Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/16/2021 - Work Study - Packet
Mayor: Rob Putaansuu Administrative Official Councilmembers: Bek Ashby (Mayor Pro-Tempore) Finance Committee Economic Development & Tourism Committee Transportation Committee, Chair KRCC/KRCC PlanPol-alt /KRCC TransPol PSRC-alt/PSRC TransPOL-Alt/PRTPO Shawn Cucciardi Finance Committee E/D & Tourism Committee, Chair Kitsap Economic Development Alliance Fred Chang Economic Development & Tourism Committee Land Use Committee Jay Rosa pepe Utilities/Sewer Advisory Committee Land Use Committee, Chair Transportation Committee Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, Chair KRCC-alt John Clauson Finance Committee, Chair Utilities/Sewer Advisory Committee Kitsap Public Health District-alt Cindy Lucarelli Festival of Chimes & Lights Committee, Chair Utilities/Sewer Advisory Committee, Chair Kitsap Economic Development Alliance Scott Diener Land Use Committee Transportation Committee Department Directors: Nicholas Bond, AICP Development Director Mark Dorsey, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tim Drury Municipal Court Judge Noah Crocker, M.B.A. Finance Director Matt Brown Police Chief Brandy Rinearson, MIMIC, CPRO City Clerk Meeting Location: Council Chambers, 3rd Floor 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 Contact us: (360) 876-4407 cityhal I@cityofportorchard.us City of Port Orchard Council Work Study Session March 16, 2021 6:30 p.m. The City is prohibited from conducting meetings unless the meeting is NOT conducted in -person and instead provides options for the public to attend through telephone, internet or other means of remote access, and also provides the ability for persons attending the meeting (not in -person) to hear each other at the same time. Therefore; Remote access only Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83249869066 Zoom Webinar ID: 832 4986 9066 Zoom Call -In: 1 253 215 8782 CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 1. GGLO Downtown Subarea Plan Presentation (Bond) Page 2 Estimated Time: 30 minutes 2. KRCC Update to the Countywide Planning Policies (Bond) Page 24 Estimated Time: 45 minutes 3. Water Restoration and Enhancement Draft Plan (Dorsey) Page 132 Estimated Time: 15 minutes Executive Session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) relating to potential litigation. (15 minutes) Good of the Order Please turn off cell phones during meeting and hold your questions for staff until the meeting has been adjourned Meeting materials are available on the City's website: www.citvofportorchard.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office, 360.876.4407 The City of Port Orchard does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Contact the City Clerk's office should you need special accommodations. Back to Agenda uu City of Port Orchard Issue Title: GGLO Downtown Subarea Plan Presentation Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 Time Required: 30 minutes Attendees: Nicholas Bond, DCD Director Action Requested at this Meeting: Review information provided by the City's consultant (GGLO) on updated draft Downtown Subarea Plan and provide feedback to consultant and City staff. Issue: In 2019, the City and its consultant team, led by GGLO LLC, began work on a subarea plan and planned action EIS that includes the existing Downtown and Kitsap County Government Campus countywide centers. The subarea plan development process has addressed several issues, including: development of more housing in this area of the city, in accordance with a $50k grant from the Department of Commerce; providing for the proposed South Kitsap Community Events Center on the downtown waterfront; accommodating current and future redevelopment projects in the Downtown and County Campus areas; and incorporating the recommendations of the City's Parks Plan update. The initial draft Subarea Plan was released for public review and comment in October 2020. The Planning Commission held an EIS scoping meeting in September 2020, and reviewed the draft plan in November 2020. City staff and the consultant team have been working on further plan development and refinements, and the environmental review process, since that time. Alternatives: The City has committed to adopting a subarea plan to fulfill its Commerce grant obligations. The scope of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with the subarea plan is open for review, in terms of the geographic area to be covered by the EIS and the development regulations which are/are not covered by the EIS. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: The final Subarea Plan is proposed to be adopted as an appendix of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations: City staff recommends that the City Council review the information provided by GGLO, and provide feedback to the consultant and City staff on the Subarea Plan's current proposals and next steps. Attachments: GGLO Presentation to City Council 3-16-2021. Page 2 of 158 Downtown and Government Campus Draft Subarea Plan and EIS City of Port Orchard, WA City Council Work Session March 16, 2021 41% r _ .s�.ft "s r _ %cGp '�*�- . 4L' q'' sue- �� �j��•, I _ �YIrI:Y�� r:�—._" ` '� �-,k.R�- - �� i I� .r �. "s _ _ —_ � - - � � _ _+,.• '�� !" ..tee �r��e• t'.... .�. n .ice` y _ ~ �: � � �� ✓: ram. wool ' ' Y mmrIr • lam' ` " r r O CHARD Lo • EA Engineering, Science, sed Technology, Inc., PBC Additional Engagement Components • City webpage and online comment solicitation • Stakeholder outreach and response Department of Ecology, Kitsap Transit, Community Events Center Team, Public Works, responded to questions from property owners' Updated Project Timeline • 02.2020 — Project Kick-off • 06.08.2020 — 07.24.2020 - Online Survey • 09.01.2020 — P.C. Meeting — EIS Scoping • 11.17.2020 — Council Meeting — Draft Subarea Plan Review • 01.19.2021— 02.18.2021— Draft EIS Public Comment Period • 02.02.2021— P.C. Meeting — Draft EIS • 03.16.2021 —Council Work Session -Status Update • 05.04.2021— P.C. Hearing and Review • 06.01.2021- P.C. Adoption • 06.08.2021— Council Review Meeting • 06.22.2021—Council Meeting Subarea Plan, EIS, and PAO Adoption Page 4 of 158 Back to Agenda • EIS Public Comment Period • In addition to comments received during the public meeting we received six comment letters and 59 individual comments • All comments will be included and responded to in the Final EIS • Subarea Plan • Conducted additional outreach and coordination with property owners and stakeholders adjacent to the Proposed Community Events Center • Completed additional concept design work for the West Downtown area Masterplan and prepared additional related Subarea Plan recommendations • Engaged with the project traffic engineer to conduct a parking demand analysis for the downtown area(s) North of Kitsap and West of Sidney Page 5 of 158 