menu provided in RCW 36.70B.080(1)(1)(ii) to avoid partial fee refunds, including maintaining on -call permitting staff, budgeting for new staff positions, and making preapplication meetings optional. A public hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled for October 29, 2024, in accordance with the notice requirements of POMC 20.25. The City issued a SEPA Determination of Non -significance (DNS) for the Ordinance on October 15, 2024, and no significant environmental impacts were identified. Additionally, on October 16, 2024, the City requested expedited review of the proposed amendments by the Washington State Department of Commerce. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to POMC 20.20.020(3), 20.22.030(5), 20.22.040(6), 20.22.050(6)(a), 20.22.060(6), 20.24.010(3), 20.24.040, 20.24.060(1), 20.24.060(5), 20.24.070(1), 20.24.110, 20.25.010(2), 20.50.060, 20.86.100, 20.88.060, 20.88.080(5), 20.96.080, 20.127.310, 20.132.050(5), and 20.200.005. Suggested Motion: "I move to recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amending Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.20, 20.22, 20.24, 20.25, 20.50, 20.86, 20.88, 20.96, 20.127, 20.132, and 20.200 as presented. Attachments: Ordinance, and SB 5290 2 ORDINANCE No. **-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PROJECT PERMIT PROCEDURES AND TIMELINES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20.20.020(3), 20.22.030(5), 20.22.040(6), 20.22.05o(6)(a), 20.22.060(6), 20.24.010(3), 20.24.040, 20.24.060(1), 20.24.060(5), 20.24.070(1), 20.24.110, 20.25.010(2), 20.50.060, 20.86.100, 20.88.060, 20.88.080(5), 20.96.080, 20.127.310, 20.132.050(5), AND 20.200.005 OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard is a code city operating under Title 35A RCW, among other laws; and WHEREAS, in Title 20 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code, the City Council has established the City's development regulations, which include procedures and timelines for the review and processing of project permits, in accordance with Chapter 36.7oB RCW; and WHEREAS, in 2023, the Washington State legislature enacted SSSB 5290, which amends certain provisions in Chapter 36.7oB RCW relating to the review and processing of project permit applications, including the timelines for issuing decisions on project permits, and these amendments will take effect on January 1, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is necessary to amend the provisions of Title 20 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code as stated in this Ordinance, to make the City Code consistent with Chapter 36.7oB RCW, as amended by SSSB 5290; and WHEREAS, SSSB 5290 included a provision for partial permit fee refunds but provided a menu of options that a city could choose to implement to avoid being subject to the payment of partial refunds; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to document that it has selected three options from the menu found in RCW 36.7oB.o8o (1) (I) (ii) including: (d) maintaining and budgeting on -call permitting staff and resources, (e) having new positions budgeted that are contingent on increased permit revenues, and (g) adopting development regulations which make preapplication meetings 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 optional; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance was submitted to the Department of Commerce for review on 2024, and review was granted on , 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the substance of this Ordinance on October 30, 2024 and recommended adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the recommendation from the Planning Commission, all public comment, and the Ordinance, finds that this Ordinance is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.7oA RCW, and that the amendments herein are in the best interests of the residents of the City and further advance the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amendment. Section 20.20.020(3) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (3) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the city, including, but not limited to, building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, conditional use permits, variances, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, site development permits, design reviews, permits or approvals required by critical areas regulations, and site - specific rezones, which do not require a comprehensive plan amendment. SECTION 2. Amendment. Section 20.22.030(5) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (5) Decision. (a) Unless a permit type has been excluded from the 12o d permit decision timelines established in POMC 20.24.11o2e-.24-.i-oA, pursuant to RCW 36.7oB.14o, all Type I applications are subject to the permit decision timelines, but in mest If no correction cycles are required, review should be complete within approximately 30 calendar days from the date of technical completeness. Correction cycles will extend review time in proportion to the time the city must 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 wait for an applicant to submit additional or corrected information. (b) The decision of the director may be reflected on the plans or permit itself or may be documented in a written report or letter of approval. SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 20.22.040(6) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (6) Decision. Type II decisions are subject to the maximum ioo+2e-day timeline requirement pursuant to POMC 20.24.110 20-2-4--loo. A decision for a Type II action shall be made in writing by the director and shall include the following information: (a) A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application; (b) A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law; (c) A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the department which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria; (d) A summary of public comment received and how the department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns; and (e) The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law. SECTION 4. Amendment. Section 20.22.05o(6)(a) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (6) Decision. (a) A written decision for a Type III action shall be issued by the hearing examiner within 14 calendar days after the date the record closes, and not later than 170 calendar days after the issuance of the determination of technical completeness pursuant to POMC 20.24.110, whichever is earlier, unless the applicant has consented in writing to an extension of this time period. The hearing examiner's decision shall include the following information: (i) A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application; (ii) A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in the municipal code and other applicable law; (iii) A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the hearing examiner which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria and standards; (iv) A summary of public testimony and public comment received and how the department or the applicant responded to the public 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 testimony and public comments; and (v) The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law. SECTION 5. Amendment. Section 20.22.060(6) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (6) Decision. Following receipt of a recommendation from the hearing body, the city council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Type IV application by ordinance. Pursuant to POMC 20.24.110, the City Council's decision must be issued within 170 calendar days of the issuance of the determination of technical completeness, unless the applicant has consented in writing to an extension of this time period. SECTION 6. Amendment. Section 20.24.010(3) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (3) , Ppotential applicants or their designees are encouraged to request and attend a preapplication conference with eCity staff for all Type II, Type III, and Type IV land use actions. ient sheuld be deemed waived in the event the dir-eeter- or- dir-eeter-'s designee is tinavailable te When a