The URL can be used to link to this page

20241029 Port Orchard Draft Comp Plan Comment Matrix_PC1CITY 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 17 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. 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. Comment will not be incorporated The City completed a new downtown plan in 2021. We into the revised draft elementwill not be reopening the downtown plan until at least 92031. 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. 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. Comment will not be incorporated See the greenbelt zone on the zoning map. Blackjack into the revised draft element. Creek is an example. Comment will not be incorporated This was produced in the previous Comprehensive Plan into the revised draft element. 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. 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 "calculation"? This section concerns me. Has the City of PO done independent growth calculations and do they correlate? Getting there "too soon" implies much more rapid growth that must be 1.6.1 managed in terms of overall government, residents attitudes, infrastructure, etc. Too rapid PC -Wright growth could cause strife and disgruntlement in residents if infrastructure is not in sync. This can be self-defeating with all the other objectives of the "connectivity" idea. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Per the GMA, Counties are to prepare the BLR. We participated in the preparation of the report and used 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 growth. Prior to 2020, we underperformed relative to our targets. Annual growth rates for the last 3 years were 2.39%, 2.76% and 6.59%. Since 2020, the city needed to target annual growth of 2.169% to reach its 2044 target. However, growth tends to be cyclical and we are seeing rapid growth since 2020 that is unlikely to be sustained more than a few more years. If in our next Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update things have not slowed down, we may need to consider measure to slow growth. 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 incorporatedNoted, revised drafts will be routed for review. into the revised draft element. L 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.