Back to Agenda INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 Subarea Plan Goals and Vision and Alternatives Page 6 of 158 SECTION 03 1 VISION AND ALTERNATIVES SECTION 03 1 VISION AND ALTERNATIVES INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3.1 Proposed Alternatives Approach The proposed design concepts are a single vision for achieving the broader goals outlined in this subarea plan. In the downtown areas, this includes promoting a vibrant walkable community that showcases the City's waterfront. In the County Government Center and the uphill neighborhood the plan incorporates planned expansion at the county campus, provides development flexibility along the Sydney and Cline arterials, and preserves residential areas throughout most of the neighborhood. Due to existing neighborhood constraints and the absence of large tracts of developable land the alternatives are based on a single concept plan. The variable between each of the alternatives is whether the assumed program of future development will consist primarily residential and stand alone commercial or if will have a greater mix or mixed -use development. Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action No action would be taken to adopt new development policies. The existing Downtown and County Campus Centers would each be retained in their present configurations; no combination or expansion of these subareas would take place; no changes to zoning or other land use regulations would be made. The capacity assumed in this alternatives assumes that development will still occur, but at a density similar to existing conditions with very limited structured or below grade parking. Back to Agenda Alternative 2 - Residential Focus This alternative assumes a mostly residential development with commercial development only occurring in standalone buildings in commercial only zones. The maximum building height and densities would see limited increases in locations minimal view impacts. The alternative assumes greater mix of structured parking to achieve greater density than the existing baseline development patterns. Potential zoning changes would focus on increasing residential capacity in existing commercial only zones. Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus This alternative assumes increase in mixed -use residential, commercial retail, and office development. Some standalone commercial development in mixed -use zones plus commercial development in commercial only zones. The maximum building height and densities would see limited increases in locations with minimal view impacts. The alternative assumes greater mix of structured parking to achieve greater density than the existing baseline development patterns. Potential zoning changes would focus on increasing residential capacity in both existing commercial and residential only zones. 0 Page 7 of 158 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 59 Back to Agenda ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION BASELINE CATEGORYIZONE Net Devlopable Area (Acre) Commercial Capacity (SF) Residential Capacity (SF) Residential Capacity (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 351,400 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 COMMERCIAL ZONES 2.6 65,200 0 0 MIXED USE 20.5 206,200 566,200 954 TOTAL with ipe me 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 Pipeline Total without Pipeline 11.2 23.3 347,000 275,800 NA 566,200 246 828 ALTERNATIVE CATEGORYIZONE 2 - RESIDENTIAL FOCUS Net Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (Acre) (SF) (SF) (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 362,900 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.0 0 UKN 102 COMMERCIAL ZONES 0.0 0 0 0 MIXED USE 24.8 310,600 1,010,100 1,509 TOTAL with Pipeline 35.4 673,500 1,010,100 1,610 Pipeline Total without Pipeline 11.2 24.2 347,000 326,500 NA 1,010,100 246 1,364 ALTERNATIVE 3 - MIXED -USE FOCUS CATEGORYIZONE Net Devlopable Area (Acre) Commercial Capacity (SF) Residential Capacity (SF) Residential Capacity (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 361,800 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.0 0 UKN 102 COMMERCIAL ZONES 0.0 0 0 0 MIXED USE 24.8 486,800 752,283 1,186 TOTAL with ipe me 35.4 848,600 752,283 1,288 Pipeline Total without Pipeline 11.2 24.2 347,000 501,600 NA 752,283 246 1,042 Summary of Changes from Heartland Baseline Capacity Analysis • Proposed land use changes including: proposed zoning changes and height increases. • Additional buildable land assumptions due to zoning changes and assume redevelopment areas. See updated buildable lands map in section 3.3. • Proposed required parking modifications. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON Development Scenarios with Net Developable Commercial Residential Residential Subarea Plan Recommendations Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (acres) (square footage) (square footage) (units) Existing - 761,645 n/a 742 Alternative 1 - No Action 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 Alternative 2 - Residential Focus 34.5 673,800 1,010,100 1,610 Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus 34.5 848,600 752,283 1,288 *Note: All scenarios include assumed development pipeline projects. Alternatives show new proposed development ACTIVITY UNITS SUMMARY Development Scenarios Total Population Covered Employment Residential Units Activity Units/Acre Activity Units Dedicated to Housing Activity Units Dedicated to Employment Existing 1,806 2,150 742 12 46% 54% Alternative 1 4,051 3,396 1,074 23 54% 46% Alternative 2 4,663 3,617 1,610 26 60% 40% Alternative 3 4,128 3,889 1,288 25 54% 46% • Total Population assumes 2.09 persons per unit per OFM 2020. • Employment assumed 1 employee per 500 sf of commercial development. • Activity units calculated as total population + employment / 329 acres •I Page 8 of 158 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 a SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.1 West Downtown r "r i4lNtU AL. I REDEVELOPMEN i AREA The West Downtown is Port Orchard's current and historical Potential Shoreline cultural, civic, and recreational hub of the community. The Restoration A�► lit:;::-- area includes a mix of land uses, including Port Orchard's City Hall and public library, numerous retail and service ' �- businesses, a marina and ferry dock, public parking, and a Pedestrian Plaza's qoi Surface waterfront park and trail. With access from the water and from Bay Street to Parking Parkingi'� from state highways 3 and 16, it remains the City's primary the waterfront center for community events and activities. Anticipated future development includes the South Kitsap Community Events Traffic - Center and a new Kitsap Bank headquarters as part of a Calming p concept larger mixed -use development. The Ian works to g p p balance historic preservation, environmental restoration, and economic improvement. r], 1 _ tea`! East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram I I:: I Pedestrian Hill Climb to Bay Street - Two-way traffic at Frederick Ave I - New slow waterfront "shared street" to create front doors on Sinclair Inlet P� SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Back to Agenda Terminate Streets at the waterfront with a small plaza, overlook, or pocket park n Surface _ Parking \ -r Lo di ig/ r P rki ig _ J LEGEND - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) - es;aent�a� IVIED DENSITY RESI / MIXED USE Stabeeg (Preferred Front Orientation) boyhood - - . �1 COMMERCIAL/RETAIL Q (Preferred Front Orientation) o /OFFICE MIXED USE s .OFFICE (Preferred Front Orientation) .2 - CIVIC � • (Preferred Front Orientation) i I Z OPEN SPACE m .