preapplication conference is requested, the applicant shall meet with the director and any other staff members, as appropriate, to discuss the proposed development. SECTION 7. Amendment. Section 20.24.040 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Counter -completeness. (1) Applications may be submitted to the city in any of the following manners: electronically, mailed to the city, or brought in person to the city, mailed te the eity, ef submitted eleetfenieally using the eity's All three of these systems are acceptable methods for counter -complete review. However, in no case will an application be deemed counter -complete until such time as the submission requirements listed in POMC 20.24.030, including the minimum required application pent fees, are received by the � , itt a in-fuR. (2) An application is counter -complete if the director finds that the application purports and appears to include the information required by the master permit application and associated permit application(s) and all required fees have been paid; provided, no effort shall be made to evaluate the substantive adequacy of the information in the application(s) in the counter -complete review process. No effort shall 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 be made to determine ownership of land as part of the counter - complete review process. (3) Timing of counter -complete determination. eemplete, then the appheant shaR pay the appr-epr-iate fees at the time of submitta Cal For applications submitted electronically or mailed to the cityef submitted eleetfenieaHy, within two business days of receipt of the application, the director shall either: (1) determine that the application is tie —counter -complete deter-minatien shall be made if the requirements of Paragraph 2 of this section are met; or (2) determine that the application is not counter -complete if the requirements of Paragraph 2 of this section are not met, in which case the director shall reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter -complete. If the city does not provide a counter -complete decision for an electronically submitted or a ter- ., i do fe a mailed application within two business days of receipt, the application shall be deemed counter -complete as of the third business day from receipt provided that all required application components and fees are included with the mailed application. If the city determines that a +,,,.,.,.,inatie fe an electronically submitted or a mailed application is not counter -complete and informs the application in writing what is needed to make the application counter -complete, the application shall be determined or deemed to be counter -complete within five business days of the notificationenline submitW only if the missing application components and all required application fees are received by the city no later than four business days following the notification to the applicant. (b) For applications brought in person to the city, the director shall make a counter -complete determination while the applicant is present. If the director decides that the application is counter -complete in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this section, then the applicant shall pay the appropriate fees at the time of submittal. If the director determines that the application is not counter -complete, then the director shall reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter -complete. (4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, nNo application shall be automatically deemed counter -complete due to the passage of time unless the submission requirements listed in POMC 20.24.030, including the application fees, are timely received in accordance with this section. 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 SECTION 8. Amendment. Section 20.24.060(1) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (1) Within 28 calendar days of determining an application as counter - complete, the director shall provide a written determination as to whether the deter -mine whether- an application is technically complete. A project permit application is technically complete for purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of this chapter as well as the submission requirements contained in other applicable sections of the code. This determination of technical completeness shall be made when the application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be subsequently undertaken. (a) The written determination shall state either (i) that the application is technically complete, or (ii) that the application is incomplete and that the procedural submission requirements have not been met, in which case the determination shall outline what information or steps are necessary to make the application procedurally complete. SECTION A. Amendment. Section 20.24.060(5) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (5) If the director does not provide a written determination that an application is technically incomplete within the 28-day period, the application shall be deemed technically complete for processing as of the twenty-ninth calendar day following the determination of counter -completeness. If the director does not provide a written determination that an application is technically incomplete, the city may still seek additional information or studies as provided in this ,Potion _ SECTION io.Amendment. Section 20.24.070(i) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (1) Within io business 14 calendar days of determining an application as technically complete, and before making a decision on the application, the director shall issue a notice of application as set forth in POMC 20.25.oio. The director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves unusual 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 circumstances. SECTION ii. Amendment. Section 20.24.110 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.24.iio Notice of decision. (1) Contents. The notice of decision issued by the director for Type I and II actions, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the hearing body on Type III and IV actions shall include the following, as a minimum: (a) A list of all project permits included in the decision, including all permits being reviewed through the consolidated review process; (b) Date and description of the decision; (c) Statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW); (d) Procedures for an administrative appeal, if any; (e) Statement that the affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation by contacting the Kitsap County assessor; (f) Duration of the permit approval and a statement summarizing the permit expiration and extension procedures (if any); and (g) Statement that the complete project permit file, including findings, conclusions, and conditions of approval, if any, is available for review. The notice shall list the place that the file is available and the name and telephone number of the city representative to contact about reviewing the file. (2) Persons Entitled to Receive Notice of Decision. A notice of decision, or the written findings of fact and conclusions, shall be provided to the applicant, to any person who submitted written comments on the application (other than a signed petition), to any person who testified at the hearing or any person who requested in writing a copy of the decision, and to the Kitsap County assessor. (3) For project permit applications, the city shall issue a notice of decision within the following timelines ^^ days of the issua ee of th a ter- i tie of teehnieal „ rlet r ss on the rliea tie , unless the time period has been modified pursuant to RCW 36.7oB.oBo or RCW -16JoB.140, or unless the applicant has agreed to a different deadline:_ (a) For project permits which do not require public notice of application under RCW 36.7oB.11o, the city must issue a final decision within 65 days of issuance of the determination of technical completeness on the application; (b) For project permits which require public notice of application under RCW 36.7oB.iio, the city must issue a final decision within ioo days of the determination of technical completeness on the 