The URL can be used to link to this page

Port Orchard Comp Plan Comment Matrix 20241113City 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 will identify the source of the comment. This section will identify where the review comment applies to. If the Planning Commission comments comment is not specific to a should be noted as "PC -[LAST This will codify how Staff is particular section, it will be marked NAME]" for easy tracking. responding to the comment, in one as "general" This will be copied from the comment received from the of the following manners: This section will provide additional details following the source. Comments from public providing applicable staff action: Comments should be ordered names should be noted as "PUBLIC- (feel free to copy and paste from this chronologically according to plan [LAST NAME]" section for formatting consistency) sections, with general comments being on top. Comments from public not providing their name should be noted as "PUBLIC" Identify where in the section the comment will be Comment accepted and incorporated incorporated. Identify any text revisions to the into the revised draft element. comment as it is incorporated into the element Identify the necessary next steps to determine feasibility Comment under additional of including the comment in the revised draft. Is there consideration, identify next steps for additional analysis necessary? Identify if the comment analysis. would be more applicable to another section and/or element. Comment will not be incorpora Identify why the comment is not being incorporated into the revised draft element. into the revised draft. Comments Received by Washington State Department of Commerce Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details The Housing Chapter has been updated to include key findings from We recommend including key findings from the Racially Disparate Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft the RDI Analysis. A reference to the Appendix containing the RDI 2 Chapter 3 - Housing Impacts Analysis in the Housing Element and directly referring to the Agency - Commerce element. Analysis is also included to direct readers where to find more Analysis document for more details. information. The Housing Chapter has been updated to include key findings from Please include a sentence in the Housing Element about Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft the RDI Analysis. A reference to the Appendix containing the RDI 3 Chapter 3 - Housing displacement risk and refer to the Racially Disparate Impacts Agency - Commerce element. Analysis is also included to direct readers where to find more Analysis for more details. information. Please update your code to allow permanent supportive housing Development Regulations - Industrial and transitional housing in the Industrial Flex zone, which allows Comment under additional consideration, identify next The City's code will be updated for consistency with this review a Flex Zoning Agency single-family and multifamily housing, to be consistent with RCW -Commerce steps for analysis. comment. 35A.21.430. Please update your code to allow emergency housing and shelter in Development Regulations -Industrial Comment under additional consideration, identify next The City's code will be updated for consistency with this review 5 the Gateway Mixed Use zone, which allows hotels, to be consistent Agency -Commerce Flex Zoning steps for analysis. comment. with RCW 35A.21.430. Comments Received by Puget Sound Regional Council Comment Number Comment Section___7 Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Additional language has been added to the The city should clarify the capacity for housing to meet various income Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) related to ADUs levels. In the draft plan, ADUs are shown as meeting 0-80% AMI Comment accepted and and their allocation by income band. The 1 Chapter 3 - Housing housing needs. Guidance from Commerce shows ADUs as moderate Agency - PSRC incorporated into the revised updated language assesses historic and income (>80-120% AMI) for higher -cost communities. All central Puget draft element. pending ADU development within the City Sound cities are considered higher -cost communities. for appropriate categorization by income band. The plan must document the city's existing housing tools and New Section 3.3.1 of the Housing Chapter incentives and discuss regulatory and financial barriers to affordable Comment accepted and provides and analysis and discussion of 2 Chapter 3 -Housing housing. Commerce's Adequate Provisions checklists can help Agency -PSRC incorporated into the revised housing tools, incentives, and barriers document this work. draft element. related to affordable housing. The city is commended for developing an in-depth Housing Action Plan. The comprehensive plan should summarize the findings of the Comment accepted and The City's Housing Action Plan has been 3 Chapter 3 - Housing Housing Action Plan in the housing element or include it as Agency - PSRC incorporated into the revised added as an appendix to this an appendix. Describing housing needs will help the reader draft element. Comprehensive Plan Update. understand the need for the strategies listed in the plan. Added language to Section 8.9.5 addressing The plan must include a reassessment strategy to address the event of reassessment strategies, including a funding shortfall. Further guidance on how to address the financial Comment accepted and modifcations to Level of Service standards 4 Chapter 8 -Transportation analysis in the plan can be found in the Department of Commerce's Agency -PSRC incorporated into the revised or imposing a development moratorium Transportation Element Guidebook, pages 202-212. draft element. until adequate transportation funding can be secured to maintain LOS standards. New Section 8.11 has been added to the The city should consider ways it can incorporate racial and social Transportation Chapter in response to this equity as a core objective in transportation planning. PSRC's Equity Comment accepted and comment. It includes multiple subsections 5 Chapter 8 -Transportation Planning Resources for Comprehensive Plans resource includes more Agency -PSRC incorporated into the revised identifying how to ensure racial and social information. draft element. equity are core objectives related to the City's transportation planning efforts. 2 Chapter 8 - Transportation The draft plan includes a policy about mobility choices for people with special needs, but this would be strengthened by including further analysis on the topic. A brief discussion in the narrative portion of the Agency - PSRC plan about mobility options for people with special needs or locations where mobility barriers may exist would be beneficial. Comment accepted and Added language to Section 8.3.5.1 incorporated into the revised describing ADA barriers and mitigation draft element. efforts. Within the Land Use Chapter, new Goal 14 and associated Policy LU-44 have been added to strengthen the language regarding The plan should describe and include policies on tribal treaty rights, Comment accepted and ongoing coordination with Tribes. New General -Regional proposed language is consistent with PSRC 7 consistent with MPP RC-1 and MPP-RC-4. PSRC's Coordination with Agency - PSRC incorporated into the revised Collaboration MPPs. Tribes resource provides more information on this topic. draft element. Existing Goal 12 within the Economic Development Chapter and associated Policies ED-49 and ED-50 also support this comment. W General - Environment and Climate Change Consistent with VISION 2050 and national best practices, PSRC recommends including a policy and parks level -of -service to provide parks within a 10-minute walk of all residents. This will set the foundation for adding or expanding parks to create equitable access. PSRC uses the Trust for Public Land's ParkServe mapping tool to identify park gaps. ParkServe shows that Agency -PSRC 58% of Port Orchard's residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. The city's PROS plan already provides substantial analysis on this topic and the comprehensive plan would benefit from the inclusion of a summary of those findings and a 10-minute walk policy. The city is commended for including a variety of policies aimed at reducing environmental impacts to vulnerable populations. These General - Environment and policies could be Agency -PSRC Climate Change furthered strengthened by including analysis identifying where vulnerable populations are located and the potential environmental impacts they face. Comment accepted and This suggestion is described in the existing incorporated into the revised Parks and Recreation Chapter, but new draft element. Policy PK-45 has been added to make this explicit within the Comprehensive Plan. New Section 8.11.4 utilizes PSRC's Comment accepted and Opportunity Mapping Report to map by incorporated into the revised census tract areas of the City that rank draft element. below PSRC's regional average for presence of, and access to, resources. 10 General - Economy Consistent with VISION 2050, the city should consider identifying potential physical, economic, and cultural displacement of existing Agency - PSRC businesses that may result from redevelopment and market pressure. New Goal 12 has been added to the Comment accepted and Economic Development Chapter in support incorporated into the revised of this comment. Associated new Policies E draft element. 51 and ED-52 futher the intention of the new Goal language. Comments Received by Washington State Department of Natural Resources Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Page 2 "The Natural Systems element works in concert with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly Land Use and Parks and Recreation, and within the framework of municipal financial planning. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance is the regulatory authority for Agency - Department of Natural 2 Chapter 5 - Natural Systems p y development and activities within critical areas (wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, Resources DNR Washington Geologic (DNR) / g g Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. p p Comment accepted - no revisions necessary. p y critical aquifer recharge areas). Critical areas are discussed in more detail in Section 5.3 below. In the City's shoreline jurisdiction, the Shoreline Survey (WGS) Master Program establishes a regulatory framework and planning policies that provides an additional layer of protection for the City's shorelands and aquatic resources." Nicely written! Page 3 includes Geologically Hazardous Areas and Page 9 with Goals 6 and 7 does too. Excellent to have Goals 6 and 7. Figure 5-6 is Port Orchard Added language to Section 5.3.1 referencing Figure Environmental Map. Good to see it included. It has areas of concern and high hazard areas for geologic hazard. That mapped area description does Agency -Department of Natural 5-6 within the Chapter, and added language 3 Chapter 5 -Natural Systems not directly correlate with the statement on page 3, "Within Port Orchard, geologically hazardous areas include unstable slopes over 30% grade, Resources (DNR) /Washington Geologic Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft elemen identifying that geologic hazard areas may share and areas of geologic concern include unstable slopes less than 30% grade and other slopes that meet criteria for high erosion potential, seismic g g p g p g p Survey (WGS) multiple critera such as high erosion potential, p ( g hazard or groundwater seepage." Adding language on page 3 to refer to Figure 5-6 and stating that slopes over 30% correlate to x, and under seismic hazard, groundwater seepage potential, correlates to y, etc would be helpful. If all the hazards are not included on the map, suggest adding a note on the map to that effect. etc.) Pages 10-11 related to "Policy NS-28 Base the geologically hazardous areas ma on best available scientific information, such as the Coastal Zone g y g g y p Agency Department of Natural g y p Added language to Policy NS-28 identifying the WGS 4 Chapter 5 - Natural Systems Atlas of Washington, Quaternary Geology and Stratigraphy of Kitsap County, and other available geotechnical reports," consider adding a reference Resources (DNR) / Washington Geologic Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Geologic Inforamtion Portal as a resource to utilize in association with the geologically hazardous areas to the WGS Geologic Information Portal (see info below). Survey (WGS) map (Figure 5-6). Agency - Department of Natural 5 Chapter 5 - Natural Systems Page 7 includes Climate Change and Sea Level Rise; it is well written. Resources (DNR) / Washington Geologic Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft elemen Comment accepted - no revisions necessary. Survey (WGS) Agency - Department of Natural 6 Chapter 10 - Climate Change Avery well written chapter. Resources (DNR) / Washington Geologic Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment accepted -no revisions necessary. Survey (WGS) Recognizing the limitations of the current proposals, I want to mention that it would be great for you to consider these in current or future work, be it in your comprehensive plan, development code, and SMP updates, and in your work in general: Added a WAC reference to Section 5.3.1 to include •®onsider adding a reference to WAC 365-190-120 geologically hazardous areas for definitions in other areas besides the CAO. In addition, consider Agency - Department of Natural the State definition of geologically hazardous areas. 7 General adding a reference to WAC 365-196-480 for natural resource lands. Resources (DNR) / Washington Geologic Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Added a reference to WGS' Geologic Information •®onsider adding a reference to the WGS Geologic Information Portal in other areas besides the CAO. If you have not checked our interactive Survey (WGS) Portal within Policy NS-28. database, the WGS Geologic Information Portal, lately, you may wish to do so. Geologic Information Portal I WA - DNR •Byou have not checked out our Geologic Planning page, you may wish to do so. Geologic Planning I WA- DNR Comments Received from City of Port Orchard Planning Commission Public Hearing Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details The following policy has been included in both subarea plans to encourage safe and comfortable bicycle facility design for planned and future improvements: "T 6 Where feasible, design bike lanes to be protected from automobile traffic with Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. curbs, horizontal separation, or other techniques that improve safety and Appendices F and G - Bethel 2 The City settled on an inferior option in the subareas in relation to Public -Hartsell Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft subarea comfort." Subarea Plans multimodal transportation planning by not providing or identifying plans. protected multi -use pathways within the subareas. 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. Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. Concerns related to impact fees identified in the Land Use Element. Impact This is a valid comment and concern for how impact fees can increase the cost fees increase housing development costs (particularly for affordable housing Public - Harkins / of housing production, and in turn, raise the price of housing. Given the legal 3 Chapter 3 - Land Use Element products), which get passed onto buyers. City must be prepared to justify Kitsap Building Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. framework related to establishing impact fees, references to modifying impact impact fees and provide a nexus for fee amounts related to development Association fees in relation to growth rates and growth targets has been removed from impact. This is specifically relevant to policies referencing modifying impact Policies LU-7, LU-42, and LU-43. fees in response to growth rates. Included new policy in support of this comment: "HS-17 Explore the re- Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. Public -Harkins / establishment of a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program as a means of 4 Chapter 4 - Housing Element Would like to see incentives for developers to build multi -family housing, Kitsap Building increasing the City's affordable housing supply. Consider the recommendations Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. like the return of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) program. Association 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. Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. Public - Harkins / Revised policy HS-14 (strikethrough text) to include HAP strategies: "HS-14: 5 Chapter 4 - Housing Element Would like more details regarding 'streamlining' the permit process for multi. Kitsap Building Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. family housing. What would that actually look like? Association uses to aeGen;Medate faMil y sized units. 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." Note: comment summarized from verbal testimony at public hearing. The Plan needs more attention on global formatting, spelling, and The updated Plan continues to revise and polish formatting, style consistency, terminology consistency, including: and terminology document -wide. This process will continue throughout the 6 General - Plan -wide - Consistent formatting for individual Element Vision statements PC - Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Council review pharseise as comments/revisions from their review are incorporated - More references to figures/graphics when the text can be supported by the visual information into the document. - Global formatting style consistency for all individual Elements 7 Section 6.1 Add language to the economic vision section identifying the City should PC -Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language has been added to Section 6.1's guiding principles to reflect this decrease barriers to entry where possible. language. Add reference in introductory text to industrial uses as a diverse and 8 Section 6.1 appropriate mix of land uses related to economic development. PC Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language updated to include industrial uses. Provide the following language within the introductory text: "The City of Port Orchard's economic development policies prioritize 9 Section 6.1 working with the private sector and area employers to grow and improve PC - Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Suggested text has been added to Section 6.1. our community and its economy. The intended outcome of this collaboration is increasing quality of life and opportunity for our citizens." Provide text encouraging new industrial uses to locate their own industrial 10 Section 6.2.3 park within the City, rather than encouraging them to locate outside of the PC - Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language has been updated per comment. City in the Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton. Add language identifying the importance placed on redevelopment and 11 Section 6.2.5 PC -Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language has been updated per comment. improvement of the downtown area. Suggest adding this new policy stating "The City shall undertake efforts to 12 Policy ED-8 (new) redevelop downtown in the interest of vibrancy, community, and small PC - Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. New Policy ED-8 has been added to the Chapter. business." Remove "heavy" as it relates to industrial uses. Revise policy language to 13 Policy ED-30 encourage these uses to locate either in their own industrial park or in the PC - Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Policy ED-30 has been updated per suggested language. Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton, as appropriate. Revise name of 'Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce' to 'South Kitsap 14 Policy ED-41 Chamber of Commerce' PC -Morrison Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language updated to reflect accurate agency name. Earlier Comments Received - General The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details When referring to the City of Port Orchard, "City" is Comment will not be incorporat the proper spelling. When generally identifying Port 1 Do not capitalize 'city' and be consistent throughout document PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Orchard as a place, "city" is appropriate. A document -wide consistency check will be conducted. Several times it's mentioned that demographics changed Comment under additional The City will explore preparing a map identifying 2 because of a series of areas being incorporated. What areas got Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps historic annexations over time. This may not get incorporated and why were they incorporated? for analysis. added to this Comprehensive Plan Update depending on availability of data. Does the city or county maintain a roster of restrictive covenants 3 anywhere? If people are concerned about maintaining the Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated Covenants are recorded and maintained by the character of their specific neighborhood then that seems like a into the revised draft element. Kitsap County Auditor. good way to do it instead of hamstringing the entire city With the growing population I'm concerned about light pollution. The City could explore new goal and policy One of my favorite late night activities is laying in my backyard language addressing dark sky regulations/considerations. Not sure this Periodic and staring up at the stars, and I'd like to be able to continue to Comment under additional Update to the Comprehensive Plan is the correct 4 do that. With all the lighting changes and new buildings being Public -Danielson consideration, identify next steps venue based on the timing of adoption (end of built/ upgraded, could we add something to limit light pollution? for analysis. 2024) and the policy development/public Something saying that all new city lights will be shrouded or engagement that should occur in support of any something like that. With $1.1million being spent on lighting in the next 6 years it seems like a good time to start new policies specific to dark skies. This should be discussed at Planning Commission. This will not be incorporated into the Currently a large portion of commuters are directed directly Comprehensive Plan, as the development through downtown via Bay Street, meaning that downtown is standards associated with street frontages and 5 not a pleasant area to walk around and enjoy during these times. Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporate roadway sections are established in the zoning Would it be possible to redirect the majority of through -traffic into the revised draft element. code and public works standards. The City's (via Kitsap Steet/ Rockwell Ave maybe?) to ensure the businesses subarea plan for downtown addresses streetscape downtown can get business from people who want to go there? 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. Comment under additional As the document gets to the final draft form, It might help to restructure each chapter to begin with a table of 6 PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps additional text and layout revisions will be make to contents and opening with the goals (then go into detail of each for analysis. make a cohesive and accessible document. goal later in the chapter). This primes 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 same font size as the Comment under additional As the document gets to the final draft form, 7 title. Right now, it is easy to skip over it. Also there is an PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps consistent design elements will be included to inconsistency with the Vision Statement for each chapter. For for analysis. provide a cohesive and accessible document. 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 Additional graphics/photos will be added to reflect need a dedicated section for each chapter that tediously talks new developments and highlights across the City in about what we've done, but we can utilize / incorporate more Comment under additional Sections/Elements that are relevant to the 8 pictures. This would set the tone that we are successful in PC-Ta consideration, identify next steps graphics. executing a vision and are making decisions that bring us for analysis. Specific items to include will be identified as the forward. For example: Chapter 8 would be a perfect spot to Update process continues. include pictures of McCormick roundabout / other major city changes as we talk about future plans. I think the City's website is not well designed to facilitate Comment will not be incorporate Examine opportunities to address website and 9 community inputs. Some improvement to the website - Planning PC -Wright into the revised draft element. communication effectiveness in the Comprehensive page in particular would be most helpful. Plan (e.g. Capital Facilities Element). Better Communication from the City not only for downtown merchants, and business Examine opportunities to address this in the owners but for the general public, residents and customers. Transportation, Capital Facilities, and/or Land Use A current example: the final work on the roundabout. Road Comment under additional 10 Communication closures and Public-POBSA consideration, identify next steps Elements. reduced lane use significantly impacts downtown businesses. for analysis. Discuss at next Planning Commission meeting what appropriate policies (and location within the Plan) There is a lot of anxiety that may be alleviated with information of what to may look like. expect. Another concern downtown business owners have is the timing for the road elevation planned, across from the current Kitsap Bank Drive Thru. More The Introduction section provides context for the information on that Comprehensive Plan process and intended use of timeline would be helpful. Also, it is clear that many residents do Comment will not be incorporated the document. It also provides framework of how 11 Communication not understand urban Public-POBSA into the revised draft element. the Comprehensive Plan, as a policy document, growth density, and growth management. interacts with the City's zoning and development How might we educate, spread the word better on why so much regulations. 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 There are goals and policies in the Plan that are supportive of small businesses development and etc. Comment will not be incorpora retention. Outside of the goal/policy perspective, 12 Communication A tone that recognizes efforts and risks small business owners, Public-POBSA contractors, and into the revised draft element. this concern may be better addressed to individual developers take, and acknowledges that City staff serve the City departments individually rather than the residents and Comprehensive Plan. taxpayers. We would like to see better branding and promotion of the City by the City. -Possibly a tagline and collaborative efforts to promote our Comment accepted and New Policy ED-42 has been added to the Economic 13 Communication downtown. Public-POBSA incorporated into the revised Development Element addressing this item. draft element. -We encourage the City to have a stronger, friendlier social media presence. We encourage and request an elevated level of service, and support in the downtown This could be better implemented at the core. With policies that support building owner's responsibility to development regulation level - essentially in the keep their buildings/lots instance that a property owner fails to maintain Beautification/M maintained. Comment under additional their property, the City could do so and expense 14 aintenance If the City believes business owners are responsible for clearing Public-POBSA consideration, identify next steps the owner. This has some legal implications and any drains or for analysis. proposed language should be reviewed by the City sandbagging their businesses that needs to be communicated. Attorney. The significant Discuss at the next Planning Commission how to flooding this past fall caught Public Works, and business owners address this comment. unprepared. 15 16 17 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 Beautification/M encourage the development of a Parks Department in the City. Public-POBSA aintenance 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 Economic service businesses require conditional use permits, which can Development add an additional 3 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. Economic Fees: We support further consideration of removing the Development transportation impact fees in the Public-POBSA downtown core. 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 Comment under additional current time, a dedicated Parks Department is not consideration, identify next steps feasible based on the City's size and maintenance for analysis. 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 zoning code. for 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 consideration, identify next steps the downtown TAZ. This should be discussed for analysis. further at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mainstreet Collaboration: Support for POBSA to potentially transition to a Mainstreet Association Organization in the coming Comment accepted and Public-POBSA incorporated into the revised 18 Economic years. This endeavor requires a significant financial investment, New Policy ED-43 has been added to the Economic Development and a reorganization, which would include hiring a paid Director. draft element. Development Element addressing this item. 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 The timeline and scope of this project is outside of 19 Future Projects buildings and aging poles. We are aware this involves Public-POBSA Comment will not be incorpora e the scope of this Comprehensive Plan Update electrical/lighting. In the Marquee into the revised draft element. process. Discuss any City updates on this project at replacement/improvement plans we'd like to see water lines the next Planning Commission meeting. included for an irrigation drip system to water the hanging baskets and planters along Bay Street. F411 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 This will not be incorporated into the with residents, Comprehensive Plan, as the development businesses owners, and the community at large with proposed omment will not be incorpora standards associated with parking are established into the revised draft element. Future Projects future parking plans. Public-POBSA in the zoning code. The City's subarea plan for Especially with construction projects such as the sewer lift downtown addresses parking concerns and future station. planning, where that level of detail for a specific We are looking for a better way in which POBSA, and the City can area of the City is better suited. alleviate the perception that there is no parking in downtown Port Orchard. Earlier Comments Received - Introduction The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Keep this and drop the last bullet. The last bullet is being added to address new requirements of state law under 2 1.2 - 4th bullet (bullet reads: Housing has remained available to all members of the community, and the PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme HB 1220. diversity of housing types has expanded.) I'm curious about the plan to achieve this. PO is not very conducive to connections other The City's transportation element addresses this, especially for non -motorized 3 1.2 - 5th bullet than driving. PC -Wright omment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme transportation. Our PWESS include requirements for complete streets. I'd like to see an new waterfront vision. Parking lots and car dealerships are counter to The City completed a new downtown plan in 2021. We will not be reopening 4 1.2 - 6th bullet this goal. Is there a plan to accommodate relocation PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme reasonably? the downtown plan until at least 2031. This implies there is not a comfortable and productive relationship with city government. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 5 1.2 - 8th bullet PC -Wright Revised phrasing to add the words "Residents continue to enjoy..." Seems negative. element. 6 1.2 - 13th bullet Native American cultural and historic resources (archeological sites) gwill be PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Revised to remove "shall" phrasing. protected element. See MPP-RC-2 in Vision 2050, where this language is used verbatim: It seems to me it shouldn't matter someone's color ... if an individual/family is in need of "Comment!i!11I "Prioritize services and access to opportunity for people of color, people with 7 1.2 - 15th Bullet access to services and opportunities, and he/she/they are lacking the resources to do so, PC -Bailey not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme low incomes, and historically underserved communities to ensure all people can then he/she/they should receive assistance, regardless color. attain the resources and opportunities to improve quality of life and address past inequities. 1.2 - 15th bullet 8 not a fan of this term. I question the need for this bullet point altogether. 4th bullet PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme This item is pulled verbatim from MPP-RC-2 of Vision 2050. (referring to term 'equity') covers 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. Revised language to: "Housing has remained available and affordable to all Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for 9 1.2 - Last bullet PC -Wright members of the community, and the diversity of housing types and densities (bullet reads: Establish a robust housing stock that provides affordable options for all analysis. has expanded." incomes at a variety of housing densities.) This comprehensive plan seeks to lay 96 it a vision lays out a vision for Port Orchard that 10 1.3 is founded on connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested language. element. a stronger community. Is there a reference to this? Is "the established connections framework" a concept of or The theme of connections was something that came out of our public outreach 11 1.3 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. None of our outreach thus far has suggested an established planning practice? 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 I am curious about the "how" to these actions. Will the Comp Plan lay out specific 12 1.3 actions the city will take to achieve these connections? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme 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 What does this mean? I'd like an example of this to better inform the residents what we 13 1.3 are talking about. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme markers. It can also be done through historic preservation. These are being planned at the new community event center. What is this regional trail network? Should we have a reference to where the details of Connect neighborhoods within the city and connect the city to the region 14 1.3 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme through trails and bike lanes. See our non -motorized transportation section in this are located? the transportation element. This refers to not motorized connections such as sidewalks and trails. See our 15 1.3 Again, I'm skeptical this is achievable in a meaningful manner. Example would be good. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme non -motorized plan. How can the City achieve this in a larger manner without removing large portions of built 16 1.3 PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. See the greenbelt zone on the zoning map. Blackjack Creek is an example. infrastructure? Sounds great but in practice.... I'm having trouble with the entire "Connectivity" concept. Is this a strategy the City This was produced in the previous Comprehensive Plan Update and has helped 17 1.3 wants to try and follow through 2040? PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme promote connectivity between individual Comprehensive Plan Elements. 18 1.3 Insert -Topography and critical areas, PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Text has been revised to include topography and critical areas in the list of element. physical elements. I would consider this to be open space and that natural environment. This can 19 1.3 Not sure what "natural amenities" is. PC -Wright the revised clrTrtmemel be public or private. Physical 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 14 coordinate with various groups in our community to understand their concerns. We cannot please everyone. Majority must have the overall say with considerations for The POBSA is not a majority of the community, but they have valid concerns 20 1.3 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. minority 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 Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for 21 1.5 PC -Wright Noted - are there specific revisions for the Comprehensive Plan addressing this? huge part of our past. analysis. Sawmills and shingle mills are part of the lumber industry. Let's ask the historical Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Noted - outreach to the museum will be conducted for suggested edits to this 22 1.5 PC -Wright Museum to take a look at this section and beef it up. Also adds community involvement. analysis. section. 1.6.1, pg 1-6, second para, blue 3% used twice, unsure if one is a typo. "...would need to grow at 3%..." and "...therefore Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for The phrasing for this section will be revised for clarity and to incorporate 2024 23 highlighted area ...". only needs to grow at 3%The way the sentence reads it seems the second 3% would PC -Bailey analysis. OFM population numbers, once finalized and issued (expected June 2024). be a lower number (or the first a higher). 1.6.1, pg 1-7, first para, second employment capacities have been struck but no replacement numbers are inserted. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Revised to add language identifying slight deficit of employment land. Also 24 sentence Perhaps left out on purpose but wanted to point out just in case. PC -Bailey element. added language pointing to the Land Use Element, which provides more detailed employment capacity information. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Language revised to: "Based on extensive public input that has occurred over 25 1.6.1 Do we have "extensive" public input? Give a reference if so. If not, do not say so. PC -Wright element. the last Comprehensive and Periodic updates..." 26 1.6.1 Which programs?? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised dra a eme This applies to all City programs utilizing the Comprehensive Plan for goal and policy guidance. (Population Employment Allocations and Capacity) Not a sentence. Is this a header that Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 27 1.6.1 PC -Wright Formatting for this text has been revised. is mis-formatted? element. Reference to the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report has been provided Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft in this section. 28 1.6.1 Give reference. Date and publication? PC -Wright element. https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/FINAL%20Buildable%20Lands %20Report_November%202021.pdf Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 29 1.6.1 Awkward sentence -use of "of" twice is confusing -reword. PC -Wright Language has been revised for clarity. element. As determined by Kitsap County. Does the City agree with this assessment? If we do not, Per the GMA, Counties are to prepare the BLR. We participated in the 30 1.6.1 have we made our disagreement known? Did the City participate with that Kitsap County PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen preparation of the report and used our own consultant to provide data and "calculation"? 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 This section concerns me. Has the City of PO done independent growth calculations and 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 do they correlate? Getting there "too soon" implies much more rapid growth that must 31 1.6.1 be managed in terms of overall government, residents attitudes, infrastructure, etc. Too PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme 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 rapid 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. 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 32 1.6.1 already here. I disagree. Lots of low -paying jobs around but not processional/skilled PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Section has been revised for clarity and to add employment capacity numbers. technical jobs. Final number in text is missing. 2437 is crossed out without a new entry. element. 33 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 Revised for clarity. element. This should be reworded to seamlessly stitch the future growth of PO to a smooth Comp Plan vision (this document). We set a vision based on community involvement. Plan Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Revised for clarity and to better reflect/incorporate the Comprehensive Plan 34 1.6.1 PC -Wright growth with wisdom and care. Then implement properly with sound fiscal management analysis. vision statements. leading with infrastructure linked to critical areas management/protection. Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for 35 1.6.1 What is supposed to be the number here? PC -Wright Language revised and added UGA population 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 boundary amendments to 2025. The existing population of the UGA is over 36 1.6.1 "conversations"? Where is the record? PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme 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. What if we do not agree with all 15 goals? "Addressing" them may be "we do not agree" 37 1.6.2 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme These goals are listed in state law. of "we acknowledge the state's input". and leave it there. Why don't we address vehicles too? We have huge congestion issues along Sedgwick, Bethel, Tremont.... Roadway infrastructure is not in sync with load in my opinion. 38 1.6.2 Keeping traffic moving and not stopped at intersections for long periods will cut back on PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme4 State law does not have a goal to address traffic on city streets. emissions. Cars are America's #1 mode of transportation. Remember - during the pandemic, buses, trains, etc. were largely unused. Am 39 1.6.2 Are these 15 goals verbatim from the state? Maybe a reference is in order. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft These goals are verbatim to state law, RCW 36.70A.020. Added reference to this element. section. 40 1.6.2 Awkward. "Permits.". PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Language revised for clarity. element. I dislike absolute statements like this in a "plan". Can we use "incorporate" policies and 41 1.6.2 objectives into plans, etc to address climate change and resiliency? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen This is verbatim from 36.70A.020 (14). 42 1.6.2 This is a lot to ask of a small city like PO. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemei This is verbatim from 36.70A.020 (14). Vision 2050 address the protection of water resources in the Environment Does PSRC's VISION address the availability of fresh water for these 5.8 million people? 43 1.6.3 Heavy growth (use/consumption and impervious surfaces) with decreasing PC -Bailey Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme chapter. It addresses urban services including water availability, conservation, precipitation/increasing temps warrants concern in regard to water quantity. and efficiency in the Public Services chapter. https://www. psrc.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/vision-2050-pla n. pdf 44 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 incorporated into the revised dra See Natural Systems and the Critical Areas Code. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 45 1.6.3 cut "enhance" makes no sense as inserted. PC -Wright Revised to "conserve and enhance key fish and wildlife habitats". element. "Targets" and "targeting process". What is this? Is there a reference for the housing See the population and employment allocations above. These are derived from 46 1.6.3 plan? Are existing subarea plans demonstrable of this targeting? McWoods Village may PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen be the worthy but others? PSRC targets. 47 1.6.3 Once all the elements are drafted, I'll want to revisit this section to cross-check accuracy. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme Noted, revised drafts will be routed for review. Skinny paragraph here. The "Plan" was shifted to "plan" - are we referring to a different Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for If referring to the Comprehensive Plan, Plan should be capitalized. In other 48 1.6.3 PC -Wright instances it should be lowercase. A consistency check across the entire "plan" or this Comp Plan? analysis. document will be conducted. Rewrite to be proper diction. KT, Suquamish, and Port Gamble are associate members. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 49 1.6.4 PC -Wright Language revised for clarity and updated information. The NBK is an ex officio member. element. KRCC membership should include Bremerton — unless they quit again. I think perhaps Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 50 1.6.4 Bremerton was not a member in 2018. PC -Ashby element. Revised to include Bremerton in the list of KRCC members. 51 1.6.4 Are these the same 15 elements set by the state noted earlier? If so say so, if not say PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen No, there are 15 chapters/elements in the Countywide Planning Policies. how they differ. Where can one view the feedback received from this effort? Is there a web page The plan in 2014-16 had major deficiencies and significant work was needed to comply with Vision 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies. The 2024 dedicated for Comp Planning and Community input to the entire process? Looking at the 52 1.7 edits, it seems PO did not really engage the public like 2014/2025/2016. Am I PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen update is a much lighter touch, because the 2016 plan was much more aligned with regional policy and was innovative on housing ahead of recent housing misinterpreting? mandates. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 53 1.8 reference for this? PC -Wright Revised to add reference to Vision 2050. element. I'm curious how you propose to deal with climate issues. The City can certainly can add resilience into the plan but I'm not sure in a meaningful manner. We can prepare for 54 1.8 PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme The draft Climate Element addresses many of these considerations. future catastrophes ( � with major infrastructure upgrades, but we cannot change the p climate. Earlier Comments Received - Land Use Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Why did Chapter 2 not have a vision that was styled in a green box? 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 Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. ruins the polish of this document. consistency in all Elements. 3 2.1 Can we explain the significance of the 20-year planning horizon. PC-Ta Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Agreed, will revise Introduction Element Section 1.6 analysis. to add language addressing this. (referring to sentence 'The goals and policies contained herein...') Can we flip this sentence and instead say "planning thoroughly will result in 4 2.1 lower taxes and lower infra and service costs." Having a positive PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language revised for tone and clarity. connotation in lieu of a negative one just sets the tone better for the rest of the chapter. 5 2.1 (referring to last sentence) Sentence is redundant with the above that PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language revised for clarity. begins with "the purpose of this section", consolidate pls. (referring to 'a common theme heard') Would be more clear to say 9W RP Maintaining language to highlight common themes, 6 2.2 PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elegA not intending to provide full/exhaustive list of "the first key issue is that..." issues within the Element. 7 2.2 (referring to first sentence last paragraph) Redundant with above, PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity and to resolve redundancy with consider removing Section 2.1. 8 2.2 Insert "expected" 2044 population and employment growth PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. These are the allocations that the City is required to allocations plan for. I think it makes more sense to change the last bullet point from "Allow The mandate (HB 1110) that we are facing has to do middle housing types..." to a more general "Increase density", and with middle housing. We have adequate land then the allowance of middle housing would be a sub -bullet point to supply and densification (other than allowing 9 2.2 accomplish that. Other sub -bullet points that I think would be helpful Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. middle housing) is not proposed at this time. We would be "Expand mixed -use zoning allowance" and "Expand gentle don't have ACUs in our code, so it will not be infill through the use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. 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, 10 2.2 identify just 1. Am I confused? This section had a lot of information PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. not intending to provide full/exhaustive list of that was redundant / repetitive. We can tighten our messaging here. issues within the Element. Note that in other sections/elements, it is city not City. Lets be sure to Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for When referring to the City of Port Orchard, City 11 2.4 be consistent in the final version. PC -Wright analysis. should be capitalized. Adocument-wide consistency check will be conducted. Interesting statement "reasonable measures". You are suggesting that Reasonable measures is meant to be open phrasing Ito 12 2.4 if we approach the growth projections too rapidly, we implement a PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. allow for appropriate responses in light of the moratorium on new development? Or, we would consider expanding particular situation, which could take various forms. into the UGA where appropriate. Moratoriums are typically not used for this purpose. The phrasing is intended to indicate there is 13 2.5 This assumes that we could develop all this land in a timely matter PC-Ta Comment will not be incorpo sufficient capacity to accommodate the allocations throughout the 20-year planning horizon. Population growth is explained in more detail in the What were the main drivers of this 3.5% growth and are they different next section, and by the time the Plan is undergoing 14 2.5.1 today? Calling this out because we can't assume the same growth PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. the Periodic Update in 2034 it is likely a large projection if the drivers are different. portion of the available land will have been hL developed. 15 2.6 Can we define what an "overlay district" is and how one becomes to PC-Ta Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Revised to reorganize bullet points and add clarity. be? analysis. Gentle infill via ADUs and ACUs seems like a good way to accomplish The code allows for ADUs (we don't use the term 16 Goal 1 this goal Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. ACU). HB 1110 mandates middle housing, not just I ADUs. Centers are established in the Comprehensive Plan Haven't we already done this? I thought centers have been but the implementation tools are developed 17 Goal 3 established. If so should this policy be to expansion and development PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. separately. This policy is specific to the of more centers as appropriate? 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 Generally underserved could refer to 18 LU-17 are they underserved? This term and others like it pop up throughout PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for neighborhoods that do not have a park within a 5 the Comp Plan and have not been identified/defined very well. analysis. minute walk, see Page 24 of the Port Orchard Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan In most instances, barriers to low impact development are addressed through the City's 19 LU-21 Do barriers exist to achieving low -impact development? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. NPDES Permit 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 20 LU-23 school due to the fact they cannot afford a driver's license. None of PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. 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. The phrase .job centers" is inclusive of those types JW of land uses Human scale is the deign of surroundings to be on a scale that allows humans to interact with objects 22 LU-25 What does human scale mean? PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. and places on foot. Alternatively, designing places to be automobile -scaled would detract from pedestrian activity. Impact fees allow the implementation of Capital 23 LU-27 Could we reinforce the importance of impact fees here? PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. projects. The intent of this statement is have private ventures create connectivity withh neighboring properties and (planned) facilities. m wondering it there should a an added u et in this list. Something that addresses closed or "boarded up" commercial buildings. The old Myre's restaurant has been closed and boarded up for many years and 24 LU-28 it is a waste of a business opportunity in the heart of downtown. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested language. Maybe something like: Encourage and promote commercial building maintenance and nccunnnry to enhanre the dnwntnwn husinPss rnrP_ I'm struggling with the term "vulnerable populations". Who/what is this population? Where are they in PO? Are we referring to Revised to add a footnote to the RCW 25 LU-35 home less/unhoused? I understand that Vision 2050 demands we add PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. 36.70A.030(47) definition. this but it seems to me we need to be effective and focused with these policies. This Goal will help the City track progress on 26 Goal 13 Agree! Great move! PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. meeting its growth allocations over the 20-year planning horizon. "designated", an panne all seem to be use 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 the City has 6 Revised to add clarity and identify types of centers 27 2.8 Public -Danielson Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. designated Countywide Centers. A small table explaining the different within the City. thresholds for local vs. county vs. regional centers would be helpful. Expanding the list of centers to include current and goal activity thrPshnlrls would hp hPlnfill as an nvPrviPw_ This should a 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 28 2.8.1 So the 10 previously mentioned centers have been broken into 6-4? PC-Ta Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. 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_ hilt ran he designated as a Language revised to add re erence to PSRC Centers Guidance. Once we identify centers locally, we can request 29 2.8.2 How does an area become eligible to be considered a center? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. recognition at KRCC. Once designated a countywide center, we could seek to have a countywide center upgraded to a regional center. Downtown Port Orchard is the only center that we have that is remntPly rinsP to thnsP rritPria_ To hp Activity units are jobs/housing units. A definition 30 2.8.3 Can we explain what an activity unit is? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. consistent with VISION 2050 has been added. Not for local centers, only for countywide centers. 31 2.8.3 Is there a activity unit threshold for local centers? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Added language to Section referencing PSRC Centers Guidance. 32 2.8.3 -Map Should be McCormick Village (not McCormick Woods) PC-Ta Comment under additional considerationidentify 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. 2.8.5.11 (Downtown Port amount of surface parking lots which don't generate much tax revenue https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorch 33 Orchard) and the proximity to the ferry system. Kitsap Transit is the second Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. ardwa/uploads/2021/07/FINAL-ADOPTED- largest ferry fleet in WA behind the Washington State Ferry system, Downtown-Subarea-Plan-and-Regs-reduced.pdf 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 and have to min There is an existing activity unit threshold for 34 2.8.5.2 (Tremont) travel through the corridor to get to their homes. Why are these not Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. qualifying as a countywide center. Including too included in the area for increased development? I'm mostly referring many low density areas can bring the activity unit to the housing development on Lippert St. west of Pottery Ave. and count below the minimum required. the housing along Sage Ct, May St, and Roland Ave. Kitsap Transit is planning to start construction of a park and ride here The park and ride is mentioned in the subarea plan. 35 2.7.5.8 (Sedgwick/Sidney) in 2024. 1 would like to see an increased density surrounding this Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/appendix-c- transit node to make good use of the service. Also the park and ride ruby -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 36 2.7.5.10 (Annapolis) center's area seems almost laughably small though? I understand the Public -Danielson Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. included as a local center because it is a transit hub. Washington Veterans Home takes up most of the prime real estate If areas of the UGA in this location were annexed, within 1/4 mile of the ferry, so is it worth it to focus on this area as a we could look at expansion of the center boundary. potential center? Earlier Comments Received - Housing Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Could we make it more succinct? Agreed with changing the Housing vision. The specific proposal is a good starting point 2 3.1 Enable housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels that accommodates population growth while PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. balancing new and existing neighborhood characteristics. to revise to. Comment acknowledged. Note that equity is a core theme found in Vision 2050. Port Orchard is required to create a plan that is consistent with Vision 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies. The Puget Sound Regional Council defines equity (also social equity) as: "All people can attain the resources and opportunities that improve their quality of life and enable them to reach full potential. Those affected by poverty, communities of color, and historically Equity is not equality, a core principle of our nation. Equity means equal group outcomes. For marginalized communities are engaged in decision -making processes, planning, example, if 15% of the population is of some ethnicity/race/sex then 15% of the faculty and and policy making." students in every program should be of the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/vision-2050-glossa ry. pdf 3 3.1 individual represents their ethnicity/race/sex and not themselves as a unique individual. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen In contrast, equality means that every individual is equally precious, no matter what their The housing element must also be consistent with the Growth Management Act background, and deserves the same opportunities and consideration. They which requires a Housing Element that: "Identifies and implements policies and represent themselves and not a group regulations to address and begin to undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and OL 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. 4 3.1 2ndparagraph) ( A ver Ion and confusing sentence. Break this into two separate sentences. y g g p PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. g p p There are some typos and grammatical errors with the paragraph that will be corrected. 'Establish 41 Agreed this can use clarification. The project team will look at options such as "Establish 5 3.1 (referring to ways to avoid displacement') What does this mean? If renters do not pay PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. rewording to mechanisms to mitigate displacement due to rent, the landowner must maintain their rights to evict. redevelopment" and/or switch the term "mitigate" to "reduce." Note that eviction is only one of many forms of displacement. 6 3.1 Addressing housing from various perspectives such as promoting homeownership PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. There are some typos and grammatical errors with the paragraph that will be corrected. 7 3.1 grita�4e, healthy neighborhoods. Promote thriving, PC Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Agreed that it is unclear what an "equitable neighborhood" is or looks like. The term can be removed from this bullet. 8 3.2.1 I think there's value in splitting the "5+" category up a bit more, similar to the previous pie Public -Danielson Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for This is a good idea but requires further review of Census data and coordination chart. Unsure what categories would normally be used, but maybe a 3-5, 6-19, and 20+ category analysis. with project team to ensure this level of detail is available. 9 3.2.1 Instead of saying majority I would like to see the % that are homeowners vs. renters Public -Danielson Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. This sentence will be updated to state the precise percentages for tenure and made consistent with Figure 7 under Section 3.3. 10 3.2.1 THIS goes a long way toward achieving the stated housing goals and objectives for Port Orchard PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment acknowledged. The text speaks for itself. 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 ff+ekesmake 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 11 3.1.2 recent decades. Figure 2 shows the uptick in permitting starting in the early 2000s s and the PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Changes accepted. prevalence of single-family and larger apartment developments. Note that this data shows issued permits, not all these projects were and will be necessarily completed. Most of the single- family development seen in the past five years hasae 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 spread out throughout the city. Additionally, according to the City's permit data, over 5,000 units are currently in the pipeline and shows seme 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. 12 3.2.1 Tenure. The majority (about 61%) PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Changes accepted. 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 Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table 52502. 13 3.2.1 unless the City buys the land, builds the structures, manages the structures, and manages the PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Also see Figure 7, Share of Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity with source ACS rent collection. I question the need for this subsection. What is the City prepared to do or 2020 5-year Estimates, Table B25003. planning to do about this? I suspect nothing so delete it. The Middle Housing graphic above is excellent! Why not make this a stronger, more positive perspective. The City wants to encourage expanded opportunities for starter homes and More emphasis on the need for middle housing production could be made to promote settlement of the new generation in Port Orchard. THAT is the reason for the subarea Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for support this section. The section as currently exists seems out of place. The last 14 3.2.2 plans. The McCormick Village is a good example but as I understand it the middle housing items PC -Wright analysis. paragraph of "Housing and Production" begins to lead into this issue, but it will be all rentals. We need to find a wayto build affordable middle housing without decimating g g could be expanded upon to make a stronger argument and create supporting p p g g the environment (cutting every living tree/shrub) and achieving a desirable community for goals and policies of that argument. starter homes that meets the objectives of the entire Comp Plan. 2.56, 2.53, and 2.55 are all very similar numbers. It doesn't seem fair to say that Port Orchard's 15 3.2.3 average household size is higher than the county average. Public -Danielson Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Sentence referring to single mothers should be deleted. Text should reflect What is the relevance of mentioning single mothers? Figure 6 doesn't even specify whether what is conveyed through the Figure. single parents are mothers or fathers This assumes the size of the household always corresponds to the size of house. Not an accurate assumption. Many people want a larger home than the household size. Plus many families are Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for This comment is helpful. However, the intent of the statement is to provide 16 3.2.3 growing. Starting their home purchase with one child and moving on to al larger size home after g g� g p g g PC -Wright g analysis. support for the encouragement of middle housing options. This statement pp g g p the family grows in number and household income. Delete the "negative implications could be expanded upon to make that nexus clear. statement. 17 3.2.3 This rould have negative implieations as smalleF heusehelds may net he able PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for See response above. suita-owet th ;.need and budget.- analysis. See the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Public Engagement Report. Example informational quotes: Overall, stakeholders confirmed that there is a lack of housing options in Port Orchard, even with recent changes by the city. Low -moderate income workers and fixed -income retirees are struggling to afford housing in Port Orchard and long-time residents are seeing their adult children unable to afford buying a home in the city. There is concern that essential service and retail workers are leaving the community, limiting the social and economic diversity of the city, and hurting businesses in the city. 18 3.3 From what source? We have relatively little community feedback and I'm concerned this PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen All cost inputs for new housing are going in the wrong direction amid rising implied widespread input and agreement when there may not actually be that much support. 