� M (Park, plaza, or other) Q i SURFACE PARKING i I 00 - - - PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN 'E i CIRCULATION s PRIMARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION - Z J :r,,{.� ,�•� - - - PROPOSED VEHICULAR "_,i ,— y-�— ; CIRCULATION Page 9 of 158 62 /1) N 1 " = 200' Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.11.2021 63 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN r _ 1 J l Rued Uhe '�. FPTQ - 1 -- f' East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan 64 Page 10 of 158 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Back to Agenda - W-M I MO. LEGEND i — LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) MED DENSITY RESI / MIXED USE i (Preferred Front Orientation) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL IAi (Preferred Front Orientation) OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE (Preferred Front Orientation) CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) `- OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING PRIMARYPEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION M PRIMARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PROPOSED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION N (i) 1' = 100' Port Orchard Subarea Plan Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 65 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.2 East Downtown .NNED AL i REDEVELOPMENT AREA The East Downtown is geographically separated from the West Downtown and was developed later with a more auto -centric development pattern. The area includes a mix of commercial uses primarily on larger more lots fronting the Bay Street and Bethel Ave commercial corridors. WSDOT is currently in the process of redesigning the Bay and Bethel intersection to replace the current signal with a new round -about. The concept plan strives to break -down the scale of existing large sites to provide a more walkable land -use pattern. Large surface parking lots and many vacant properties provide an opportunity for new economic development more reminiscent of the existing historic development character of the West Downtown. r 7 ' Shoreline sets, ■ East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram M7 "Finer Grain" mixed -use development oriented toward Sinclair Inlet that reinforces views to the water. vuu � r ■ i ■� Ji7_�1 i r e \ Res�ded Stab\e hbo<h°°— 0. CO3 y face a r � 1 0► `. 1� ♦ 4 Page 11 of 158 Extend Mitchell Corridor to terminate at the waterfront 5 41 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Back to Agenda LEGEND — LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL dab\� Rend ood , i.�■■r� (Preferred Front Orientation) hboC MED DENSITY RESI / MIXED USE Ne'g (Preferred Front Orientation) COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE (Preferred Front Orientation) w CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) SPACE -OPEN (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING ■ I - - - PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PRIMARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION - - - PROPOSED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION N (i) 1 " = 200' Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.11.2021 67 L: 1�" }a F Mmd 9P6� y FS ba of i fff j •k L SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.3 Land Use and Housing LAND USE INTRODUCTION The primary land use designations within the study area is medium density residential and Commercial Mixed - use, however the study area include nearly all land use designation. The study are also includes two large public facilities campuses, the Kitsap County Campus and South Kitsap High School. Within the individual study areas the West Downtown contains the historic City main -street. LAND USE AND HOUSING GOALS Goal LUH - 01 Develop a land use pattern that is environmentally sustainable and economically vibrant and accommodates additional housing and businesses. Goal LUH - 02 Encourage increased development in the center and along existing primary circulation corridors to create vibrant walkable neighborhoods. Goal LUH - 03 Ensure that proposed new development largely maintains existing views. Goal LUH - 04 Transform the existing East Downtown from a largely car dominant development pattern to an extension of the existing walkable downtown West Downtown area. LAND USE POLICIES Policy LUH - 01 Expand the Center boundaries to capture the Sidney and Cline Corridors and additional area along the East Downtown. Policy LUH - 02 Rezone parcels along Cline and Sidney Street from R2 to Neighborhood Mixed -use to provide a moderate increase in development and provide a transition to the residential zones. Policy LUH - 03 Extend the varied frontage designation along Cline Street from Kitsap Street to Kendall Street. Policy LUH - 04 Revise frontage requirements along the new waterfront street and in the east downtown to reflect the proposed concept design plan. Policy LUH - 05 Rezone the Commercial Heavy Parcels in the East Downtown to Commercial Mixed -use (CMU). Policy LUH - 06 Rezone the Commercial Corridor Parcels on the east side of Bethel between Dekalb Street to Mile Hill Drive from Commercial Corridor to Gateway Mixed -use (GMU). Policy LUH - 07 Allow for buildings up to 5-stories on the east side of Bethel between Dekalb Street to Mile Hill Drive. Policy LUH - 08 Modify the Downtown Height Overlay District as follows: • Allow the building height for new development along Bay Street to be measured from the future road elevation consistent with Sea level rise contemplated in the SMP. • Amend 20.38.640 (1) as follows: (1) DHOD Height Zones Established. Within the DHOD as shown on the zoning map, there are three different DHOD height zones with height limits established as follows: (a) DHOD 3: 48 feet - three stories. (b) DHOD 4: 58 feet - four stories. (c) DHOD 5: 68 feet - five stories. • Amend the height along the block south of Bay Street between Robert Geiger and Frederick to allow 5 stories except within 50 feet of Robert Geiger Street which shall be limited to 4 stories. Policy LUH - 09 Add an exemption to 20.35.040 to allow the minimum build -to percentage to be decreased when public benefits such an increased landscape buffer, open space, or other approved benefits are included. Page 13 of 158 West Downtown ' ''" 4• • J 1 Pi y + • rip a ■ County �+ r - - Campus s� Vr 1, r T • F 4 } ■ ±� 2 Js# d , �w .13 No L 1 East Downtown i�# :" 4-.0 My MEN +. � 4 � 1 rT �- ■ ; y + � � � R i ` `-' ■J r 5r t Proposed Planning Centers Adjustments Back to Agenda L=, Tr _ a9 r f p ' ,# _ 0 Ap r. 1 i Expand County Center boundaries to capture the Sidney and Cline Corridors. Expand Downtown Center boundaries to incorporate areas of assumed future development. 