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 application; and (c) For project permits which require public notice of application under RCW ,16.7oB.iloand public hearing, the city must issue a final decision within 17o days of the determination of technical completeness on the application. (4) In calculating the time periods for issuance of the notice of decision, the number of days shall be calculated by counting every calendar day and excluding the following periods s,.,.,11 be exelu a: (a) Any period between the day that the director has notifies the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application and the day when responsive information is resubmitted by the applicant to the city; during planspeff-er"'im r-egdired studies, vi�„vAdezadditio additional r-e"ir-ea inf6r-matien. The period sh•,lzcll begin frem the-&te th{icdir-eE�6r notifies the appiieant ofthe needdiant- l the date deter -mines that the adds ena r fe ^titre date the additional in fe ,,.,. atior is pfe-Aded to the eity, . -hie>,,,ye f ; earlier; (b) If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the particular insufficiencies and the procedures set forth in POMC 20.24.06o for calculating the exclusion period shall apply; (c) Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.16o POMC; (d) Any period after an applicant informs the city, in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend review of the application until the time that the applicant notifies the city, in writing, that they would like to resume the application; (d) Any period after an administrative appeal is filed until the administrative appeal is resolved and any additional time period provided by the administrative appeal has expired; provided, that the city may set conditions on the temporary suspension of a permit application; f6r-eensider-atio ' and 'ss anee of a deeision fvadministrative appeals of pr-ejee-t per-mits; (e) Any extension of time mutually agreed to in writing by the director and the applicant, and (f) If, at any time, an applicant informs the director, in writing, that the applicant would like to temporarily suspend the review of the project for more than 6o consecutive days, or if an applicant is not responsive for more than 6o consecutive days after the cite notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application, an additional go days may be added to the time periods for the city to issue a final 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 decision on the application. Any written notice from the director to the applicant that additional information is required to further process the application must include a notice that nonresponsiveness for 6o consecutive dUs may result in 3o days being added to the time for review. For purposes of this section, "nonresponsiveness" means that an applicant is not making demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information to the local government, or that there is no ongoing communication or willingness to provide the additional information. (5) The time limits established in this section do not apply to applications that: (a) Are not project permit applications (such as amendments to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation); (b) Require siting approval of an essential public facility; (c) Are substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director. SECTION 12.Amendment. Section 20.25.010(2) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (2) Within - o 1-.••.,;n,,s 14 calendar days after the city has made a determination of technical completeness, and before making a decision on an application, the director shall issue a notice of application to: (a) All owners of record of real property within a minimum of 300 feet of the subject site. However, if the owner of the real property which is the subject of the application owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real property included in the application, notice under this subsection shall be given to owners of real property located within 300 feet of any portions of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcels of real property owned by the owner of the real property included in the application; (b) All city -recognized neighborhood groups or associations whose boundaries include the subject site; (c) Any person who submits a written request to receive a notice; and (d) Any government agency that is entitled to notice or that is affected by the application. SECTION ii. Amendment. Section 20.50.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 2O.50.o6o Deadline for final decision. A conditional use permit application shall be approved, approved with conditions, remanded or denied within the time established in POW 20.24.110(4)(iii) fie, unless the applicant consents in writing to a longer processing time period. SECTION 14. Amendment. Section 20.86.100 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2O.86.ioo Time limitation for final decision. A short subdivision application shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied within the time established in POW 20.24.110(4)(ii) after determination that a complete application has been submitted pursuant to POMC 20.24.o6o2e.24-e5e, unless the applicant consents in writing to an extension of such time period or if the preparation of an EIS is required. SECTION 15. Amendment. Section 20.88.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2O.88.o6o Time limitation for final decision. A preliminary plat application shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied within the time established in POW 20.24.110(4)(iii)' after an application has been determined to be complete pursuant to POMC 20.24.0600, unless the applicant consents to an extension in writing of such time period; provided, that if an environmental impact statement is required as provided in RCW 43.21C.030, the i2o day period for issuing the decision on the preliminaryplat application shall not include the time spent preparing and circulating the environmental impact statement by the city or time during which the applicant has been asked to provide additional information to the city but has not yet responded. SECTION 16. Amendment. Section 20.88.080(5) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (5) Time Limitation for Decision. A preliminary subdivision modification application, either minor or major, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied within the time established in POMC 20.24.110(4)(i) or (iii)T2o days after the application is determined to be complete pursuant to POMC 20.24.o60e, unless the applicant consents to an extension in writing of such time period; provided, that if an environmental impact statement is required as provided in RCW 43.21C.030, the i2o d period for 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 issuing the decision on the preliminary subdivision modification application shall not include the time spent preparing and circulating the environmental impact statement by the city. SECTION 17. Amendment. Section 20.96.080 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.96.08o Time limitation for final decision. A vacation or alteration application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied within the time established in POMC 20.24.110(4)(ii) or (iii)i2o days after the application has been determined to be complete pursuant to POMC 20.24.o6oe, unless the applicant consents in writing to an extension of such time period. SECTION 18. Amendment. Section 20.127.310 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.127.3io Applicability and compliance. (1) See POMC 20.127.020(1) for clarification on the types of development to which these standards apply; provided, that applications for interior alterations are exempt from site plan review, if the interior alteration does not result in (a) additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms; (b) nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or (c) an increase in the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression s. sue. For purposes of this section, "interior alterations" include construction activities that do not modify the existing site layout or its current use and involve no exterior work