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 i solutions stakeholders feel could help better achieve city housing goals. In HAP survey data with 119 respondents: Both owners and renters report being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected financial event at significantly high levels. A little over 60% of renters and almost 50% of owners report being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected event. Generally, the cost of goods and housing have outpaced wages over the past 40 Again, I disagree! WA state raised minimum wages and increased efforts to raise wages. This years. The Housing Action Plan (HAP) Figure 4 illustrates this. 19 3.3 issue is a direct result of policies messing around with market driven factors. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen https://If.portorchardwa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192029&dbid=0&repo i =PortOrchard&cr=1 20 3.3 This statement MUST refer back to figure 5. The message is skewed to the negative and does not PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen Statement is factual based on data. tell an accurate story of reality in my view. 21 3.3 ��* The current relationship between housing prices and income have become strained, as Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Changes accepted. housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident. This statement assumes the average PO resident manages their budget appropriately. I can attest that many younger folks do not manage their incomes and monthly budgets to achieve 22 3.3 housing stability. What and how much you buy - a daily Starbucks for example - affects your PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. ability to achieve the larger purchases such as a home. Again, this is a complex issue and this analysis. 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 More explanation of terms will be added. Much of this Element relies on data this author suggesting Port Orchard provide subsidized housing? There are many State and Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for gathered through the Housing Action Plan (HAP), but some HAP content will be 23 3.3 federal programs eared at helping this segment of society. It seems proper to make this case if p g g p g g y p p ( PC -Wright g analysis. copied here since Comprehensive Plan readers may not know to refer to the we are compelled to do so) with proper reference to the programs set to address it. HAP I must say this Chapter is not well written and is full of poor grammar/spelling and other issues. 24 3.3 - Figure 8 What are these other bars representing? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemenim Unknown what bar chart this is referencing, but all bar 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 Is this meant to be an absolute requirement of an objective/goal? Can PSRC and KRCC mandate Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for CPPs. We are required to plan for the targets, not achieve the targets. If we do 25 3.4 housing within a city? This needs more context as to what the city of Port Orchard is to achieve PC -Wright analysis. not plan in accordance with the CPPs, we will not have our plan certified and and what the ramifications are if we do not. will be ineligible for future funding. More explanation of housing targets will be added. One of the primary goals of the GMA and subsequent plans such as Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 20540, Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, and this Plan, is to manage 26 3.4 growth effectively. To achieve that, a land capacity analysis is needed *wed to PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Changes accepted. determine how many potential housing units could be developed or redeveloped on current land. 27 3.4 See my comment above. The housing "requirement" is set without regard to all the other Comp PC -Wright Fomment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment acknowledged. The CPPs and Vision 2050 address critical areas, Plan elements such as critical areas, climate change, infrastructure, transportation, etc. climate, infrastructure, and transportation. 28 3.4 It is difficult to truly evaluate this chapter without the necessary data. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment acknowledged ensure suitable 29 34 3.5 Goals and Policies Replace with "that promote housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels and enhancing PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Changes accepted. the quality of life found in Port Orchard for all residents." I fail to see HOW PO will ensure affordable housing. The cost of housing is driven by the market - The comment is accurate. However, through policy and development 30 Goal 2 cost of materials -cost of land -cost of permitting/regulation -demand -location -and available PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. regulations, PO can create mechanisms to encourage these desired outcome. Revise to "Ensure that affordable housing options are available to all services. socioeconomic levels of Port Orchard residents." I think that Policy HS-4, Policy HS-9, Policy HS-11, Policy HS-12, and Policy HS-14 are strong and 31 Goal 2 will lead to more homeownership, increase housing supply and diverse housing options, and PC-Catey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment acknowledged. encourages development near transit and employment centers. 32 Goal 3 Policies HS-18-20 do a great job addressing walkable communities, building denser housing, and PC-Catey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment acknowledged. promotes efficient land use. 33 HS-10 Redundant with HS-6.. Omit this one. Adjust above to incorporate into one policy - too many to PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Good observation on an opportunity to combine separate, but related issues. manage. analysis. Options will be considered. This policy is intended to create walkable neighborhoods where these land uses 34 HS-17 What if this doesn't exist? For example McCormick isn't nearby schools (the school does own a PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for exist and are planned. This could be revised to clarify the most concentrated parcel), but the subarea is going to have over 1k+ new homes analysis. type of housing growth should be in walking/biking distance of those features, and/or add infrastructure closer to where most housing growth is occurring. Project team considered removing term "new housing" because all 35 HS-22 (Deleted Policy) What about redevelopment? See my comments on utilities which are similar. Redevelopment PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. development is currently required to do this, but then the policy becomes too for housing and utility upgrades should be done simultaneously. general and 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 I'd like to see mention of a burden on city funds when annexing to ensure the city doesn't take Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for infrastructure maintenance costs and the cost of additional services. The policy 36 HS-23 (Now HS-22) on infrastructure burdens without the prior years of tax revenue to pay for those burdens public -Danielson analysis. is confusingly worded, and can be updated to include consideration of fiscal impacts. Alternatively, the policy may belong in a different element since it is less focused on housing. You are suggesting the City of PO do this? Isn't this HUD's responsibility? Frankly - I like the 14The comment is correct that the City is not a housing agency, but the City has a 37 HS-25 (Now HS-24) previous HS-20 and HS-23 better than this. This policy as written will increase bureaucracy PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. legislative agenda and needs to advocate for higher levels of government to within the City government. Not a fan! address various housing issues. Agreed. Policy is not written in a clear manner. Perhaps something like the following may provide clarity. "Encourage a variety of ownership opportunities Not a proper sentence. Missing words? Also -the policy is vague and hard to envision. Seems it Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for and choices by allowing and supporting programs which may include, but are 38 HS-26 Now HS-25 ( ) PC -Wright not limited to, land trusts, tenant opportunity to purchase programs, limited equity cooperative, and sweat equity programs." Alternatively, this policy could be merged with another. 39 HS-28 Now HS-27 ( ) This item was not discussed in the main body of the document. There are senior centers within PC -Wright g Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Policyneeds to be revisited b y project team. the city. analysis. 40 HS-31 (Now HS-30) Redundant PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Comment acknowledged. Port Orchard is not Bellevue! Please do not build a Comp Plan for a rural city that emulates a 41 HS-32 (Now HS-31) hugely urban setting - that is not what PO residents want. Most of the growth we see in PO is PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen Unclear what the requested change is. HS-32 is about aging in place. from folks ESCAPING Seattle/Bellevue/King County. Earlier Comments Received - Parks Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details "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 Revised to resolve conflicting language. The word parks, trails, 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 by annual transition to the next sentence, where creating new 2 4.1 PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. budget expenditures, grants, impact fees and other financial parks to meet the needs of a growing population means available to the City." These two sentences sound like they and the means for how they would be funded is contradict each other. Are we slowly expanding new park facilities discussed. are not? We could join these two sentences together for concision and clarity. 3 4.1 Do we have an idea of what the future needs are/will be? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS 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 specific amount/range of acreage we need to Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS 4 4.1 PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. acquire? How many of those acres do we own? Does this have Plan, which provides this information. 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 Revised to add reference to Appendix D of the PROS 5 4.1 summarize the basics of the expected growth and anticipated need PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Plan, which provides this information. to new facilities. Revised language to replace "ensure" with "In an effort to create a plan which meets..." 6 4.2 Do not use "ensure". Global comment. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. There will be other sections that will use "ensure" language when there is regulatory context around incorporating certain sections/information. First sentence does not make sense. Comma placement and use or the term "outline" is confusion as well as the mail -back option. 7 4.2 Drop this unnecessary stuff and just say we conducted a survey of PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested edits. the community as part of the 2022 PROS update. Survey questions sought to........ is all OK. Not sure I understand the rationale of mentioning the PROS plan Revised to simplify language and refer the reader to survey results beginning of chapter 4. Is it to demonstrate that we 8 4.2 conducted surveys? As I was reading this section, it felt PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. the PROS Plan for more detailed information on public outreach efforts. The 2022 survey results incongruent to adjacent pieces of the chapters. We cut lot out on the sectionwhy? , were included as an update to the 2015 results. Ensure retained in this context. Stronger language 9 4.3 (referring to 'ensure') Do not use this word. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. in this section allows the City to promote park connectivity in future policy decisions. NOTE: the trails in McCormick Woods ARE NOT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Trails within McCormick Woods HOA are Private trails, including those identified in the 10 4.4 maintained by the HOA for use by HOA members and their guests. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. comment, are not displayed in the map. This fact needs to be clearly stated and not mislead the general public that these trails are open to all. EEL Full range? Really? I challenge this. Where are the public nature trails? Where are the publicly available lakes and wetland meadows? Blackjack Creek corridor does not have a proper trail on it nor does Ross Creek. I am not aware (off the top of my mind) 11 4.4 of any natural forested areas open to the public. NOTE: I PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to strike "full" from the phrasing. 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. Revised to drop the "s" from "improvements" in 12 4.5 Is there a link to this for an easy reference? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. CUP. Revised to add a reference to Appendix D of the PROS Plan. It will be helpful to list out and enumerate all the changes we have Revised to add a reference to the City's PROS Plan, 13 4.6 with parks. Then go into detail of each problem. Helps prime the PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. which provides a more detailed look at the park reader for what's to come. system than the Comprehensive Plan provides. 14 4.6 Use limited, not taxed. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to "strained" phrasing in place of "taxed" language. 15 4.6 (last paragraph) Why say "additionally"? Not needed. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested edits. 16 4.6 (last paragraph) Drop "therefore". PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested edits. I always find "goals" and "objectives" to be sources of confusion A more detailed description of what Goals and 17 4.7 and misunderstanding. If we use these terms in any portion of the PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Policies are in the context of the Comprehensive Comp Plan, we MUST define and differentiate. between how we analysis. Plan and how they are used has been added to the use these terms. Introduction Element. 18 Objective 1 I'm interested in the "how" to this. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. I The City's SMP addresses how this is accomplished. How does "enhancingand improving) existing p g) g parks preserve Revised Objective 2 to say "Preserve and enhance active and scenic open space? A well designed and well written active and scenic open space". Enhancing open 19 Objective 2 critical areas ordinance will do that. Buying available land parcels PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. space could be through maintenance or with open space and scenic features will do this. These objects improvements to the existing park, as opposed to Objective 3 which discusses developing new parks give me concern. or increasing the size of existing parks. 20 Objective 3 ?? Disagree - this item will not achieve the objective. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised this item to Objective 4 to better fit with context of objective language. 21 Objective 3 Again - I'm very interested in the "how" to this. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Parks and open space are required through the CAO, POMC 20.100 and 20.127. I looked at the city's demographics from the PROS survey. 1% speak another language as a primary. We do not have a sufficiently large "under -served" segment of our community to warrant this added emphasis. We can "identify" opportunities within Underserved refers to income. Several older areas underserved segments of our community to target some projects within the City are considered underserved and do our best to build parks and recreation opportunities to suit according to RCO. RCO provides a reduced match 22 Objective 4 the land and opportunity. THAT is the best we can do. I get it is PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. for projects in these areas. RCO has a tool to from VISION 2050 but we need to be real for Port Orchard and not identify these areas. https://rco.wa.gov/recreation- put us in a position of NOT serving our majority community. I'll and-conservation-office-grants/grant- also challenge you that the "urban" residents likely have the more requirements/match-reduction/ walkable access to parks, trails, and open spaces than other residents. Proximity to the waterfront is heavily linked to the urban core of PO. Safety is an important consideration. We have 23 Goal 1 drop "a safe" PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. many nonmotorized facilities that are substandard either in width, separation, or condition. 24 PK-1 HOW??? Buses, trails, bikes, etc are color blind and cannot speak. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This refers to proximity and condition of facilities. How will you promote this? Can we say right now which centers do not have parks or open Ruby Creek, Bethel/Lund, Bethel/Sedgwick, and 25 PK-2 spaces? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Mile Hill all lack city parks. This changes from year to year, and to prevent the 26 PK-2 Again, lets identify these places right now. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. need to frequent amendments to identify updated conditions, the language will be retained. 27 PK-2 Identify them right now. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. See the RCO map for underserved communities. I honestly think this is already done. Blackjack Creek Ross Creek, Ross Creek is in the being 28 PK-5 and the waterfront. McCormick Woods is a different issue with the PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. process of acquired. Blackjack Creek is mostly privately owned. HOA v City management/ownership. Really? All? I live in McCormick Woods as do a large portion of the There is a planned pathway along Old Clifton Road 29 PK-9 PO community. How will you get me to the waterfront by walking PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. connecting to the facilities on Tremont. Tremont is or biking? We need realistic goals and objectives. connected to downtown by the Bay Street West Pathway project along PO Blvd. 30 PK-12 (referring to "identify areas") conditions PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised "weather" with "conditions" to clarify language. 31 PK-15 Shall be? Hmm. No scotch broom or blackberries on any vacant PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised "shall" to "should". municipal properties within the city? 32 PK-16 (referring to The Active Club) what is this? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the re This is the community building at Givens Park. Where? Will the proposed new Community Center suffice? Why Revised language from "Community Recreation 33 PK-18 not add into the discussion the plans for that? By 2044, that PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Center" to "Community Event Center". facility and all the amenities should be complete and functioning. Sounds nice a cushy but I honestly do not know what this really Revised language to encourage commercial 34 Goal 5 PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. enterprises to establish private commercial means. recreation facilities. City -owned? How will the City force private fields to provide this? The fields at Givens Park are publicly owned. 35 PK-22 Each Little League would be asked to pay for these upgrades? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element.]plan. Additional public fields are identified in the PROS What defines feasible? Why only athletic fields? Why not a YMCA Revised language to state that athletic fields should 36 PK-23 PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. or larger athletic complex? be developed in accordance with the PROS Plan. This implies they are not currently encouraged. Why not say we 37 PK-24 want to continue and help promote private sports programs such PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested edits. as pickleball leagues, futsal leagues, etc. The SMP and Critical Areas Code provides mitigation requirements. We have a facility 38 PK-29 Subject to environmental impact? Feasibility? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. proposed with the new CEC that is being reviewed now. The SMP and Critical Areas Code provides Same comment as before. Subject to environmental mitigation requirements. We have a facility 39 PK-30 impact/feasibility? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. proposed with the new CEC that is being reviewed IL now. Why not "expansion" too? There is an informal kayak launch at Annapolis Pier but no easy linkage to the downtown boat launch Revised phrasing to "maintain, enhance, and 40 PK-31 and the downtown launch is not friendly for kayak launching. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. expand..." Seems an easy one to check. An example... Aren't they already? Critical areas for sure, side yards, etc. We Revised phrasing to "Continue to require buffers 41 PK-33 must respect private property rights and refer to the zoning codes PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. and open space as a required design element in for this sort of stuff. new developments". "functions as a buffer" is a complex topic and problematic as to use, definition, and poses legal entanglement. Let the Critical Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for This goal deals with critical areas. The policy deals 42 PK-36 Areas Ordinance do this. Make a simple reference that the Comp PC -Wright analysis. with open space. More discussion required. Plan and CAO should be synergistic (referring to acquisition) Who pays? Who maintains? Should we T7c36PK-37 have a partnership or MOU with the County about future The City pays. The County has no money for this 43 (should be PK-37 numbering is off) "countywide" open space acquisition? Homeless encampments PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme 4 and is trying to offload their parks to the City. come rapidly to mind with this issue. 44 PK 39 PK-40 Lets review how long McCormick Village Park splash zone was out PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element Noted - facility maintenance is better addressed in of commission! All last summer. the City's PROS Plan. See my previous comments. I want to know where this place is in 45 � Goal 12 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. See the RCO map for underserved communities. relation to parks facilities. Noted - retained "consider" language as the City 46 PK-41 PK-44 Not sure I agree with this. Not enough parks to warrant this. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. continues to grow over the 20-year planning horizon of this Periodic Update. Earlier Comments Received - Natural Systems Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment _F Comment Source Staff Action Action Details 2 5.1 (8th bullet) I like this basic and general statement regarding climate change. Use it mor in other PC -Wright mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen Noted - this will be expanded on in other sections sections. as applicable to those specific Elements. Noted - the intent of the Goals and Policies of both 3 5.1 Transportation poses substantial impact avenues to Critical Areas. PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. this Element and the Transportation Element is to identify and mitigate these impacts. 4 5.2 (referring to 'full range') I dislike use of this term. A wide variety is more appropriate. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested language. Revised language to add language that replanting Sometimes, we must remove the woody mass to stabilize slopes. The Ross Point area is and management in accordance with the CAO 5 5.3.1 a god example. Removal of the woody mass is proper when mature and poses danger PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. would be fine. This comment is one example of a to life or property. Proper replanting and management are key. cost effective form of preserving slope stability but does not encompass all methods. Added reference to the 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, which provide 6 5.3.3 Is this true? I dislike making this statement without facts to back it up! PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. additional information and context. It has been true during construction. See the violations at Stetson Heights. The greenbelt zoning has been applied to the corridor. Examples can be found in the PO Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, 7 5.3.3 1 would like the know what "recent" steps the city has taken in this regard. Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen Blackjack Creek Watershed Assessment and Protection and Restoration Plan, Blackjack Creek Floodplain Restoration Project Engineering Design Plans. I disagree these buffers are equally important. If this is true, why are there no laws like Reviewing comment in association with CAO 8 5.3.4 the Clean Water Act targeting buffers. Buffers are not regulated by the federal PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. update for consistency. government. I recommend we omit this sentence. (referring to a new wetland mitigation bank site) Until this is developed and approved by the multi -agency task force, this is speculation. I'd rather not mention speculative This corresponds to changes proposed in the CAO 9 5.3.4 stuff in the Comp Plan. If the City is developing the mitigation bank - say so - otherwise PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme2 that would outline the role of mitigation banks omit this. when applying the CAO. 10 5.3.5 PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to delete suggested language. 11 5.3.5 As in any urban area,-en&u+ffg maintaining effective PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested language. How much development does allow within aquifer recharge areas? I suspect not A large portion of the city is located in a category 1 12 5.3.5 is much and if that is true omit this sentence. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. or 2 aquifer recharge area. Most development is allowed in these areas. This is speaking generally about urban levels of 13 5.3.6 Really, where? I know we are seeing some redevelopment but new urban shoreline PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen development under the GMA, not shoreline development? I'm challenging this statement. development. 14 5.3.6 Again, I challenge this statement. Hood Canal - I agree, Sinclair Inlet flushes pretty well. PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. Reviewing comment in association with CAO update for consistency. This statement also concern me. PSNS Bremerton is the most significant contributor of Sinclair Inlet is listed on the 303d list for fecal 15 5.3.6 pollutants in Sinclair Inlet. THIS is well documents. What is the need to include this PC -Wright Comment I incorporate to the revise ent. coliform TMDL. This section is not phrased to identify PO as the primary contributor, rather just sentence? identify the Inlet's existing condition. This statement is part of the old Comp Plan. What progress was made to date with this? We now have a plan for the downtown basin. The 16 5.3.6 If the City has made no progress, the question is how long has the city been trying to PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Orchard Street Plaza and CEC projects are make improvements and why no progress. implementing some of these changes. See State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound https:Hcig.uw.edu/publications/state-of- knowledge-climate-change-in-puget-sound/ Water 17 5.4 I've not seen documented evidence that Puget Sound water temp is rising. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen temperature 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 since This section includes a reference to the Kitsap 18 5.4 we began measuring 10-20 years ago? King tides have always flooded downtown what PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment. 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 19 5.4 since 1908. Shoreline homes have not been lost to sea level rise. Bay Street has not PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Language revised to soften phrasing used. been lost to sea level rise. We need to put this into a reasonable narrative. Tagging for further discussion - maintaining a comprehensive mapping of critical area assessments that are submitted on a project-by- 20 NS-3 Isn't this already done? PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. 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. Support in what way? Financial? Permitting incentives? The Blackjack Creek mit. bank This is supported proposed changes to the CAO 21 NS-4 was relatively successful. But would be a good exercise to review that project's history PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. of private mitigation banks. that allow the use of and success/failure issues. And who will do this and what is the cost? Is this mandated by GMA? This could be We participate in these efforts at a regional level, 22 NS-5 expensive and not a lot to gain for that expense. I suggest we pass on this unless PC -Wright Comment will not be incorpor7ed into the revised draft element. and this will be a formal requirement in association mandatory. with the Climate Element. 23 NS-6 Implies absolute. The City will apply the local CAO and applicable state and federal PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Slight revision to language used to provide regulations to protect.... "requiring" phrasing. Pertains to persevering the city's tree canopy. The pushback from legacy McCormick 24 Goal 3 Residents on reducing the number of lots of the Amherst subdivision set the precedent PC-Ta Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. This goal should be discussed at -large at the next on preserving trees. Opportunity here to set more concrete policy, especially as Planning Commission meeting. developers submit plans. 25 Goal 3 1 disagree with this addition. PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for analysis. This goal should be discussed at -large at the next Planning Commission meeting. HB 1181 amends the Growth Management Act and requires cities to include a Climate Change Element. 26 NS-15 Very $$$$$ for a small city. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. ]State A GHG emissions inventory is required, though the City may rely on the inventory prepared by the for Kitsap County. This policy was drafted to provide flexible language 27 NS-16 I'm not sure anyone knows what this means. Omit - too vague. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. that can be responsive to more formal guidance and requirements that are established outside of the Comprehensive Plan. Implement t Consider and implement where feasible, nature based solutions to address 28 NS-17 climate change, such as tree planting programs to sequester carbon, and low impact PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested language. development strategies to address stormwater runoff, flooding and pollution. Where/who is this in PO? Homeless/unhoused? How does one reduce risk of natural This language is consistent with provisions of RCW 29 NS-18 hazards through mitigation? Do we only let non -at -risk communities near areas with PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. 36.70.070(9)(d)(i)(C). natural hazard risk? Same comment as above. This implies we will discriminate between residents of the Consistency with Vision 2050 is required, which population one way or the other. What is "equity lens"? Is it fully defined? Is that includes policies and actions related to equity. 30 NS-19 definition changing? I submit it is and this is/will be a quagmire for the City if included PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Equity lens is a common phrase that is used to describe including equity in the decision making as written. process when making policy. Consistency with Vision 2050 is required, which includes policies and actions related to equity. 31 NS-22 Doesn't this make the equity statements above? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen q1 Equity lens is a common phrase that is used to describe including equity in the decision making process when making policy. 32 Goal 19 Does the City have management authority over waters of the state? Water quality? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elementAMIAThe City has obligations under its NPDES Permit. 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 33 NS-88 PO population. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Omit as written and consider PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested language. stating that PO will maintain an open access policy to all public shorelines for all residents and visitors. Earlier Comments Received - Economic Development Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details 1 6.1 Investment in what? City saving and retirement account? Infrastructure? Parks and open spaces? What PC -Wright omment will not be incorporat into This includes any expenditure of city funds. are the priorities with investments? the revised draft element. This is speaking to the City's identity going forward. While other industries existed in PO, the chosen Comment will not be incorporat 2 6.1 See my comment on PO's history section... PC -Wright history to be identified for future recognition in into the revised draft element. economic development is maritime rather than mill 6— A town or any other identity. Create opportunities for small businesses, women -owned businesses, and minority -owned Comment accepted and 3 6.1 PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested language. businesses to locate in the City. element. Comment accepted and Hasn't this been done? If so, maybe we freshen or update or create new, integrated centers for Revised for clarity: "continue to identify and 4 6.1 PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft P0. support growth centers" element. ...have a limited impact on environmentally sensitive areas such as Puget Sound, streams and Comment accepted and 5 6.1 PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested language. wetlands. element. Comment accepted and 6 6.2.1 The city is no longer a one -hour drive from the region's main international airport in SeaTac. PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised for clarity. element. Comment will not be incorporat The estuary is part of the waterfront. The rest of 7 6.2.1 What about Creeks? Blackjack flows right through downtown. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. the creek is inaccessible. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains (referring to city's higher concentrations of workers in industries listed) Really?? What about Comment under additional occupation data for states, counties and 8 6.2.4 PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps the City? Where does the City stand in this category? metropolitan areas. We will look for other data for analysis. sources for city data and add if available. Comment accepted and 9 6.2.6 (referring to 'As of 2015...') ?? It is 2023. Hasn't this changed since 2015? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised for clarity. element. Seems to me we lost the opportunity to keep the "centers" theme here. If business centers Comment will not be incorporat Noted - promoting development in centers, where 10 Goal 1 were properly planned and constructed, linked with public transportation, close to residential PC -Wright into the revised draft element. development intensity is appropriate, aids in this. opportunity, many of these policies will be synergistic. Language revised to remove "shall." Note that this Comment accepted and is a GMA requirement. Why "shall"? very legal and absolute term. Same comment everywhere "shall" occurs in policy Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 11 ED-1 PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft statements. Recommend using SHOULD everywhere possible. i dentify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 12 ED-2 (referring to the word 'shall') ?? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Comment will not be incorporat "Rail" removed from this policy. 13 ED-3 where is rail an option in PO? PC -Wright Kitsap transit has no plans for rail in Kitsap County. to the revised draft element. 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 will the Comment will not be incorporat Infrastructure investment has been a large barrier 14 ED-5 city do differently to achieve the stated goals? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. to development, but the city is starting to put a dent in the capital project list. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 15 ED-6 (referring to the word 'shall') ?? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. 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 Comment accepted and 16 ED-6 activities are concentrated. PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested language. element. 17 ED-8 what about redevelopment of older segments of the city? These may not be in a designated PC -Wright Comment will not be incorpor Please refer to the centers map in the LU element center but may be linked by general proximity and transit. into the revised draft element. and let us know if there is an area of concern. These I am sure are left over from 2018. They are pet issues for me. When we talk about encouraging Downtown events and holiday festivals ( I am not opposed to either), How do we measure the economic impact to the city? There are merchants along Bay which increase sales during the events and there are merchants which have their business decline. I see these more as community building/ social events rather than economic development. Comment under additional 18 ED-9 and ED-16 The recognition and encouragement of tourism sounds great. However, Port Orchard does not PC -Ashby consideration, identify next steps Noted - we will explore ways to expand on the have an ocean, a mountain or other prominent attraction for tourists. Port Orchard has 2 for analysis. expectation for tourism in Port Orchard. 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 manages Comment will not be incorporat The first 5 city owned signs were installed along 19 ED-10 it? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Tremont and PO Blvd. Also see our parks signage. (referring to diversification and employment objectives) What are these objectives in Comment accepted and Revised to add specificity and some quantifiable 20 ED-11 quantifiable terms? When/how do we know we succeed? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft metrics. element. Comment under additional 21 ED-12 (referring to modernization and streamlining) Not very clear what this means. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps Revised to add specificity. for analysis. (referring to people of color and low-income populations) Why the emphasis here? Seems it is This policy intended to incorporate equity principles not necessary. All this needs to say is: Establish ... policies affect the city. I would argue the Comment under additional into Economic Development Element. Could be 22 ED-16 emphasis on a minority group would affect the city as much or more so than statewide policies. PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps rephrased to "all" City residents pending PC If the city truly establishes strong relationships with community stakeholder groups - this issue for analysis. feedback? is moot. This policy intended to incorporate equity principles Comment under additional into Economic Development Element. Could be 23 ED-16 policies affect all city residents PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps rephrased to "all" City residents pending PC for analysis. feedback? Do we have an industrial base in PO to "maintain"? I'd argue we do not. I think the city is the largest occupier of the "industrial park". RV Assoc. is a construction contractor. I think this There are quite a few industrial business at the Goal should be rethought and refocused on high employment endeavors such as industrial park and there is room for expansion. We 24 Goal 4 industrial/professional/technical services. All the Policies that follow say nothing about PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporat also have boat manufacturing on the waterfront industrial uses. It's all about tourism, arts, recreation, small/cottage businesses. The city needs into the revised draft element. between downtown and Gorst. Policy ED-21 speaks to attract a whole new segment of businesses to link the increased housing we have seen and to industrial uses. are planning. Comment accepted and Revised to address "all road users" rather than 25 Goal 5 (referring to walking and biking) drop. We want safe streets. Period. PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identifying specific walking and biking users. element. What is the status of local agriculture? I think is has diminished to nearly non- existent. Just how Comment will not be incorporat Locally produced food doesn't necessarily mean 26 ED-24 much ag occurs within the city or even the UGA? Does the city provide property tax credits to PC -Wright into the revised draft element. produced in PO. 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 get to and from Comment will not be incorporat There is a transit hub downtown already at the foot 27 Goal 6 PC -Wright public meetings in person rather than web -based meetings? Note that there is no significant into the revised draft element.lKitsapArea. ferry dock. bus hub in downtown. Marina launch parking lot may be a good option if this is pursued. Comment will not be incorporatPort Orchard provides services to the wider South 28 Goal 6 How is "South Kitsap Area" apart of the city of PO Comp Plan? PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Really? Bethel corridor is dangerous! Need to see where "centers" are located and how this will Comment will not be incorporat 29 ED-28 PC -Wright Please refer to the centers map in the LU Chapter. work. into the revised draft element. am Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 30 ED-29 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 31 ED-29 The City shall encourage the redevelopment of strip commercial areas..... into what? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 32 ED-30 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 33 ED-31 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Language revised to remove "shall." My experience is that this has not yielded the desired results to date. Most LEED construction Comment under additional Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 34 ED-31 has dropped the moniker and many wished they did not spend the extra $$ to achieve LEED PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps identify that items are a requirement to implement status. Using recycled products makes financial sense. LEED does not. for analysis. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Pretty dated statement. These items - except vegetated roofs - are commonplace and most are Comment will not be incorporat 35 ED-32 mandatory by the Ecology SWM guidelines. Suggest changing to reference the Ecology manual. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. Encouraging LID is mandated. Also not impervious surfaces are not all accepted by fire departments due to load restrictions. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 36 ED-32 issues with term 'shall' PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. Comment accepted and 37 ED-33 drop 'both' PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested language. element. Language revised to remove "shall." Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 38 ED-34 (referring to word 'shall') Really? What happens if you don't? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement element. 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 outside of Language revised to remove "shall." it's own fleet? Best you can do is say the city will convert to all -electric vehicles. We now know Comment accepted and Generally, shall is used in regulatory context to 39 ED-35 this is a HUGE mistake so please be very careful with our money! Keep traffic moving! Less PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft identify that items are a requirement to implement idling. element. rather than a vision or goal that may be worked towards. €D 35 ED-37 (FYI numbering is Comment accepted and Revised language to add references to City's long- 40 inaccurate after ED-35 with newly Where will the cars go? Is there a plan? PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft term plans for a parking structure downtown. added policy) element. Question this term... How will the city "support"? Is that our job? I suppose we can promote it Comment will not be incorpora This was a goal from 2016 when Sunday service was 41 ED 35 ED-38 as an attractant to P0. But support? Implies financial assistance. I'm not interested in that. PC -Wright into the revised draft element. not available and when most businesses downtown closed at 6pm. KPUD is expanding in the city. It requires 42 €D-36 ED-39 Sounds wishy-washy. How do we make this happen? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporat coordination from the city and communication from into the revised draft element. the city to developers about the availability of fiber. Why not develop an agreement with service providers to drop new lines in a designated city- Comment under additional We already do this. We could add a policy 43 €D 37 ED-40 owned conduit integrated into each road resurfacing and new road project? This would make a PC -Wright consideration, identify next steps statement, but it is something that already occurs. good policy statement. for analysis. omment will not be incorpora This is more complicated and includes cost sharing 44 €D 38 ED-40 Same as above PC -Wright 7into the revised draft element. from the city per the franchise agreement. Comment will not be incorporate I believe this is focused on the work of KEDA and 45 Goal 9 Why not call out community stakeholders? Why are they excluded here? PC -Wright Onto the revised draft element. the Chamber. 46 €D-40 ED-42 Has the City considered forming a City of Port Orchard Business forum? Includes all city-wide businesses - not just POBSA. Brings in Lowes, Kroger, Ace Hardware, Restaurants, Auto PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporate This is what the Chamber of Commerce is for. 'nto the revised draft element. parts/service business, etc. How long has this been a policy? What is the progress over that time? Reads stale and like it Comment accepted and Revised to remove outdated Policy, as Bremerton nnn ED 47 40 ED-42 has been achieved or is a failure. Needs a refresh! PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft provides service. element. Comment accepted and 48 €D-455 (last policy under Goal 11) Redundant PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft Revised to remove redundant Policy. element. Comment accepted and 49 Policy ED-44 and 45 Duplicates PC -Bailey incorporated into the revised draft Revised to remove duplicative Policy. element. Empower how? I'm concerned we set the city up for failure or a challenge when stuff like this gets written in Comp Plans. Only write what you are capable of producing. Recognize the Comment accepted and Revised to remove "empower" language. Rephrased 50 Goal 12 importance of and integrate this awareness to the extent feasible.... The Port did this with a PC -Wright incorporated into the revised draft to: "Support and recognize the contributions..." proposal years ago to highlight the Suquamish Tribe's fishing heritage. The Tribe declined the element. advertisement. Maybe use the word "celebrate"? 51 €D 44 (1st policy under Goal 12) Doesn't this occur already? How is this different? Why not combine these two policies? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporatThis Policy is consistent with MPP-RC-4 language. into the revised draft element. Earlier Comments Received - Utilities Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment 1 Comment Source Staff Action Action Details 2 7.1 to utilities vision) I like it. PC -Wright ::6(referring Noted - will be retained in its current form. 3 7.1 Where does the public view this information? PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for This sentence refers to the requirements found in the GMA. Local (City) plans analysis. are referenced within this Element. Is there a plan for this? Also, how synced are these Utility districts and private utilities are not subject to GMA planning 4 7.1 providers with the Comp Plan? Are they consulted to PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for requirements at this time. As a side note, the legislature is studying the issue to integrate their long range service plans? analysis. determine when districts should be required to plan. This Comprehensive Plan update takes into consideration utility providers long-term plans, as available. I assume the Utilities Element is part of the Comp Plan Yes, but the functional plans" are adopted by reference into the 5 7.1 and the "functional plans" are likely program -specific and PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comprehensive ve Plan. drafted by various departments. True? 6 7.1 Capital E? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. 7 7.2 collects and delivers PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. How old are these sewer lines? Say average age and what 8 7.2 is the life expectancy of the system? Are there certain PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This level of detail is provided in the General Sewer Plan. parts scheduled for replacement? What is the status of our wells? Are they providing 9 7.2 stability in delivery? Saltwater intrusion? Pump age and PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This level of detail is provided in the Water System Plan. maintenance? 10 7.3 Telecommunications, first I believe Astound (formerly WAVE) provides landline PC -Bailey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for updated information. bullet phone service in addition to CenturyLink. 11 7.3, Telecommunications, third Replace "Wave" with "Astound". PC -Bailey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for updated information. bullet Not very well written to truly describe the most actively Detailed information related to the City's stormwater management system and 12 7.3 growing part of the city. Consider rewriting this to reflect PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. obligations under the NPDES Permit is provided in Section 7.4 related to the true conditions of runoff controls in the area of the City not directly discharging to Sinclair Inlet. Stormwater. Astound is the new name I think. We should not limit the 13 7.3 various utilities by name, we should make this more wide PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for updated information. open for 2044. 14 7.4, Water, third sentence "Water supply needs is..." — replace "is" with "are". PC -Bailey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. 15 I would like to suggest rewording, the sentence mentions PC -Bailey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. 7.4, Water, fourth sentence "emergency" twice. I'm interested in hearing more about this pilot project. Staff will provide a summary at the next Planning Commission meeting on this 16 7.4, Water, last para Perhaps during a PC meeting City staff could provide a PC -Bailey Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. summary? item. I would appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the 7.4, stormwater, last sentence in types of runoff prevention methods that are currently Element has been revised to include a new Policy addressing this: When 17 last para used. More specifically, those that shouldn't be used PC -Bailey Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. stormwater BMPs are deemed ineffective due to site -specific conditions, (some straw sleeves and bales) as they pose a risk to explore and apply appropriate site -specific BMPs. See proposed UT-21. habitat and agriculture. In large part water quality monitoring has switched from 18 fecal coliforms to E. coli as the indicator organism. I just Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for PC -Bailey This City will need to confirm with the Public Works Department. wanted to confirm PO is still monitoring for FC as the analysis. 7.4, Stormwater, last para document states, not EC. Need to define Asset Management and what is involved IV= in this effort. What utilities and infrastructure are included? Who performs this rigorous effort? Use of preventative and predictive maintenance in the same This is referring to the software (Open Gov Cartography that we have purchased 19 7.4 paragraph is confusing and needs more explanation. As PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. to manage city assets. We have a position in Public Works dedicated to worded, I have doubt the city understands AMP and how operating the program. 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 Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This level of detail is provided in the General Sewer Plan. compared to the lines in older segments of the city. Is there a Sewer/wastewater CIP we can refer to? Revised to include footnote references and links to associated documents. https:Hportorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-plan/ Please guide the reader to the location of these https:Hstorage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2017/10/Ge 21 7.4 references on the City website. Do this in all cases to PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. neral-Sewer-Plan-Update-FINAL1.pdf promote public engagement and to solicit input as is one https:Hportorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port-orchard-stormwater-and- of the main objectives of the Comp Plan. watersheds -comprehensive -plan/ Redundant use of "emergency". We may want to 22 7.4 consider getting a technical editor to help. Is this PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. consultant work or staff work? Added footnote reference to state law and where additional information can be "Foster Pilot Project" is what?? Once something like this found: https:Hlawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017- 23 7.4 is mentioned, it demands some context as to what it is, PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. 18/Pdf/Bi I Is/Session°/"20Laws/Senate/6091-S.SL.pdf#page=1 where it is, where it will serve the city, etc. More information can be found here: https:Hecology.wa.gov/water- shorelines/water-supply/water-rights/case-law/foster-decision 24 7.4 Will AMP better describe this need? A CIP for sewer is RIThe PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. individual system plans provide additional level of detail, and have been mentioned above - is there a water system CIP? summarized in tables included in the Element. Have city wells promoted an impact to local streams? See the water system plan. The City is participating in the Foster Pilot Program 25 7.4 Where is this documented? Again - is there a Water PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. and this analysis is ongoing. System CIP that spells all this out? 26 7.4 Is this the Foster Pilot Project? PC -Wright Yes, this related to the Foster Pilot Project. 27 7.4 aims PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Needs proper reference. Typically, city codes must refer 0 to specific documents to guide engineers and contractors The year has been deleted because the new manual will be adopted in about 2 for the specifics of the job at hand. nebulous references years. We don't want an old reference in the plan. The place for the year is in 28 7.4 cause difficulties as to version control and interpretation. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme our code. Currently the code references the 2019 manual. See POMC Not all future "drafts" are ready for implementation so 20.150.060 (3) (a). until they are codified, local jurisdictions do not commonly adopt them. 29 7.4 who performs this review? I suspect the City Engineering PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Yes, including the Public Works Department. team. What about climate change? Did these 2023 plans address climate? If so say so - we can get credit in 30 7.4 meeting goals from state mandates. Also - where are PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Climate will be addressed in these plans, if not already, during the next update these documents? Please give references to each one in to each plan. Footnote references and link have been added to the Element. 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 31 7.4 or A significant pollutant load comparatively. I suggest a PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add additional language related to the City's goal to comply with its rewrite to say the city wishes to do its best to comply NPDES Permit and prevent further degradation of Puget Sound. 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 32 7.5 future centers? Is there a document/report that PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This information is contained in the Land Use Element. 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 Centers are prioritized for investment because they serve more people at less 33 7.5 this term. The city does not know where people choose PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme cost compared to addressing infrastructure in more outlying areas. No specific to live and how long they choose to live there if renting change has been proposed here. 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 Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for This is addressed in the water system plan. The rate structure was just changed 34 7.6, Water fees for heavier users, etc. Is this something that has analysis. to move in this direction for the first time. Are there specific goal and policy been considered? The current fee scale increases the suggestions to include related to this? 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 14 flooding, erosion, habitat, etc. Whether in this section or The stormwater plan was just completed. This will need to wait until the next 35 7.6, Stormwater elsewhere, I think it would be beneficial to also include PC -Bailey Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. plan update. projects that address impervious surfaces/alternatives to conventional stormwater management. 36 UT-9 City limits or UGA? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. City Limits. If people want service outside of the city, they should annex. How can we improve older segments of the city? When This is a general fund expense and is very expensive, even under a schedule 74 37 UT-21 road resurfacing is needed, why not underground those PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. agreement with PSE per the franchise agreement. areas too and add high speed internet. 'IThere is a difference between 24 and 25. 25 includes facilities such as sewer lift 38 UT-25 Isn't this redundant with #24 above? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. stations. We would always want to update an existing lift station before adding a new one to the system. Why not PO residents too? FYI - in all cases - solar, wind, 39 UT-26 etc. there will be impacts such as visual disruptions, PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add residential to the list. noise, and other environmental consequences. 40 UT-27 What does this mean? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. 41 UT-28 What does this mean - what resources? Is there an PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add additional detail to the policy promoting conservation of water example of such incentives? This is a requirement for water conservation. See the water system plan. 42 Goal 5 Is there a good and accurate map of Internet service type PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated in The City does not have a map of this information for specific service boundaries and provider in the city? of non -City utility providers. How do we get high speed BB in already developed areas If there are enough customers, the private providers will decide to make an 43 UT-30 of the City? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. investment. KPUD Fiber is being added as street projects are completed in the city. It is up to homeowners to connect from the service line to their house. 44 UT-31 and redevelopment proposals. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. IDevelopment phrasing is inclusive of redevelopment projects. When do we stop with the policies and simply identify the challenges and plan accordingly? For example: Challenge - Earthquake - Old structures not design/built to withstand event of "x" magnitude yields higher risk of loss of life and injury. Specifically with higher density dwellings/hospitals/homes. This Plan is intended to provide Policy language that is subsequently adopted Challenge - Wildfires - Location of infrastructure to native into development regulations. Development regulations provide that level of 45 UT-32 areas or timberlands. Limited access in some locations PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemel specificity, which is appropriate as this Plan is a document that is intended to be impacts response times and fire suppression success. updated Periodically, while development regulations can be more responsive/updated to current information, technology, and guidance. 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. 46 UT-33 Is this true in PO? Where is the documentation? I am not PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. This language is meant to ensure consistency with the Kitsap County necessarily in agreement. Countywide Planning Policies. See MPP-CC-6 and MPP-CC-8. Earlier Comments Received - Transportation Element The following feedback was collected from Planning Commissioners and public comment throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process Comment Number Comment Section Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details What does this mean? We cannot ignore that vehicle traffic is the main mode of transportation in PO No revision proposed -this statement indicates equal treatment of all modes of 2 8.1 and that the other elements are minor and meant to reduce dependency on vehicles - not replace PC -Wright omment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme vehicles. transportation. 3 8.1 Very awkward and convoluted sentence. Please rewrite to make this clear. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft eleme Revised for clarity. "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 4 8.2 ensuring coordinated City and County regional Land Use Plans which promote a more efficient PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised language to be more specific than just the waterfront area. multimodal 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? 5 8.2 Not necessarily true. If we add utilities within the road prism, improve drainage and flood control, PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme Existing language is inclusive of the types of improvements identified in the these items have measurable financial benefits to residents. comment. Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be 6 8.2 What are "bicycle facilities"? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments and through implementation appropriate facilities may be created. This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -size -fits -all treatment. Revised language to "Both motorized improvements at intersections and 7 8.2 Again - I disagree. Viability as defined by??? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. nonmotorized improvements such as bicycle facilities and sidewalks are necessary for an effective and equitable transportation system." 8 8.2 ...promotes an Fnere efficient multimodal transportation system. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested edits. 9 8.3.1.1 The reality of the length of these six lanes is lost with this. I suggest a rewrite to accurately reflect PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add length of six -lane section. the 6 lanes are very limited in length. Interesting that the traffic lights on Sedgwick at the SR 16 interchange are not discussed as an 10 8.3.1.1 introduction. These lights are a huge reason why traffic is difficult on Sedgwick. Development on PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to acknowledge signalized intersection. either side of SR 16 exacerbated traffic with added lights ill-timed with the interchange. 11 8.3.1.1 Does the Bethel road belong in the State system portion of this element? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised for clarity. Isn't Old Clifton part County? Link to SR 3, Amazon delivery center. Port Bremerton? Sedgwick rolls yes, however this is not an exhaustive list of County roads, but rather 12 8.3.1.2 into a County road as well and offers a second link to the Southworth terminal and Kitsap Transit P&R PC -Wright mmen willno a Incorporated into e revise ra element. acknowledges that County roads are part of the transportation system. as fast ferry. 13 8.3.2.2 I'm not sure this is accurate. PC -Wright Noted - no change to existing language proposed. When it runs on time, the boats are frequently at the Bremerton dock at the same time. 14 Table 8.x Park and Ride Lots There is also a lot in the County along Sedgwick near the Southworth terminal that is important to PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised table and added descriptions of additional facilities to provide more note. Mullinex is another key piece that helps reduce traffic in PO. Any others? information. 15 8.3.2.5 Some of these locations will be problematic and located on top of already congested areas. Needs PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme Noted - no change to existing language proposed. This information is derived careful coordination with the City. from the Kitsap Transit Plan and have been incorporated here for consistency. 16 8.3.2.5 Can we go into a little more detail about what each project will entail? PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add a footnote referencing the Kitsap Transit Plan, which includes more project details. 17 8.3.2.5 (referring to Sydney Rd park and ride) If this exists, add it to the table above. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add this to the park and ride section. 18 8.3.3 Needs more description. This is a very small airport for small aircraft only and largely private aircraft. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add additional information. No terminal, no staff, no services. No bus route service that I am aware of. Is it worthy to mention the Amazon fulfillment center and its reliance on the Bremerton airport to Revised to add a footnote referencing Bremerton National Airport's Master 19 8.3.3 ship in goods? That is driving demand on the airport at the moment and will grow in the next 20 PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Plan. years. Just curious - is the new roundabout at Bay St and Mile Hill compatible with freight? I see larger The Bay Street / Bethel roundabout's apron is designed to allow trucks to drive 20 8.3.4 trucks and busses rolling over the center circle of the roundabout frequently. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen on the apron to accommodate turning movements. Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be 21 8.3.5 (referring to bicycle facilities) Again, what is this? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments and through implementation appropriate facilities may be created. This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -size -fits -all treatment. 22 8.3.5 (referring to 'significant') I want data to prove how significant this truly is! PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised language to 'meaningful' to soften language while retaining intent. 23 8.3.5 This is written as if this is currently the case. If that is the intention, I disagree. Park and Rides are PC -Wright corpor me Revised language for clarity. Note that new development projects are often not easily accessed by non -motorized modes currently. required to provide/identify non -motorized access to transit facilities. 24 8.3.5 Some portions of nonmotorized routes can be used for commuting purposes to potentially reduce PC -Wright No revisions proposed - the current language refers to mode choice which o mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element .would peteatia4 vehicular traffic volumes. reduce vehicular trips. Comprehensive Plan adopts Centers and their boundaries. Subarea plans and 25 8.3.5 (referring to adopted centers) ?? Established?? PC -Wright mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. development regulations implement and "establish" centers. See LU Element for additional information. 26 8.3.5 The City can take measurable steps with this Transportation Element toward the goals g Revised per comment, as there is no specific goal language supporting stricken PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. every eitizen's resident's quality • ng a safer walking and biking environment. of life creating text. 27 8.3.5.1 Sidewalks and designated crosswalks are provided in some residential subdivisions including PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Revised to remove all specific examples, as they can change over the course of McCormick Woods, Flower Meadows, Leora, and Indigo Point. analysis. the 20-year planning horizon. 28 8.3.5.1 while the ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner or HOA as PC -Wright Comment will no a incorporated into e revise ra a eme POMC 20.12 does not delegate maintenance responsibilities of public sidewalks outlined in Port Orchard Municipal Code 12.12. to HOAs. Noted - no proposed changes to language. This is written to encourage walking Have you folks been to school at start/stop times??? NO kids walk or bike to school anymore. as a mode choice, which is reinforced in the City's subdivision requirements for 29 8.3.5.1 Parents drive them if the bus is inconvenient. Parent drop-off and pick up times are traffic PC -Wright safe walking routes to school. This document intends to guide policy over the mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen:schools headaches! Let's please be real. 20-year planning horizon, in which walking as a mode choice - particularly to - is intentional. Interesting. Why not? From the description -they meet or stop at city limits. Seems a good thing to Revised language: "The County -designated routes do not cross into the city 30 8.3.5.3 say these are the highest potential expansions into the city? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. limits, but the bicycle facilities they carry are incorporated to the nonmotorized system vision described in this Element." 8.4.2 Port Orchard Boulevard (Tremont Revised language: "...provide a connection between the Tremont Medical 31 Street to Bay Street) Through a greenbelt or along the Boulevard? Unclear. PC -Wright omment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Center and Downtown Port Orchard via Port Orchard, a relatively low -volume roadway bound by greenbelt." 8.4.2 Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Will implementation of this preclude (prevent) Bethel expansion for cars and trucks? This may be a The roadway design was modeled through the Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan 32 Road) big deal! PC -Wright mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. and is designed to accommodate forecasted future traffic volumes, including truck traffic. Revised paragraph and added final sentence: "Further study is necessary to 33 8.4.2 McCormick Woods Drive (Old Clifton Please refrain from making "impact" statements. We have not made any SEPA decisions. PC -Wright identify roadway design, engineering, and enforcement measures which may Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Road to Glenwood Road) be required to reduce vehicle speeds and to improve nonmotorized safety and access." 8.4.2 McCormick Woods Drive (Old Clifton Revised language: "Further study may be required to identify potential roadway 34 Road to Glenwood Road) Good luck with this. We have real speed issues in McWoods. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. design, engineering, and 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. Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Revised language: "Further study is necessary to determine the ultimate design 35 8.4.2 St. Andrews Drive/Hawkstone Avenue One added issue is that McCormick Woods is a golf cart community and they also use the widened PC -Wright analysis. which will facilitate safety and accessibility for all travel modes on this route." shoulder. This area is more complex than this draft Comp Plan describes. 36 8.4.2 Retsil Road (Mile Hill Drive to Bay Retsil Rd is very skinny and runs along the Veteran's cemetery. Widening this 2-lane road will pose PC -Wright Revised referenced of "Retsil Park" to "Veterans Park." Street) challenging. 37 8.4.5 (SW Sedgwick Rd) No description like the other segments? Why the inconsistency? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Added sentence: "The conceptual design and vision for the corridor is describedin the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Study. " 38 8.4.5 Redundant with Bay St Ped Path above? ir Noted - no changes to language proposed. This will be programmed separately PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme V from the Bay Street pedestrian path. 39 8.4.5 (road diet) ?? Spelling/word selection. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to add a footnote providing clarifying language. Bicycle facilities are roadway treatments to accommodate bicycles. In some instances, bike lanes are appropriate. In other cases shared lanes may be 40 8.4.5 Is this designated bike lanes? Facilities implies bike lockers, repair stations, toilets, whatever. Also PC -Wright mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments sounds expensive. and through implementation appropriate facilities may be created. This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -size -fits -all treatment. Noted - no changes to language proposed. The phrasing here is consistent with What does this mean in plain words all residents can understand? Tremont does not have to meet other referenced information throughout the Transportation Element. In plain 41 8.5.1(Last paragraph) LOS standards in the future? What other streets have this exemption? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme speak, no matter how bad traffic gets on Tremont, we will not make this a 6 lane road. It is 4 lanes and a complete street and that is the extent 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 42 8.5.3 comprehensive plan probably doesn't know what this is. But the GMA is important and is the reason Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for PC-Ta The introduction Element has added additional information related to GMA to why we are planning. Why is this introduced so late -> eight chapters in? Why is this here? Can we analysis. provide context and scope for this Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update. move it earlier in the entire plan so everyone is aligned on what the GMA is? General comment about this section/Element... There is a TON of detail and information that would Mandatory Elements RCW 36.70A.070. In addition, the PSRC is the MPO for the be much more appropriate in the Transportation Improvement Plan resting with Public Works. Why region and distributes transportation funding. Coordinating land use plans with 43 8.5.3 is this in the Comp Plan? Makes it very hard to read, skews the volume of the plan hugely toward PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. the regional transportation system is one of the primary reasons that we transportation and forces loss of attention in most readers. I suggest Planning staff and the coordinate our local plan regionally. This level of detail is required for plan consultant discuss this to bring the Comp Plan into balance. certification. Noted - no change to language proposed. This is the accurate description for 44 8.5.3 Hmm.... My experience with LOS D is not "moderate". Is this a proper description? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. LOS D. Keep in mind LOS ratings 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 Noted - no change to language proposed. This level of detail is to ensure should have more structure to lend predictability to developers and the CE to avoid lornment consistency with development regulations and engineering standards, and the 45 8.5.3.2 conflict/arguments. PC -Wright will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Element as a whole has been structured for compliance with regulatory Again -this is a LOT of detail for a Comp Plan. It really should be elsewhere and referenced here. requirements. 46 8.5.3.2 D.8 It seems very odd to me that a statement within the Comp Plan say something must comply with the PC -Wright mment will not be incorporated into the revised draft el LOS policy is required to be defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It must also be Comp Plan.... See my note above about consistency and bias/subjectivity with the CE. adopted via concurrency ordinance. Consistency between the two is essential. 47 LOS Map Frankly, my review would be more thorough if I saw the current state of LOS and other maps too. PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Noted - updated maps provided in this Draft Element version. analysis. I've never seen this before. Land Use broken down into households and employees seems odd to This information is specific to the Travel Demand Model (TDM), which requires 48 8.6.1.1 me. How do we plan schools without knowledge of children/family size? Where does industrial, PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme certain details for analysis that vary from the information used in other land commercial, residential balance come in? Without employers, we have no employees. If only use planning, such as a land capacity analysis. This is the standard approach for employers are far away, no easy non -motorized access to work.... TDMs. Section 8.6.2.1 was intended to answer the question of when: "The Port 49 8.6.2.2 When?? When was all this modeling done that is described in this section? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft elemen Orchard model was initially developed in 2015 based on the Kitsap County travel demand model. It was updated in 2019 and most recently in 2022 for this Transportation Element update." 50 8.6.2.4 As before -why all this heavy transportation modeling detail in the Comp Plan? PC -Wright omwill not be incorporated into the revised draft element These are mandatory elements in association with RCW 36.70A.070.ment Additionally, the City does not have a standalone transportation plan. 51 8.8 This would be an excellent introduction to the Transportation element in my view! PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Information can be summarized/added to the introduction of this Element - are analysis. there specific suggestions/approaches you would like to see? 52 8.8.1 (one size does not fit all) Completely agree!! PC -Wright Noted - no change to language proposed. 53 8.8.1 (Twin Cities) An odd reference without a state location. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised language for clarity. 54 8.8.1 VMT? PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised to clarify "vehicle -miles traveled (VMT)" for the first reference in the Element. Will need this on the agenda specifically to get that discussion organized. My view is: A TIF works The previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not pretty well when the plan is well defined and cost elements are organized to a reasonable level to tell Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan. Goals & policies have been replaced by 55 Goal 3 the public costs will be well managed. TIFs can act as a "tax" on specific businesses and consumers so PC -Wright analysis. an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, there is caution advised. 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. 56 TR-36 On this note.... Why not have a policy that attempts to revitalize older areas of the city in the same PC -Wright Comment will not be incorp Current City policy applies nonmotorized requirements to all new development. manner? Cost should not always be an issue with good policy making. Y g P Y g• Also note that the upcoming transportation impact fee rate stud will analyze a p g p p Y Y 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 57 TR-40 (Bicycle facilities) Must be fully and adequately defined. I frankly do not like this loose term. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme appropriate. "Bicycle facilities" is a term used to capture all types of treatments and through implementation appropriate facilities may be created. This promotes context sensitive solutions as there is not a one -size -fits -all treatment. I'm on record here that western WA is subject to A LOT OF RAIN. This goal simply will not work for Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 58 TR-46 most of the year. ALSO, we must recognize that many PO residents are over 50, and not likely to PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft Jelemeappropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & embrace alternative commuting methods that are "outside". policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 59 TR-49 Report to whom? PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & analysis. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Fornment Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 60 TR-50 Seems redundant and unnecessary. PC -Wright will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 61 Goal 13 Combine Goal 12 and 13 into one. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 62 TR-58 Has the City done this for itself? Bicycle parking and storage? I hate to impose stuff on private Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for PC -Wright appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & development when the Citydoes not adhere to its' mandates. analysis. y policies have been re placed 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 63 TR-59 How does this apply to private development? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 64 TR-60 How does this apply to private development? PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft ele appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 65 TR-61, 62 Private? Seems misplaced as written. PC -Wright lornment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 66 Goal 17 To provide an adequate system of arterials and collector streets which connect the City and adjacent PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & development areas to Kitsap County roads and the State highway system and adjacent arterials. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. How about a policy to sync traffic lights to avoid delays and traffic backups? Bethel/Tremont, Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not Beth el/Sedgwick, Sedgwick/Sindey, etc. Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & 67 TR-74 PC Wright analysis. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 What about a policy to alleviate traffic congestion by new developments in already difficult areas? IE - Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. don't let them build if traffic is already congested. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 68 TR-91 Seems to me a focused policy on traffic mitigation is needed. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. This is not just about trucks! Buyers and shoppers have to get to the stores to spend money or we Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 69 Goal 24 will become an Amazon dominated community. Buyers will need more than a bicycle or a backpack PC -Wright Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & to take their purchases home. We have to consider the residents and economic power of folks not analysis. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 living in PO. Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. To be honest, I like these policies better than the old ones above. These are succinct, to the point Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not and not overly focused on non -motorized transport. Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & 70 PRSC Transportation Goals and Policies PC -Wright analysis. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 I strongly recommend we start with these, cut out the unnecessary stuff above and build a strong Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. and effective set of transportation policies without overly focusing on bikes and walking. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 71 Sustainability Goal Goal: The city's transportation system is well -designed and managed with the intent to minimize PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 72 Human Health and Safety T-: Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health, including PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & exposure to environmental toxins generated by vehicle emissions, fire, electrocution, etc. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 73 Human Health and Safety T-: Develop a transportation system that blends and balances the needs and opportunities of PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & residents to utilize all modes of transportation safely. policies have been replaced by an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Always remember -low income populations rely on gas vehicles to get around! Many hold several Some previous goals and policies went into a level of detail which is not 74 Environmental Justice jobs and must get from place A to B to C without delay. Restricting single occupant vehicles PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft element. Comprehensive appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan and have been removed. Goals & immediately impacts those intended for this policy. Balance is mandatory to achieve this. policies have been replaced an adapted version of the PSRC VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, some of which are required for plan certification. Earlier Comments Received - Capital Facilities Element The followine feedback was collected from Flamm- Commissioners and public comment throuehout the Comprehensive Plan Update orocess Comment Comment Section Number Review Comment Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 2 9-1 Vision Can we make this more succinct? PC-Ta The Vision statement has been revised to be more succinct. element. 3 9-1 (1st paragraph, 3rd sentence) Delete 'first' PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested edit. element. Revised language slightly, we want to ensure consistency with GMA Planning 4 9-1 (3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence) This sentence is hard to understand. Can we break it up or reword? PC-Ta Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for Goal #12 in the document. GMA Planning Goal 12 here: analysis. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70a&full=true No revisions to existing language -The land use element specifies the intensity 5 9-1 (3rd paragraph, last sentence) Why re-evaluate the land use element in particular? PCJT 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 ofwhat capital facilities include. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Revised language for clarity. A list ofthese facilities is provided in the second 6 9-1 Therefore, don't really know what to expect as a reader of whats to come. PC Ta element. paragraph of Section 9-1. Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft The functional plans that were reviewed as part of this element are listed in the 7 9-1 Functional Plans When was the last time each plan was updated? PC-Ta element. "Functional Plans" section. The years of the most recent updates have been added. No additional map is proposed with this Draft. Each individual functional plan (e.g. Water, Sewer) includes this information in a level of detail that is not appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan. A map of this type would require a 9-1 Future Needs A map (of aging infrastructure) would be a great visualization here PC-Ta 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. No revisions to existing language - This section recommends each separately to Why doesn't the FICA simply include this task to assess current and future space needs, recommend address different issues (aging infrastructure and increased demand), however 9 9-1 Increased Demand investments, etc. Seems wasteful as written - I suggest one FICA that accomplishes all the facilities PC -Wright o these tasks can be done together depending on the priorities of the Mayor and assessment, needs, recommendations, and future planning. Council. 10 9-1 Partner Efforts Awkward sentence- "such as" used twice. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft Revised per suggested edit. element. Should jurisdictions be plural? What other jurisdictions are we working with? Is there a formal plan Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 11 9-1 Partner Efforts we are following? Can this plan be cited? PC -Wright Revised for clarity, including a reference to associated plans. element. There are too many goals and polices in this section - it is frankly unmanageable. There is much No revisions to existing language - The other updated elements were reviewed redundancy with other Elements and where possible - refer back to specific Elements to avoid and this update removes redundancies and consolidates/simplifies remaining 12 9-2 unnecessary redundancy. I think there are a set of Capital facility policies that can be built that are PC -Wright goals and policies. Further revisions may require additional public and Council generic to ANY capital project. input and direction. Revisions to language include identifying the costly maintenance and site It's mentioned that the library is "nearing the end of its useful life". What does this mean? I selection study within the "Library" section in Administration. It now reads "The 13 9-2 personally would hate to see the library move because the current location is very convenient for Public -Danielson building is nearing the end of its useful life, costly to maintain, and requires citizens due to its close proximity to the ferry upgrades or relocation of the library functions. A 2020 site selection process identified a site for the new library and community events center." Revised for clarity: "Mal- far i tie, investments that-ek, Consider investing in (referring to reducing health disparities) I do not understand what this means in context of capital Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft sidewalks, trails, and other capital facilities that enhance walkability in an 14 CF-12 facilities. Is this policy needed? Seems this is an implied objective of the capital facilities overall. PC -Wright element. effort to reduce health disparities and improve well-being and quality of life." This is a policy that we want to retain. (referring to marginalized communities) Above in CF-4 we noted historically underserved populations - here we say "marginalized communities". Is the author implying Port Orchard has "marginalized" part of our city community and "historically underserved" part of our community? These are No changes to existing language proposed, as it reflects PSRC Vision 2050: dangerous statements and frankly, untrue in my experience living in Port Orchard. In CF-15 below - - "underserved populations" in CF-4 references MPP-PS-16 15 CF-14 we say "underrepresented populations". Are you implying Port Orchard has excluded some PC -Wright - "marginalized communities" in CF-14 references MPP-PS-29 populations? There is no consistency with the way this section and other Elements of the Comp Plan - "underrepresented populations" in CF-15 references RC-Action-4 draft deals with this issue. We must treat everyone equally and fairly. If we use terms like the ones I've highlighted, we must define them and explain this is much greater detail. No changes to existing language proposed. These policies are drawn from the PSRC Vision 2050 (https:H/ w.psrc.org/media/1699), MPP-DP-8 notes to 16 Goal3 Unnecessary. Implies the city excludes. What are "meaningful inclusive opportunities" in CF-15? PC -Wright "conduct inclusive engagement to identify and address the diverse needs of the region's residents." I have not done this yet - but the consultant should do so to help us manage the volume of this Minor revisions to introduction section to address how the goals and policies in overall document. How do these policies align with the Parks Element? This can be written: "In Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft this section builds on goals and policies of other elements. 17 Goal addition to the Policies in the Parks Element, the following policies for capital facilities related to PC -Wright element. Duplicative information is not beneficial in the Plan, however consistency with parks are as follows.". 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 like) going to happen -drop it and find a better policy to pursue. I recommend we y g p p p Comment under additional consideration, identifynext steps for No revisions proposed. This was Policy CF-37 in the previous Capital Facilities p 18 CF-21 r ask this question of every policy proposed and weed out old, stale policies that will never receive op PC -Wright Element. Staff intends on retaining policy, however further discussion can analysis. much actual effort. If this is a new suggestion, I'm all for itl occur at the next Planning Commission meeting. No revisions proposed. This policy supports other policies in the Element and 19 CF-35 Isn't this taken care of through SEPA and design standards? PC -Wright helps ensure consistency across policy language. No revisions proposed. This section recommends each in separate bullets to (referring to first 2 bullets) I still think this can be one combined effort to save time and money. FCA address different issues (aging infrastructure and increased demand), however 20 9-3 - Future Needs and CFP are very linked. PC -Wright these tasks can be done together depending on the priorities of the Mayor and Council. The GMA requires that capital budget decisions be made in accordance with 21 9-3-Priority Investments (Funding Source Table) I'm confused on what this table is supposed to explain? PC-Ta Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for the comp plan. Once updated, this table will outline our 5-year spending plan. analysis. This information will be updated once obtained. No additional revisions proposed. This draft Element has reviewed and 22 9-3 - Parks Facilities Agree! Cutback policies too especially with respect to park above. PC -Wright eliminated / consolidated / simplified many repetitive previous goals and/or policies. Revised for clarity. The number of students was revised to over 9,112 to reflect Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft the Spring 2024 Annual Report and the square miles removed as we were 23 9-3 - Fire and Schools When was this data pulled? PC-Ta element. unable to verify. Elementary was changed to (K-5). "Junior high" was also updated to "middle" schools (6-8) (City Hall) I would reword this sentence to have a more positive connotation. If the renovation isn't meeting the department's critical needs, then what is the point of the renovation? Revised to add additional details: "While 2024 renovations will maximize 24 9-3-Public Safety Facilities PC-Ta Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft space use and improve some operations, they will not address many critical "The renovation to tackle on this department's critical needs was unfortunately out of scope due element. needs or add space to accommodate long-term growth" 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 disturbance on developing nearby areas, No revisions existing language. While it not located near identified centers, 25 9-3 but I'd like to point out that the range isn't near any proposed/designated/expected/candidate Public -Danielson it is importantt to note potential land use compatibility issues. Note this does centers 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- Utilities and Transportation, Transportation: Where can I find more info on these plans and stages? system -plan/ 26 9-3 The current table doesn't mean anything to me as a citizen Public -Danielson Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for - General Sewer System Plan: https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/genemi- analysis. sewer-plan-update-pdf/ -Stormwater and Watersheds Comp Plan: https://Portorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port-orchard-stormwater-and- watersheds-com prehensive-plan/ - PROS Plan: https://stora,e,googlea pis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/upload s/2022/11/0 5-Port-Orchard-PROS-Plan-31-January.pdf Utilities and Transportation, Transportation: There is a greater than 200%increase in 2026 No revisions to existing language proposed. More information on expenditures compared to previous years. I would like an explanation for why this year in particular transportation expenditures can be found in the Transportation Element. A 27 9 3 is so expensive Public -Danielson major consideration in 2026 expenditure growth is the Bethel Phase 1 construction. Parks Facilities, Inventory: Some parks seem to be missing from this list. I don't see Rockwell Park/ Bay St easements, Powers Park, or Waterfront Park mentioned. Also does the city still own the area Revised introductory language to reflect that this list is specific to parks with Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft 28 9-3 along Blackjack Creek, near Seattle Ave, which was mentioned on the previous plan? public -Danielson structures. The City's PROS Plan provides a more detailed list for individual element. parks. Parks Facilities, Existing Conditions and Future Needs: We have several large county parks (such as South Kitsap Regional Park and Veterans Memorial Park). Do those need to be factored into parks/ No revisions to existing language proposed. These parks are identified in the 29 9-3 person for current and future goals? public -Danielson PROS Plan and need to be accounted for in the County's CFP rather than the City's. No revisions to existing language proposed. Staff agrees, however this is Parks Facilities, Existing Conditions, Future Needs: Since the Port Orchard Community Center is going outside of the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Notably, there is a small 30 9 3 to be downtown, I would like to see some mixed use out of it. Maybe a cafe? Public -Danielson commercial space within the building but the long term use of that space is TBD. Earlier Comments Received - Climate Element was collected from Comment Comment Section I Review Comment I Comment Source Staff Action Action Details Number 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:Hcl iffmass.blogspot.com/search?q=sea+level+rise For extreme events see: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/search?q=frequency+of+extreme+events From May 2023 "heat wave' analysis.... The Bottom Line This section incorporates framework for the Climate Element from the 2 10.1 May high temperatures on both sides of the Cascades were warm, but not record -breaking. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme Department of Commerce and uses the Kitsap County Climate Change Importantly, there is no upward trend of the high temperatures on both sides of the Cascades, Resiliency Assessment as the baseline for localized information. An additional suggesting that global warming/climate change is having relatively little impact on the region's reference is incorporated into this paragraph as well. 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:Hcliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/08/climate-hype-hurts-environment-and.html 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 This section is consistent with Vision 2050's definition of Equity: All people example, if 15%of the population is of some ethnicity/race/sex then 15%of the faculty and can attain the resources and opportunities that improve their quality of life 3 10.01 students in every program should be of the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each individual represents their ethnicity/race/sex and not themselves as a unique individual. PC Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme and enable them to reach full potential Those affected by poverty, communities of color, and historically marginalized communities are engaged In contrast, equality means that every individual is equally precious, no matter what their in decision -making processes, planning, and policy making. background, and deserves the same opportunities and consideration. They represent themselves and not a group. Is equity really what we want to accomplish? I stand with equality. This legislation amends the Growth Management Act (GMA), requiring cities and counties f.4y- 4 10.1 planning under the GMA to incorporate a dedicated climate element into their comprehensive PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme Not revised for consistency with RCW 36.70A.040. plan. The City of Port Orchard c-taacknowledges the ambitious goals for reducing emissions, Not revised, language used to identify City's commitment to establish policies 5 10.1 promoting cleaner energy sources, and minimizing our carbon footprint, consistent with PC -Wright ELwill not be incorporated into the revise and goals that are consistent with Washington State's GHG goals. Washington State's GHG goal of net zero emissions b 2050. 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 consideration, identify next steps for The Department of Commerce is still preparing guidance for incorporating 6 10.2 (GHG emissions) How is reduction defined? What is the reduction relative to? PC-Ta analysis. this analysis into Comprehensive Plans, and this is not a regulatory part of this Periodic Update. The intention with this draft Element is to provide a foundation for incorporating Commerce's final guidance for this Element, once issued. Draft guidance and more info can be found here: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth- anagement/growth-management-topics/Climate-change-2/ 7 10.2 This needs a reference. (referring to the Menu of Measures provided by the Department of PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Added footnote reference for Menu of Measures. Commerce ) As global temperatures increase, sea levels are rising. This poses a 5 gR ficant risk to coastal areas, including Port Orchard. Rising sea levels are expected to exacerbate challenges with 8 10.3 Flooding and saltwater intrusion in the City's downtown area, which the City has addressed in PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Revised per suggested text edit. its Downtown Subarea Plan and Shoreline Master Program through policies that seek to address the impacts of sea level rise through the raising of the elevation of Bay Street. From Dr. Cliff Mass 8.28.2016 Will Low -Income Folks Be Hit Harder By Global Warming in the Pacific Northwest? This is consistent with the Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Grand Conclusion Assessment, which details potential effects to elderly people, outdoor 9 10.3 PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme laborers, homeless people, people with chronic diseases and low-income Considering all the expected changes in the Northwest climate that will occur under global people. 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 l make the apposite case: that warming will preferentially degrade the lives of richer folks. This phrasing is consistent with the Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment. Additionally, see NOAA information here which details these As it relates to oysters, this is not true. https:Hcliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/09/epa-takes-on- impacts not only to oysters, but multiple types of marine life: 10 10.3 cys[eracidification.html PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ocean- acid ification#:—:text=For%20good%20reason%2C%20ocea n%20acidification, h ea Ith%20is%20a Iso%20a%20concern. 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 Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment also includes sea level projections for Port Orchard (which are generally consistent with those The largest sea -level increase in the region is at Seattle, so let's examine its observations next from the UW CIG): (see below). The record at Seattle is a very long one going back to 1900! Under the law -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 Sea level in Seattle has risen at a very steady rate over the past 120 years: by approximately 2050, and 2.2 feet by 2100. Port Orchard is virtually certain (99%likelihood) 11 10.4 2.06 mm a year or 8.1 inches per century. There is no hint of acceleration of the upward PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme to experience sea level rise of 0.05 feet by 2050 and 0.3 feet by 2100. Under [rend, even with global warming. 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 importantly, the steady upward [rend over the past 120 years suggests that human -forced and 2.15 feet by 2100 and virtually certain (99% likelihood) to experience sea global warming is NOT the cause, since the impacts of human emissions have only been level rise of feet by and 0.xi feet These rising sea levels are appreciable for roughly the past 50 years. ex the expected to exacerbate the ctys existing challenges with saltwater g its h lleng downtown area, which the City is currently seeking to address through Sea level in the Northwest is either nearly steady or falling on the coast, and rising very updates to its Shoreline Master Program and downtown area plan. 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. 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 think this table is very ry Premature. We should not include something like this until we are as partof the full climate change element consistent with the guidance from 12 10.4 required to. PC -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme the Department of Commerce. If PC wants to wait until the City receives funding for the element to include, that may be okay, but the intention of including it was to provides context for why certain measures were included as goals and policies in the chapter. 13 CC-10 I would like to see an expansion of trees used for traffic calming, i.e. in roadway medians Public -Danielson ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme This is required for new streets through the PW ESS. 14 CC-11 I am not a fan of a 100%conversion of the City fleet. "All eggs in one basket". PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme This is a state -level mandate. 15 CC-11. Encourage, promote, incentivize but not require. PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme This is currently required under the State Building Code, and is required in POMC Title 20. 16 CC-12a+ 12b Remember how well this worked when COVID hit us? NOBODY took public transportation. PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme These policies reduce auto dependence and promote efficient transit service. These results are instrumental into creating a walkable environment. I'm curious haw increasing housing diversity and supply will reduce GHG emissions. This These forms of housing can promote walkable areas and reduce vehicle trips. 17 CC-14 increased density will cause much vegetation loss unless the construction is redevelopment. PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme In conjunction with tree 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 18 Goal 3 wondering which policy takes precedence. I think a better option would be to add a "Climate PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme A dedicated Climate Change element is required pursuant to HB 1181. Change Policy" to each of the elements of the Comp Plan rather than have this redundancy. 19 Policy CC-15a This is really not a concern for us. Heavy rainfall and poor drainage is the issue. PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme The Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment and UW CIG CRMW provides a source for the risk of flooding to infrastructure. 20 CC-16a Redundant with general environment and land use policies. PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme Many of the measures will be applicable to other chapters of the City's Com rehensive Plan. Adopting policies from the menu of measures ensures that the City's Climate I'll bite - such as??? What are you thinking about here? Some research was done with high rise Change element will be approved by the Department of Commerce. This window "skins" that were photovoltaic and generated electricity. Some high rises have policy from the many of measures includes a supplemental description that 21 CC-16b investigated piping infrastructure with in -line energy generators, some building have PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated provides some examples such as consistent and connected awnings over incorporated complex heat pumps, and some have incorporated water treatment systems to sidewalks can provide shade from heat waves and storms, and could include use gray water for Rushing, etc. 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 This is WA state's responsibility, not City of PC. This can say "work with WA state and federal Comment under additional consideration, identify next steps for communities in drafting goals and policies absent any climate action planning 22 CC-17a agencies to "promote the protection ....... Impacted by climate change". PC -Wright analysis. to meet the requirements set forth in HB 1181 and the Department of Commerce's Intermediate Planning Guidance. Policy language modified to include "encoura e" language. 23 CC-171, Same comment as above. PC -Wright Comment accepted and incorporated into the revised draft element. Policy revised to identify maintaining current City practices in coordination with the Tribe. 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 24 CC-18 See my earlier comment on equity definition. PC -Wright ment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme and enable them to reach full potential. Those affected by poverty, communities of color, and historically marginalized communities are engaged in decision-makin rocesses tannin and olic making. 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 This section is consistent with Vision 2050's definition of Equity: All people students in every program should be of the same ethnicity/race/sex. Equity means each can attain the resources and opportunities that improve their quality of life 25 CC-22 individual represents their ethnicity/race/sex and not themselves as a unique individual. Pc -Wright Comment will not be incorporated into the revised draft eleme and enable them to reach full potential. Those affected by poverty, In contrast, equality means that every individual is equally precious, no matter what their communities of color, and historically marginalized communities are engaged background, and deserves the same opportunities and consideration. They in decision -making processes, planning, and policy making. represent themselves and not a group Scientific data does not support that overburdened communities will suffer more than others Prioritizing GHG reductions that benefit overburdened communities is a 26 CC-24 under climate change scenarios. The opposite is likely true. PC -Wright omment will not be incorporated into the revise requirement of HIS 1181. See R.36.70.070(9)(d)(i)(C). 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, Ir Noted -all new development and redevelopment projects, downtown and 27 CC-25 bridges, and downtown Bay It are main areas of concern. Upgrading the design and function of Comment will not be incorporated into the revised otherwise, will be subject to current stormwater regulations that are designed to mitigate these impacts. those areas would be ra matic.