70 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 71 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND STOREFRONT VARIED LANDSCAPED MARINE mommommi GATEWAY TRAIL p HIGH VISIBILITY CORNER Note: Dashed lines indicate conceptual planned streets or trails r F J� �` Sr ,, i1 • � F ! y � _ RL r■, y r t:00. ter•. T*..ri +1■ _ T SAP • '}+ � so " I IF DEKALB Z' , �� '� �f� •;tom. }r �• R h. �■ 1 0` d w■ �� w = DEKALB24 DWIGHT - � 1 i ii � � �tf ■ DIVISION ■■ CIO Q -F EEL s 4 Ji �y Qf - TAYLOR r O IF SMITH a KENDALL ■ t. ,*� `j} f S OUFE ` i■ a t. r 4. �F�r 0. t ' # .* r tr d l'#s •� Ann _ 4 s ■' � � •�• - �r R TAYLOR ti Existing Block Frontage Plan PLISKO MILE HIL LEGEND STOREFRONT VARIED LANDSCAPED mommommi MARINE mommiIiIi GATEWAY TRAIL Q HIGH VISIBILITY CORNER Note: Dashed lines indicate conceptual planned streets or trails CIO Q 2 U O O 41 01 IF a r D�egya�p . • .r - r _ PROSp � CT ter• KITSAP r1i � ' y . J py DEKALB DWIGHT * '+ k ' +; y ' r IVISION MEL 4 Ji �y :� ■ + � 4.M+ } TAYLOR I - SMITH I �} a KENDALL a NIP 4 SROUFE Proposed Block Frontage Plan Back to Agenda r' , + si .! 1 +•IR}. * a •fir - , • J 7 •'-' w DEKALB i •ir i y I4 a R * TAYLOR PLISKO MILE HIL 72 Page 14 of 158 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 73 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) GREENBELT (GB) PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) ® DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) RESIDENTIAL (R1) RESIDENTIAL 2 (132) RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) ® GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU) Ed --�} It * ■.' '#M. a _ .9 1 IL ■ LU r ■ w -? �� r� IVISI "� _ J �. ■ y ' � L 4L FIE i Qm I.IN '��F. TAYL _ I t a F y + +� r ' �,�- j rr t ■ ■ al- 'rl• '' I• I 11 �OUFE J ■ i : +I F IN rl I ~ +i ■i J Existing Zoning Map 74 N - • 4i� f w'• m U DE"1_13 R . • ■ le ■ i r A LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) GREENBELT (GB) PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) Back to Agenda # 'N PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) 10 '� +�� or CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) 0 DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) # 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) RESIDENTIAL (R1) ## t # f RESIDENTIAL 2 (132) RESIDENTIAL3(R3) Commercial Heavy to Commercial Mixed -use RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) } * I #*- ;4, COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) <Jb _ ■ ® GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU) 1 �Q+ *� ` Jote: Changed are outlined. y �* ��: ' IN 0P i+t# N '�ram ■ MIA ■■ ,■ f *TSA _ - Commercial Heavy and 1 ti_y ti I NON■��!;f+w�'�■M��_� ,���'''• .' Commercial Mixed -use �J NCI *�� * * •�Z _ J�• to Gateway Mixed use 11U•,• D K/. — - QI � w DEKALB DWR�R7- ■# .i� e, CQ WtL J Qf i + Ad �� ■FL U rrsr* 446 -I �• }i. —+ ' ' �O -* TAYL : j 71 ik F a' * F r may, M I I H r ;{ A Residential 2 to t' r MILE HILL Neighborhood f ■ F ■ Mixed use r V■ L OUFE ,.1 Ii M # * 4L' Commercial Heavy to �� �+� ■ ' i� + Commercial Mixed -use MIA ■ ! f Proposed Zoning Map Adjustments 1 N Encourage development along existing neighborhood arterial corridors. Provide a buffer from 1 N roll commercial to residential areas and preserve established single family neighborhoods. Page 15 of 158 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.11.2021 75 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT 16UCIW.LU QP. - DWIGHT�� ISION ' N. `.'�f " t� ■ m4L Jf +� + I ■ =j r■ TAYLORAL ri ■ -.. I;ice &1%. i+5� �I O it �r� I* •• � ' �,SyITI-J •'R s '27 a XENDALL L ` I -- JL ■SFLOg�EL `I . Jr 41 Existing Height Overlay Map 4 s f P F�k f4 - - - - ------- }!_ ! F DEKAL- - ur T' M JN �._ . d. r 14YjOR PLISKO T. I I I MILE HILL 41 LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT Note: Changed are outlined. Change to DHOD 5 Back to Agenda JF r� °ti `} t ' #r ` # a k-_ • — I ` r 1� f *i Y k� ` +�.wr i rJ - Q'� �* _ rend DHOD 5 Now L I 0 IVISI i t ear ■ CIO * - + Lrall rd O r TAYL = S 0 r * t IL a I Air SMITH I * ■ F q—,: fir . on ';' L -KENALL * r PLISKO MILE HILL MIN SLOLIFE 4? JP Ir A. i 1 Proposed Height Overlay Map Adjustments as It Encourage development height increases in locations that do not impact existing protected 1 N views. 76 Page 16 of 158 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.11.2021 77 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN (.11011111[7i =1�� 1 b. } F R ?' I Y F KJTSAP — i f ; Ir J fKALB � � •_ w DEKALI�""••I„�.. DWIGHT ■ . _ .,,. e i DIVISIOI` Q - U ' O TAYLOR ' o _ r` n t �'R I' II �r # I•T^ KEND�,L' 9 44 MILE HILL + i y SROUFE ti Sludy hre+8 CILI. f cani-Redeuelop ble ,. o � I•.�,,,..,.•I�,,,,.,,. ,,,,.,, ,,,,.�I,.,.,,�� :: � � �i ��� * Single-Fam Fn 4*nelly Existing Build -able Lands or Potential Infill Development Map - _ �rld�rutll�r� 78 EM Pipeline Project © Vacant/Redvelopable 0 Single -Farr In Density Vacant 0 Underutilized QAdded in Subarea Plan or pm■ MILE HILL ■ L # F t # * -t,, womb j* * Air JP 1 � I 0 - 4 , ;1 - Updated Build -able Lands or Potential Infill Development Map that incorporates additional lands that were added due to zoning changes or anticipated development included in the subarea plan. Back to Agenda 41f &4P # Jr qP * i + *� t # dr * 4P � r f * * * # * A - '�' • �:' 'jam �� � � ..'rr - or _J W` k ' 4� = DEKALB J' U � I 1 I �N Page 17 of 158 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 79 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.4 Environment and Open Space ENVIRONMENT AND )PEN SP.,., OVEi VIEVv In addition to multiple public parks the defining Environment and Open Space features in the study area includes the shoreline along Sinclair inlet and numerous historic creek valleys. The existing waterfront includes large tracts of surface parking developed prior to the adoption of the Shoreline Management Act. Environment and Open Space goals strive to both enhance the environment and the public realm for City residents and guests. ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE GOALS Goal EOS - 01 Provide increased pedestrian access and recreational opportunities at the waterfront. Goal EOS - 02 Plan to mitigate flooding during high -tides and as a result of sea -level rise. Goal EOS - 03 Incorporate new open space within required shoreline buffers such that they can serve dual -purposes. (for example refer to Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Concept for existing Blackjack Creek Outlet) Goal EOS - 04 Improve safety and security along existing open spaces and around blackjack creek. ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE POLICIES Policy EOS - 01 Encourage the future replacement of existing shoreline armoring that allows for pedestrians access to the water. (For example refer to Shoreline Armor with Water Access Concept for the West Downtown waterfront) Policy EOS - 02 Encourage the creation of a public kayak launch dock. Policy EOS - 03 Streets should terminate at the waterfront with a small plaza, overlook, or pocket park. Policy EOS - 04 Convert Orchard and Port Streets to pedestrian plazas with limited vehicle access. Policy EOS - 05 Encourage the creation of storm -water facilities in Shoreline Armor with Water Access Concept for the West Downtown waterfront N r— Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Concept for existing Blackjack Creek Outlet shoreline set -backs that also provide public open space amenities. Policy EOS - 06 Support the expansion of Etta Turner Park to include a riparian buffer with bio-retention from adjacent development. Policy EOS - 07 Support the development of a new park in the existing public right -off way on the west side of the Blackjack Creek outfall. This park will work with Etta Turner park to frame the Blackjack Creek corridor from Bay Street to the Sinclair inlet. of Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Urban waterfront parkscape. ii ov ,J�., Conceptual Hill Climb from Prospect Ave to Port St Back to Agenda Stormwater Feature Conceptual Waterfront Plaza and kayak launch at Port Street Page 18 of 158 80 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 81 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Back to Agenda ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST Funding No. Project Name Description Agency Cost Source Port Orchard Blvd The historic creek that previously existing t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Creek Estuary at the location of Port Orchard Blvd is now O Restoration piped to its terminus at Sinclair Inlet. The plan encourages estuary restoration at the outflow of this creek. Port Orchard Boat The historic creek that originates near the t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Launch Estuary County Government Campus is currently Restoration piped from approximately Austin Ave to © its outfall east of the boat launch. The plan encourages the creek to be daylit west of intersection of Bay and Robert Geiger Streets with estuary restoration at Sinclair inlet. Port Street Shared Port Street is proposed to be transformed to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Plaza, Viewpoint, and a pedestrian plaza or shared street to provide © Shoreline Restoration pedestrian access and views to Sinclair Inlet. The plaza should terminate with a viewing plaza with potential access to the water. Orchard Street Plaza Orchard Street is proposed to be transformed t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. and viewpoint to a pedestrian plaza or shared street to provide pedestrian access and views to O Sinclair Inlet. The existing elevated viewing deck and pump station at the terminus of this corridor will be replaced with an at grade viewing plaza. Kayak Launch A publicly accessibly kayak launch dock is t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © proposed near the location of the former pier north of Port Street. Prospect Street Hill The redevelopment of the parcels located at n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. Climb the corner of Bay Street are encouraged to 0 include a publicly accessibly hill climb from Prospect Street to Bay Street. The hill climb should align with either Port Street or Orchard Street. Bay Street Pedestrian Widen the existing Bay Street Pedestrian Path t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Path Enhancements from Orchard Street to the Ferry terminal to 0 provide multi -model access and meet existing design standards. Improvements may include viewpoints and street terminations and new landscape amenities and furniture. Blackjack creek Provide a new waterfront park on the City t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Estuary Park and Etta parcel along the west side of Blackjack Creek Turner Park expansion and expand Etta Turner Park to provide an Qand enhancements expanded riparian buffer. These parks should 0 include natural features and wildlife habitat. Incorporate wetland boardwalks, provided that they can comply with shoreline mitigation requirements. Waterfront shoreline New development should provide waterfront t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. enhancement shoreline restoration at the current auto Odealership and the Westbay center sites in compliance with requirements contained within the City SMP and the State SMA. Environment and open space Proposed Project List C)_11L" Page 19 of 158 82 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 83 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.5 Circulation, Access, and Parking CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING OVERVIEW CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING POLICIES The Downtown and County Campus Centers contains a well established transportation network centered on Bay Street, and Bethel Ave. Mitchell Street, Cline Ave, and Sidney Ave are primary minor arterials from uphill neighborhoods to the waterfront. The Downtown walk-on ferry terminal provides service to Bremerton with connections to Seattle. Improvements envisioned as part of the development include re -focusing new development towards the water and improving pedestrian access through -out the Centers. CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING GOALS Goal CAP - 01 Improve Bay and Bethel corridors such that they are safer for all users and that they define a place rather than act as just a highway. Goal CAP - 02 Ensure that adequate parking is available to support the marina and allow for downtown businesses to thrive while promoting a walkable main -street character. Goal CAP - 03 Encourage development in the West downtown to face the waterfront and bay street Goal CAP - 04 Provide improved pedestrian circulation within the West Downtown between waterfront and Prospect Street. Goal CAP - 04 Transform the existing East Downtown from a largely car dominant development pattern to an extension of the existing walkable downtown West Downtown area. Goal CAP - 05 Discourage new development from locating parking between new development and the waterfront. Goal