adding to the building footprint. (2) See POMC 20.127.020(2) for the relationship between the provisions in this article and other documents and codes. (3) See POMC 20.127.020(3) for the application of building additions and remodels and site improvements. SECTION 19. Amendment. Section 20.132.050(5) of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (5) Notice of Final Decision. A notice of decision incorporating the decision on the sign permit application shall issue within the time established in POMC 20.24.110(4)(i)-- :L ---e than 12o days after 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 issuance of the determination of completeness. This deadline shall not apply if a street use permit or special event permit is required. SECTION 20. Amendment. Section 20.200.005 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20-200.005 plicability and compliance. All permits issued pursuant to the codes adopted by reference in this chapter shall follow a Type I permit process pursuant to Chapter 20.22 POMC. However, the time limits for permit issuance found in POMC 20.22 and 20.24, as amended in accordance with RCW . .7oB.o8o, shall not apply to permits issued pursuant to the codes adopted by reference in this chapter, pursuant to the changes to the definition of "Project Permit" found in RCW 36.7oB.02o as modified by SSSB 5290 (2023). SECTION 21. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 22. Corrections. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the codifiers of this Ordinance are authorized to make necessary technical corrections to this Ordinance, including, without limitation, the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or section/subsection numbering. SECTION 2.2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after posting and publication as required by law, provided the amendments to the City Code in this Ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2025. A summary of this Ordinance may be published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, as authorized by State Law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this day of , 2024. Rob Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: Sponsored by: Jay Rosapepe, Councilmember 10936400.1 - 366922 - 0001 CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5290 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session Passed by the Senate April 17, 2023 Yeas 47 Nays 0 President of the Senate Passed by the House April 10, 2023 Yeas 98 Nays 0 Speaker of the House of Representatives Approved Governor of the State of Washington CERTIFICATE I, Sarah Bannister, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5290 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. Secretary FILED Secretary of State State of Washington 1 2 3 4 6 SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5290 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 2023 Regular Session State of Washington 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session By Senate Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Mullet, Kuderer, Fortunato, Liias, Nobles, Saldana, and C. Wilson; by request of Office of the Governor) READ FIRST TIME 02/24/23. AN ACT Relating to consolidating local permit review processes; amending RCW 36.70B.140, 36.70B.020, 36.70B.070, 36.70B.080, and 36.70B.160; reenacting and amending RCW 36.70B.110; adding new sections to chapter 36.70B RCW; creating new sections; and providing an effective date. 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sec. 1. RCW 36.70B.140 and 1995 c 347 s 418 are each amended to read as follows: (1) A local government by ordinance or resolution may exclude the following project permits from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Landmark designations, street vacations, or other approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities, or other project permits, whether administrative or quasi-judicial, that the local government by ordinance or resolution has determined present special circumstances that warrant a review process or time periods for approval which are different from that provided in RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130. (2) A local government by ordinance or resolution also may exclude the following project permits from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Lot line or boundary P. 1 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 adjustments and building and other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals, categorically exempt from environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits. (3) A local government must exclude protect permits for interior alterations from site plan review, provided that the interior alterations do not result in the following: (a) Additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms; (b) Nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or (c) Increase the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression systems. (4) Nothing in this section exempts interior alterations from otherwise applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical codes. (5) For purposes of this section, "interior alterations" include construction activities that do not modify the existing site layout or its current use and involve no exterior work adding to the building footprint. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) Subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must establish a consolidated permit review grant program. The department may award grants to any local government that provides, by ordinance, resolution, or other action, a commitment to the following building permit review consolidation requirements: (a) Issuing final decisions on residential permit applications within 45 business days or 90 calendar days. (i) To achieve permit review within the stated time periods, a local government must provide consolidated review for building permit applications. This may include an initial technical peer review of the application for conformity with the requirements of RCW 36.70B.070 by all departments, divisions, and sections of the local government with jurisdiction over the project. (ii) A local government may contract with a third -party business to conduct the consolidated permit review or as additional inspection p. 2 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 staff. Any funds expended for such a contract may be eligible for reimbursement under this act. (iii) Local governments are authorized to use grant funds to contract outside assistance to audit their development regulations to identify and correct barriers to housing development. (b) Establishing an application fee structure that would allow the jurisdiction to continue providing consolidated permit review within 45 business days or 90 calendar days. (i) A local government may consult with local building associations to develop a reasonable fee system. (ii) A local government must determine, no later than July 1, 2024, the specific fee structure needed to provide permit review within the time periods specified in this subsection (1)(b). (2) A jurisdiction that is awarded a grant under this section must provide a quarterly report to the department of commerce. The report must include the average and maximum time for permit review during the jurisdiction's participation in the grant program. (3) If a jurisdiction is unable to successfully meet the terms and conditions of the grant, the jurisdiction must enter a 90-day probationary period. If the jurisdiction is not able to meet the requirements of this section by the end of the probationary period, the jurisdiction is no longer eligible to receive grants under this section. (4) For the purposes of this section, "residential permit" means a permit issued by a city or county that satisfies the conditions of RCW 19.27.015(5) and is within the scope of the international residential code, as adopted in accordance with chapter 19.27 RCW. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) Subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must establish a grant program for local governments to update their permit review process from paper filing systems to software systems capable of processing digital permit applications, virtual inspections, electronic review, and with capacity for video storage. (2) The department of commerce may only provide a grant under this section to a city if the city allows for the development of at least two units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use within its jurisdiction. p. 3 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) Subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must convene a digital permitting process work group to examine potential license and permitting software for local governments to encourage streamlined and efficient permit review. (2) The department of commerce, in consultation with the association of Washington cities and Washington state association of counties, shall appoint members to the work group representing groups including but not limited to: (a) Cities and counties; (b) Building industries; and (c) Building officials. (3) The department of commerce must convene the first meeting of the work group by August 1, 2023. The department must submit a final report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by August 1, 2024. The final report must: (a) Evaluate the existing need for digital permitting systems, including impacts on existing digital permitting systems that are already in place; (b) Review barriers preventing local jurisdictions from accessing or adopting digital permitting systems; (c) Evaluate the benefits and costs associated with a statewide permitting software system; and (d) Provide budgetary, administrative policy, and legislative recommendations to increase the adoption of or establish a statewide system of digital permit review. Sec. 5. RCW 36.70B.020 and 1995 c 347 s 402 are each amended to read as follows: Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to a local government body or officer, including the legislative body, following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed. (2) "Local government" means a county, city, or town. p. 4 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 (3) "Open record hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the local government to conduct such hearings, that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to a local government's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record predecision hearing." An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit. (4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to ((bi_ildi ,)) subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site -specific rezones ((o eeffipL=ehe..__.plan ersuba�� ,n) ) which do not require a comprehensive plan amendment, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. (5) "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review or architectural control board meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the local government's project permit application file. Sec. 6. RCW 36.70B.070 and 1995 c 347 s 408 are each amended to read as follows: (1)(a) Within ((twenty-c=tht)) 28 days after receiving a project permit application, a local government planning pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall ((ffiasrl ems)) provide ((' )) a written determination to the applicant((, ))_ (b) The written determination must state either: ((+a+)) (i) That the application is complete; or p. 5 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ((fb+)) ii That the application is incomplete and that the procedural submission requirements of the local government have not been met. The determination shall outline what is necessary to make the application procedurally complete. (c) The number of days shall be calculated by counting every calendar day. To the extent known by the local government, the local government shall identify other agencies of local, state, or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application. (2) A project permit application is complete for purposes of this section when it meets the procedural submission requirements of the local government ((and s:affie-lent fer eentin:aed pr-e iig--even dditie al in€e t-ie ire d eLc -t- meeldmfdmeatie ndeLam�aken : bseeli ent y) ) , as outlined on the project permit application. Additional information or studies may be required or protect modifications may be undertaken subsequent to the procedural review of the application by the local government. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the local government from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. However, if the procedural submission requirements, as outlined on the project permit application have been provided, the need for additional information or studies may not preclude a completeness determination. (3) The determination of completeness may include or be combined with the following ((as tienal inrfe:Efftat-ien)) . (a) A preliminary determination of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation; (b) A preliminary determination of consistency, as provided under RCW 36.70B.040; ( (e-r-) ) (c) Other information the local government chooses to include; or (d) The notice of application pursuant to the requirements in RCW 36.70B.110. (4)(a) An application shall be deemed procedurally complete on the 29th day after receiving a project permit application under this section if the local government does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is procedurally incomplete as provided in subsection (1)(b) ii of this section. When p. 6 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 the local government does not provide a written determination, they may still seek additional information or studies as provided for in subsection (2) of this section. (b) Within ((peen)) 14 days after an applicant has submitted to a local government additional information identified by the local government as being necessary for a complete application, the local government shall notify the applicant whether the application is complete or what additional information is necessary. (c) The notice of application shall be provided within 14 days after the determination of completeness pursuant to RCW 36.70B.110. Sec. 7. RCW 36.70B.080 and 2004 c 191 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: (1)(a) Development regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 must establish and implement time periods for local government actions for each type of project permit application and provide timely and predictable procedures to determine whether a completed project permit application meets the requirements of those development regulations. The time periods for local government actions for each type of complete project permit application or project type should not exceed ((ene hid fired twenty days, idniess leeal geveianffient .,,akeTwri}: e__ findings :r��a spc_i f;�affi^�z 1 �r -addit—iei l t-iffie needed te pLcee-ss i __pie lete pre' pr-e' types)) those specified in this section. ((fie)) (b) For project permits submitted after January 1, 2025, the development regulations must, for each type of permit application, specify the contents of a completed project permit application necessary for the complete compliance with the time periods and procedures. ((+2+)) (c) A jurisdiction may exclude certain permit types and timelines for processing project permit applications as provided for in RCW 36.70B.140. (d) The time periods for local government action to issue a final decision for each type of complete project permit application or project type subject to this chapter should not exceed the following time periods unless modified by the local government pursuant to this section or RCW 36.70B.140: (i) For project permits which do not require public notice under RCW 36.70B.110, a local government must issue a final decision within 65 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070; p. 7 2SSB 5290.PL 1 (ii) For protect permits which require public notice under RCW 2 36.70B.110, a local government must issue a final decision within 100 3 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070; and 4 (iii) For protect permits which require public notice under RCW 5 36.70B.110 and a public hearing, a local government must issue a 6 final decision within 170 days of the determination of completeness 7 under RCW 36.70B.070. 