CAP - 06 Encourage the replacement of the existing Bay Street sidewalk marquee. Goal CAP - 07 Encourage new development to be oriented perpendicular to Sinclare inlet to frame views towards the waterftont. Policy CAP - 01 Develop a corridor design plan for Bay Street between Port Orchard Blvd and the eastern terminus of the Study area, and for Bethel Ave between Bay Street and SE Mill Hill Dr. The corridor plan shall address elements such as multi -modal circulation, frontage design and improvements, and bike and ped safety improvements. The plan shall accomodate raising the elevation of Bay Street in response to the City's Sea Level Rise Study referenced in the 2021 SMP Update.Work with WSDOT to explore opportunities for potential traffic calming measures. Policy CAP - 02 Where appropriate, encourage urban low impact development stormwater management features in the roadway design, such as bio-swales between the on - street parking lanes and sidewalks. Policy CAP - 03 Phase out all -day commuter parking in the West Downtown to support parking for downtown business. Policy CAP - 04 Support Kitsap transit to study the feasibility and need of adding additional park and ride facilities away from the downtown waterfront to serves ferry riders. Policy CAP - 05 Create a new waterfront street from Harrison Ave to Fredrick Ave that includes parking, sidewalks, and landscape improvements and accommodates ferry transit drop-offs. Policy CAP - 06 Support the reconfiguration of the marina parking lot to increase parking and improve multi -modal circulation from Bay Street to the waterfront. Policy CAP - 07 Include a hill -climb from Bay Street to Prospect Street aligned with either Orchard Ave or Port Street. Policy CAP - 08 Redesign Orchard and Port Street to pedestrian plazas with limited vehicle access. Policy CAP - 09 Convert Fredrick Ave to a two-way street with parallel parking on each side or widen street for angled parking. Policy CAP - 10 Encourage the creation of a loop street or private access drive to break down the scale of the auto -dealership site, provide waterfront access, and provide additional on - street parking. Policy CAP - 11 Extend Mitchell Ave north across Bay Street as a new private access drive to terminate at the waterfront. Policy CAP - 12 Provide new frontage 2mprovements, including parallel parking and sidewalks on both sides of Harrison Ave. At least one of the sidewalks should extend to the waterfront. Policy CAP - 13 Modify residential parking requirements in all zones to be consistent with the current DMU parking requirements of 1 stall per unit regardless of bedrooms. Policy CAP - 14 Vacate Harrison Street R.O.W. between Bay Street and Prospect Alley. Policy CAP - 15 The Bay Street corridor plan frontage design standards shall include design standards for the removal of the existing sidewalk marquee. The marquee will be replaced with new overhead protection weather protection that is incorporated with the structure of new development. Policy CAP - 16 Revise the Shoreline Master Program to discourage parking along the waterfront. Policy CAP - 17 Expand POMC 20.124.130(1), to apply to all DMU zones. Policy CAP - 18 Allow for parking requirements to be waived for ground level commercial uses less than 1000 sq ft gfa to encourage smaller local businesses. Policy CAP - 19 Modify the Downtown mixed use parking standards to expand the exemption for required ground floor uses from Orchard to Robert Geiger Street. Back to Agenda Policy CAP - 20 Allow for required parking to be met with an off -site shared parking agreement. Policy CAP - 21 Require that any new development or Type III improvements as defined in POMC 20.127.020, shall provide street frontage improvements consistence with City design requirements. This policy recommendation should apply citywide. Encouraged Low -impact Stormwater management such as street front bioswales. Conceptual Woonerf or shared Street Concept Image Page 20 of 158 84 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 85 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Conceptual Urban Waterfront Street Conceptual Woonerf or shared Street Concept Image 2 S. i Street Concept Image I Mitchell Street Extension from Bay Street to the Waterfront (Looking North) t Conceptual Street Section Key Plan Street Cross -Section A -A I New Waterfront Street Between Frederick and Sidney Ave (Looking West) Street Cross -Section B-B I New Waterfront Street Between Sidney and Harrison Ave Page 21 of 158 (Looking West) SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Back to Agenda 86 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 87 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Back to Agenda ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST Funding No. Project Name Description Agency Cost Source Bay St /Port Orchard Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. O Blvd Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Bay St / Port Orchard Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © Blvd Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Fredrick Ave Convert Fredrick Ave to two-way traffic to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Improvements serve the marina and the new waterfront © street. Include frontage improvements and explore street expansion to maintain angled parking. O New Waterfront Street Provide a new waterfront "shared" street t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. between Frederick and Harrison Ave. Sidney Ave. Frontage Provide frontage improvements including t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © Improvements Street Trees/landscaping, sidewalk expansion, and street furniture from Prospect St to the waterfront. Harrison Ave Frontage Provide frontage improvements including n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. • 0 Improvements Street Trees/landscaping, curb and sidewalks and street furniture from Bay St to the waterfront. Bay Street and Bethel Develop a corridor plan for Bay Street t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Ave Corridor between Port Orchard Ave and the eastern terminus of the Study area, and for Bethel Ave between Bay Street and SE Mill Hill Dr. The corridor design shall address elements O such as multi -modal circulation, frontage design and improvements, and bike and ped safety improvements. The plan shall accomodate raising the elevation of Bay Street in response to the City's Sea Level Rise Study referenced in the 2021 SMP Update. Bay St / Mitchell Ave Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation Qand safety. Design will incorporate the extension of the Mitchell Street across Bay Street as a new private access drive. St / Guy Wetzel Rd Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. OBay • Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Environment and open space Proposed