8 (e) A jurisdiction may modify the provisions in (d) of this 9 subsection to add permit types not identified, change the permit 10 names or types in each category, address how consolidated review time 11 periods may be different than permits submitted individually, and 12 provide for how protects of a certain size or type may be 13 differentiated, including by differentiating between residential and 14 nonresidential permits. Unless otherwise provided for the 15 consolidated review of more than one permit, the time period for a 16 final decision shall be the longest of the permit time periods 17 identified in (d) of this subsection or as amended by a local 18 government. 19 (f) If a local government does not adopt an ordinance or 20 resolution modifying the provisions in (d) of this subsection, the 21 time periods in (d) of this subsection apply. 22 (g) The number of days an application is in review with the 23 county or city shall be calculated from the day completeness is 24 determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a final decision is 25 issued on the project permit application. The number of days shall be 26 calculated by counting every calendar day and excluding the following 27 time periods: 28 (i) Any period between the day that the county or city has 29 notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is 30 required to further process the application and the day when 31 responsive information is resubmitted by the applicant; 32 (ii) Any period after an applicant informs the local government, 33 in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend review of the 34 protect permit application until the time that the applicant notifies 35 the local government, in writing, that they would like to resume the 36 application. A local government may set conditions for the temporary 37 suspension of a permit application; and 38 (iii) Any period after an administrative appeal is filed until 39 the administrative appeal is resolved and any additional time period 40 provided by the administrative appeal has expired. p. 8 2SSB 5290.PL 1 (h) The time periods for a local government to process a permit 2 shall start over if an applicant proposes a chancre in use that adds 3 or removes commercial or residential elements from the original 4 application that would make the application fail to meet the 5 determination of procedural completeness for the new use, as required 6 by the local aovernment under RCW 36.70B.070. 7 (i) If, at any time, an applicant informs the local government, 8 in writincr, that the applicant would like to temporarily suspend the 9 review of the protect for more than 60 days, or if an applicant is 10 not responsive for more than 60 consecutive days after the county or 11 city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional 12 information is required to further process the application, an 13 additional 30 days may be added to the time periods for local 14 government action to issue a final decision for each type of project 15 permit that is subject to this chapter. Any written notice from the 16 local government to the applicant that additional information is 17 required to further process the application must include a notice 18 that nonresponsiveness for 60 consecutive days may result in 30 days 19 being added to the time for review. For the purposes of this 20 subsection, "nonresponsiveness" means that an applicant is not making 21 demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information 22 to the local covernment, or that there is no ongoing communication 23 from the applicant to the local government on the applicant's ability 24 or willingness to provide the additional information. 25 (1) Annual amendments to the comprehensive plan are not subject 26 to the requirements of this section. 27 (k) A county's or city's adoption of a resolution or ordinance to 28 implement this subsection shall not be subject to appeal under 29 chapter 36.70A RCW unless the resolution or ordinance modifies the 30 time periods provided in (d) of this subsection by providing for a 31 review period of more than 170 days for any protect permit. 32 (1)(i) When permit time periods provided for in (d) of this 33 subsection, as may be amended by a local government, and as may be 34 extended as provided for in (i) of this subsection, are not met, a 35 portion of the permit fee must be refunded to the applicant as 36 provided in this subsection. A local government may provide for the 37 collection of only 80 percent of a permit fee initially, and for the 38 collection of the remaining balance if the permitting time periods 39 are met. The portion of the fee refunded for missina time periods P. 9 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 (A) 10 percent if the final decision of the project permit application was made after the applicable deadline but the period from the passage of the deadline to the time of issuance of the final decision did not exceed 20 percent of the original time period; or (B) 20 percent if the period from the passage of the deadline to the time of the issuance of the final decision exceeded 20 percent of the original time period. (ii) Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.160, the provisions in subsection (1)(i) of this section are not applicable to cities and counties which have implemented at least three of the options in RCW 36.70B.160(1) (a) through (j) at the time an application is deemed procedurally complete. (2)(a) Counties subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and the cities within those counties that have populations of at least (( )) 20,000 must, for each type of permit application, identify the total number of project permit applications for which decisions are issued according to the provisions of this chapter. For each type of project permit application identified, these counties and cities must establish and implement a deadline for issuing a notice of final decision as required by subsection (1) of this section and minimum requirements for applications to be deemed complete under RCW 36.70B.070 as required by subsection (1) of this section. (b) Counties and cities subject to the requirements of this subsection also must prepare an annual performance report((e)) that ((Welude, at a minimum, the €ell-ewing infermatien fer eae-b type of prejeei permit ,1 1 = i e-aK-en i-dentifreEin aeeerdanee with requirements e f (a) of this (i) T etalnumber—ef eempt—app-1 i e a K emirs r c= c i v ed during the �under�this established Number ou, ,-.T�,��}; �=pi-eT� d during y� ' 'y., l y., final deeisien ns v e ar n e a issued the deadline neKee ef under this sybsee-KeETw Number was after establd: during the fey (W) ef—applieatiens time reeeice•ed year whin by the the eHiensien ef was mutually agreed open applieani and P. 10 2SSB 5290.PL 1 Vaiciane-e—ef aet�peicfeicfftanee,eiEe-lid -r g alep ieatiens fer i t,, y, gr e,a � 4c:e rsie i E3{J-F��c,a , }e the deg elelmin 1ZTnTLZT�T[rrr�r=} eiE 3 established i:inder- this si:ibseet-dmen didLcdmnq the year-; an -el 4 (yi) The ffiean preeessing t- ffie and the nmeffibeicct rd Eleviatieir 5 z r-e'~ the ffiean. 7 subse Lien ffiust : 8 ( i ) Previeli ne4T i =e of and a 9 r e p e rts thr-eugh the- e i-1 .. s e b s i t e=-ana 10 (i-)Lest e-lee-mr-e n i e f a t s iffiil-e set the annual peicfeicfftanee 11 ' 12 e i,}y' . ^tee-it-e ind e }, � J t-h -the icepe=icm�s ac_ available - y 13eenm�aeti r-ejqL=i at-e eeidnty e r tit-Ekj t- eic e f f i e-i awe 14 S'L'eteeffiply with�r-crxe tl=t4ms sL1bTeeT1 VTf 15 if a eai:inrt y ems eity subjeet te the iceelu ffi e„ m s ef :�his 16 dub s e e t iendei�— �t�iar}cii-a=dtipsi: , t- ,m=re T: re i=epe -il�$,—be 17 given y r-c-cry-eicple ffiet�re£", riGl�r- ng bii} net ---; }ed t-e : hro$C 18 ffietheds speei€i-ed in RGW 36 . 7GBIl (4). 