Project List b N Page 22 of 158 88 Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 03.1 1.2021 89 Back to Agenda Page 23 of 158 Back to Agenda uu City of Port Orchard Issue Title: KRCC Update to the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 Time Required: 45 minutes Attendees: Nick Bond, DCD Director Action Requested at this Meeting: Discuss the most recent draft of the Countywide Planning Policies and provide feedback to staff, Council Member Ashby (KRCC Chair), and Mayor Putaansuu (KRCC Representative). Issue: The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) is currently in the process of updating the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs). This update is being prepared in advance of the City's periodic update to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. The update seeks to implement the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) regional growth strategy "Vision 2050" and update the CWPPs to reflect countywide goals and policies. This update is being completed in two steps. The first step, which has been underway for two years, is to update the written goals and polices. The second step, to be taken later this year, will be to adopt updated population and employment growth targets for each jurisdiction. State law requires that Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan be consistent with both Vision 2050 and the CWPPs. The CWPPs must be consistent with Vision 2050: https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/vision-2050-plan.pdf The CWPPs are broken down into various elements. The work to update the Introduction and Elements A, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N is nearly finished (in final draft form). There is additional discussion and work to do on Elements B, C, D and G. During the work study meeting, we will walk through the document element by element, touching on major changes and sticking points, to seek input from the City Council. Background: Typically, the CWPPs are updated before the City is required to begin preparing its periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan, which is undertaken every eight years. In 2020, the KRCC hired LDC Consultants to prepare an update to the CWPPs. KRCC is making progress on this update and has released a revised draft document for review. Currently, the KRCC Land Use Technical Advisory Committee (LUTAC) and Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TransTAC) are reviewing this recent draft. Eventually, each jurisdiction in Kitsap County will need to vote to ratify the amendments to the CWPPs. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2024 Comprehensive Plan periodic update will be required to be consistent with the final updated CWPPs. Page 24 of 158 Back to Agenda Executive Summary 2 Page 2 of 2 Alternatives: As this is a required collaborative document between multiple Kitsap County jurisdictions, the City may request revisions, but changes will be made only if a majority of the jurisdictions agree. Any proposed revisions would need to be consistent with Vision 2050. Recommendations: Staff recommends that the City Council review the current draft document and provide feedback that can be communicated by staff and the City's KRCC representatives during upcoming KRCC meetings. Attachments: March 1, 2021 Draft CWPPs. Page 25 of 158 Back to Agenda Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies 3/01/2021 Working Draft Page 26 of 158 Adopted Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Amended and Adopted ci�X Attached are the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies as adopted by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners by ordinance on May 11, 2015 (Ordinance 522-2015). The Countywide Planning Policies as revised are currently in effect in Kitsap County. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies are the framework for growth management in Kitsap County. Under the Growth Management Act, the Puget Sound Region is defined as King, Kitsap, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. The Puget Sound Regional Council is responsible for developing the four -county regional transportation and land use vision. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies tailor the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional growth management guidelines to Kitsap County and are the policy framework for the County's and the Cities' Comprehensive Plans. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies address 14 separate elements, ranging from urban growth areas to affordable housing. The Countywide Planning Policies are required by the Growth Management Act and may be appealed (only) by Cities and the Governor of Washington. The original Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies (adopted by Kitsap County in 1992) and subsequent revisions (August 2001, December 2003, November 2004, November 2007, November 2011, November 2013, and May 2015) were developed through a multi jurisdictional collaboration sponsored by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council among: Kitsap County, the Cities of Bremerton, Bainbridge Island, Port Orchard & Poulsbo, the Suquamish & Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes, the Navy, the Port of Bremerton, and Kitsap Transit. Kitsap County is lead agency for its environmental review. Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Page 27 of 158 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION(UR).........................................................................................................................4 Element A. Countywide Growth Pattern (CW)....................................................................................10 Element B. Urban Growth Areas (UGA).............................................................................................14 Element C: Centers of Growth(C).......................................................................................................24 Element D: Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns(R)............................................................... 37 Element E. Natural Environment(NE)................................................................................................. 41 Element F. Contiguous, Compatible, and Orderly Development (D).................................................. 47 Element G. Siting Public Capital Facilities (CF)................................................................................. 52 Element H. Transportation (T)............................................................................................................ 57 ElementI. Housing (AH)..................................................................................................................... 