19 +3+)) includes information outlining time periods for certain 20 permit types associated with housing. The report must provide: 21 (i) Permit time periods for certain permit processes in the 22 county or city in relation to those established under this section, 23 including whether the county or city has established shorter time 24 periods than those provided in this section; 25 (ii) The total number of decisions issued during the year for the 26 following permit types: Preliminary subdivisions, final subdivisions, 27 binding site plans, permit processes associated with the approval of 28 multifamily housing, and construction plan review for each of these 29 permit types when submitted separately; 30 (iii) The total number of decisions for each permit type which 31 included consolidated protect permit review, such as concurrent 32 review of a rezone or construction plans; 33 (iv) The average number of days from a submittal to a decision 34 being issued for the protect permit types listed in subsection 35 (2)(a)(ii) of this section. This shall be calculated from the day 36 completeness is determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a 37 decision is issued on the application. The number of days shall be 38 calculated by counting every calendar day; 39 (v) The total number of days each protect permit application of a 40 type listed in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of this section was in review P. 11 2SSB 5290.PL 1 with the county or city. This shall be calculated from the day 2 completeness is determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a final 3 decision is issued on the application. The number of days shall be 4 calculated by counting every calendar day. The days the application 5 is in review with the county or city does not include the time 6 periods in subsection (1)(g)(i)-(iii) of this section; 7 (vi) The total number of days that were excluded from the time 8 period calculation under subsection (1)(g)(i)-(iii) of this section 9 for each project permit application of a type listed in subsection 10 (2)(a)(ii) of this section. 11 (c) Counties and cities subject to the requirements of this 12 subsection must: 13 (i) Post the annual performance report through the county's or 14 city's website; and 15 (ii) Submit the annual performance report to the department of 16 commerce by March 1st each year. 17 (d) No later than July 1st each year, the department of commerce 18 shall publish a report which includes the annual performance report 19 data for each county and city subject to the requirements of this 20 subsection and a list of those counties and cities whose time periods 21 are shorter than those provided for in this section. 22 The annual report must also include key metrics and findings from 23 the information collected. 24 (e) The initial annual report required under this subsection must 25 be submitted to the department of commerce by March 1, 2025, and must 26 include information from permitting in 2024. 27 (3) Nothing in this section prohibits a county or city from 28 extending a deadline for issuing a decision for a specific project 29 permit application for any reasonable period of time mutually agreed 30 upon by the applicant and the local government. 31 (( , 32 elc�edmepffient shall weLck withcoairt e-dmt-i-es--co—Lcevsc'vd--czrc 33 �rt-ial iffipleffientatien eests efthe —r r s e#id -eet-i-ems} 34 ez this seetien The —skewr}mr}, in eeeper-at-ienwi}h the 1ems= 35 EffeveLcnffients, :,h,,�,Tr�L=ep&L=_ a ryert the—pr-ejeeteel eests, 36 _eget-heL= with Lceeefafaenddamiens fee=raze € ,=,el-„g assist-anee fer 37 iffip 1-effientati e n eests, anel e r-e vi-dthe—rya a} } e the qeveicneic and- 38 -e-pp r-eprrate—eees ef the sc nat-e and h eidse—ef representatives =_ 1 39 january 1, 2005.)) p. 12 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Sec. 8. RCW 36.70B.160 and 1995 c 347 s 420 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Each local government is encouraged to adopt further project review and code provisions to provide prompt, coordinated review and ensure accountability to applicants and the public((; _nelidd4-nq a iFe—e dmst�wit-h aelep teel Ele�lmepffien�Fegidlatiens anel,it ; 4' amity ef syst-effiwiele by (a) Expediting review for project permit applications for projects that are consistent with adopted development regulations; (b) Imposing reasonable fees, consistent with RCW 82.02.020, on applicants for permits or other governmental approvals to cover the cost to the city, town, county, or other municipal corporation of processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, or preparing detailed statements required by chapter 43.21C RCW. The fees imposed may not include a fee for the cost of processing administrative appeals. Nothing in this subsection limits the ability of a county or city to impose a fee for the processing of administrative appeals as otherwise authorized by law; (c) Entering into an interlocal agreement with another jurisdiction to share permitting staff and resources; (d) Maintaining and budgeting for on -call permitting assistance for when permit volumes or staffing levels change rapidly; (e) Having new positions budgeted that are contingent on increased permit revenue; (f) Adopting development regulations which only require public hearings for permit applications that are required to have a public hearing by statute; (g) Adopting development regulations which make preapplication meetings optional rather than a requirement of permit application submittal; (h) Adopting development regulations which make housing ypes an outright permitted use in all zones where the housina tvpe is permitted; (i) Adopting a program to allow for outside professionals with appropriate professional licenses to certify components of applications consistent with their license; or (1) Meeting with the applicant to attempt to resolve outstanding issues during the review process. The meeting must be scheduled within 14 days of a second reauest for corrections durina permit p. 13 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 review. If the meeting cannot resolve the issues and a local government proceeds with a third request for additional information or corrections, the local government must approve or deny the application upon receiving the additional information or corrections. (2)(a) After January 1, 2026, a county or city must adopt additional measures under subsection (1) of this section at the time of its next comprehensive plan update under RCW 36.70A.130 if it meets the following conditions: ( i ) The county or city has adopted at least three prof ect review and code provisions under subsection (1) of this section more than five years prior; and (ii) The county or city is not meeting the permitting deadlines established in RCW 36.70B.080 at least half of the time over the period since its most recent comprehensive plan update under RCW 36.70A.130. (b) A city or county that is required to adopt new measures under (a) of this subsection but fails to do so becomes subject to the provisions of RCW 36.70B.080(1)(1), notwithstanding RCW 36.70B.080 (1) (1) (ii) . ((+2+)) (3) Nothing in this chapter is intended or shall be construed to prevent a local government from requiring a preapplication conference or a public meeting by rule, ordinance, or resolution. ((+3+)) (4) Each local government shall adopt procedures to monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions. (({4})) (5) Nothing in this chapter modifies any independent statutory authority for a government agency to appeal a project permit issued by a local government. NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) The department of commerce shall develop and provide technical assistance and guidance to counties and cities in setting fee structures under RCW 36.70B.160(1) to ensure that the fees are reasonable and sufficient to recover true costs. The guidance must include information on how to utilize growth factors or other measures to reflect cost increases over time. (2) When providing technical assistance under subsection (1) of this section, the department of commerce must prioritize local p. 14 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 governments that have implemented at least three of the options in RCW 36.70B.160(1). Sec. 10. RCW 36.70B.110 and 1997 c 429 s 48 and 1997 c 396 s 1 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows: (1) Not later than April 1, 1996, a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall provide a notice of application to the public and the departments and agencies with jurisdiction as provided in this section. If a local government has made a threshold determination under chapter 43.21C RCW concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application may be combined with the threshold determination and the scoping notice for a determination of significance. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to the notice of application. Nothing in this section or this chapter prevents a lead agency, when it is a project proponent or is funding a project, from conducting its review under chapter 43.21C RCW or from allowing appeals of procedural determinations prior to submitting a project permit ( (_'p p ldmea i-"') ) (2) The notice of application shall be provided within ((fe,dLcteen)) 14 days after the determination of completeness as provided in RCW 36.70B.070 and, except as limited by the provisions of subsection (4)(b) of this section, ((mil)) must include the following in whatever sequence or format the local government deems appropriate: (a) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application; (b) A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70B.070 ((eL= 36.qG9G)); (c) The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the local government; (d) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing the notice of application, such as a city land use bulletin, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (e) A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen nor more than thirty days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to p. 15 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. A local government may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit; (f) The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable and scheduled at the date of notice of the application; (g) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in RCW 36.70B.030(2) and 36.70B.040; and (h) Any other information determined appropriate by the local government. (3) If an open record predecision hearing is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing. (4) A local government shall use reasonable methods to give the notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction and may use its existing notice procedures. A local government may use different types of notice for different categories of project permits or types of project actions. If a local government by resolution or ordinance does not specify its method of public notice, the local government shall use the methods provided for in (a) and (b) of this subsection. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property for site -specific proposals; (b) Publishing notice, including at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and location where the notice of application required by subsection (2) of this section and the complete application may be reviewed, in the newspaper of general circulation in the general area where the proposal is located or in a local land use newsletter published by the local government; (c) Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; (d) Notifying the news media; (e) Placing notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals; p. 16 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 (f) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and (g) Mailing to neighboring property owners. (5) A notice of application shall not be required for project permits that are categorically exempt under chapter 43.21C RCW, unless an open record predecision hearing is required or an open record appeal hearing is allowed on the project permit decision. (6) A local government shall integrate the permit procedures in this section with (()) environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW as follows: (a) Except for a threshold determination and except as otherwise expressly allowed in this section, the local government may not issue a decision or a recommendation on a project permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application. (b) If an open record predecision hearing is required, the local government shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen days prior to the open record predecision hearing. (c) Comments shall be as specific as possible. (d) A local government is not required to provide for administrative appeals of its threshold determination. If provided, an administrative appeal ((4)) must be filed within fourteen days after notice that the determination has been made and is appealable. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the appeal hearing on a threshold determination ( (eznensigni fie -.n,- e sh l) ) must be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project permit. (7) At the request of the applicant, a local government may combine any hearing on a project permit with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, if: (a) The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the local government; and (b) ( (The- joint hearing ean be held within the }i -- p e el )) The applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional time is needed in order to combine the hearings. All agencies of the state of Washington, including municipal corporations and counties participating in a combined hearing, are hereby authorized to issue joint hearing notices and develop a joint format, select a mutually acceptable hearing body or officer, and take such other actions as may be p. 17 2SSB 5290.PL 1 necessary to hold joint hearings consistent with each of their 2 respective statutory obligations. 3 (8) All state and local agencies shall cooperate to the fullest 4 extent possible with the local government in holding a joint hearing 5 if requested to do so, as long as: 6 (a) The agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing 7 so; 8 (b) Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the 9 agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, 10 ordinance, or rule; and 11 (c) The agency has received the necessary information about the 12 proposed project from the applicant to hold its hearing at the same 13 time as the local government hearing. 14 (9) A local government is not required to provide for 15 administrative appeals. If provided, an administrative appeal of the 16 project decision and of any environmental determination issued at the 17 same time as the project decision, shall be filed within fourteen 18 days after the notice of the decision or after other notice that the 19 decision has been made and is appealable. The local government shall 20 extend the appeal period for an additional seven days, if state or 21 local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW allow public 22 comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the 23 appealable project permit decision. 24 (10) The applicant for a project permit is deemed to be a 25 participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or closed 26 record appeal. 27 (11) Each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall 28 adopt procedures for administrative interpretation of its development 29 regulations. 30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. The department of commerce shall develop 31 a template for counties and cities subject to the requirements in RCW 32 36.70B.080, which will be utilized for reporting data. 33 NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. The department of commerce shall develop 34 a plan to provide local governments with appropriately trained staff 35 to provide temporary support or hard to find expertise for timely 36 processing of residential housing permit applications. The plan shall 37 include consideration of how local governments can be provided with 38 staff that have experience with providing substitute staff support or p. 18 2SSB 5290.PL 1 2 3 4 5 that possess expertise in permitting policies and regulations in the local government's geographic area or with jurisdictions of the local government's size or population. The plan and a proposal for implementation shall be presented to the legislature by December 1, 2023. NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. Section 7 of this act takes effect January 1, 2025. --- END --- p. 19 2SSB 5290.PL