66 Element J. Countywide Economic Development (ED)........................................................................ 71 Element K. An Analysis of the Fiscal Impact (FI)............................................................................... 75 Element L. Coordination with Tribal Governments (CT).................................................................... 78 Element M. Coordination with Federal Government including Navy (CF)......................................... 80 Element N. Roles and Responsibilities (RR)....................................................................................... 84 Appendix A: Kitsap Countywide Planning Policy Ratification Process .............................................. 88 Appendix B-1: Population Distribution Through 2036...................................................................... 89 Appendix C: Urban Growth Area Management Agreements............................................................... 90 Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement (adopted December, 2001) .............................. 92 Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement (adopted December, 2001) ..................... 98 Appendix F: Regional and Kitsap Designated Centers List...............................................................105 Appendix G: Centers & Local Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) Matrix ....106 3 Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Page 28 of 158 Banda Table of Contents INTRODUCTION (UR) The Growth Management Act (GMA) is founded on the principle that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the State to foster coordination and cooperation among units of local and state government. Cities and counties must engage in a collaborative planning process under the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that, "THE LEGIsLATUREFINDSTHAT UNCOORDINATED AND UNPLANNED GROWTH... POSE A THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE ENJOYED BY RESIDENTS OF THE STATE. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CITIZENS, COMMUNITIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR COOPERATEAND COORDINATE WITHONEANOTHER IN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING. " To guide the development of Comprehensive Plans and development regulations, the GMA sets forth planning goals (RCW 36.70A.020) in 13 areas: 1. Urban Growth 8. Natural Resource Industries 2. Reduce Sprawl 9. Open Space and Recreation 3. Transportation 10. Environment 4. Housing 11. Citizen Participation and Coordination 5. Economic Development 12. Public Facilities and Services 6. Property Rights 13. Historic Preservation. 7. Permits The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.210) states that "A COUNTYWIDEPLANNINGPOLICYISA WRITTEN POLICYSTATEMENT OR STATEMENTS USED SOLELYFOR ESTABLISHING A COUNTYWIDE FRAMEWORKFROM WHICH COUNTYAND CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE DEVELOPED AND ADOPTED ... (TO) ENSURE THAT CITYAND COUNTYCOMPREHENSIVE PLANSARE CONSISTENT... " as required in RCW 36.70A.100. "NOTHING IN THIS DOCUMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO ALTER THE LAND USE POWERS OF CITIES. " The Act requires that the countywide policy be collaboratively developed among Cities and the County. Further,"FEDERAL AGENCIESANDINDIANTRIBES MAYPARTICIPATEINANDCOOPERATE WITH THE CO UNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICYADOPTIONPROCESS. " These policies may also be used for other purposes requiring collaboration and cooperation in addition to the development and adoption of comprehensive plans. v:s:—244QVision 2050 (adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council during-2819on October 29, 2020) serves as the long-range growth management, environmental, economic development, and transportation strategy for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. Vision 20449-2050 includes the Regional Growth Strategy, Multi -County Planning Policies (RCW 36.70A.210) and Implementation Actions. The 1992 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies and subsequent revisions in 2001, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2013_; and 2015, and 2021 were developed by a committee of planners representing Kitsap County, the City of Bremerton, the City of Port Orchard, the City of Poulsbo, the City of Bainbridge Island, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, the Navy, and Kitsap Transit. At each point, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council conducted a public hearing and prepared a recommendation for adoption by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners and ratification by Cities and Tribes. The process of review and discussion through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council forum is intended to foster consensus whenever possible. County and City 4 Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Commented [CW1 ]: 3/1/21 —Reviewed byLUTAC Page 29 of 158 Table of Contents Comprehensive Plans must shall be consistent with the adopted Countywide Planning Policies. `Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Vision StatemenCommented [Cw2]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC The Kitsap Countywide vision continues the qualities of life that make our County a special place to live and work. We strive to protect our natural systems; preserve the village character of our smaller towns; respect community histories; diversify an economic base that supports good jobs and contributes to vibrant cities, efficient transportation, and affordable housing choices. Obiectives• We work on strategies to achieve the following objectives: a. Livable urban communities, that are centers for employment, civic activities, and homes: • Attractive, livable urban neighborhoods that are bike/pedestrian-friendly and offer a range of services, housing, and transportation options. • Cities that are centers for employment, affordable housing, and cultural activities. b. A vital and diversified economy, that provides career pathways and living wage lobs for residents, supported by adequate buildable lands for a range of employment uses. c. An efficient multi -modal transportation system: Accessible roads and highways, transit, ferries, airports, and nonmotorized travel — supporting our land use pattern while providing mobility for residents. d. Naturals systems Respect the natural environment, including natural resource lands such as forests, wetlands, wildlife habitat, streams, and the Puget Sound — as well as the quality of our waters, land, and air. In addition, maintain a system of open space, trails, parks, and greenbelts providing_ opportunities to spend time outdoors and to learn about the environment. e. Rural Character: Maintain the traditional appearance, economic and ecological functions of Kitsap's rural communities, to include the production and distribution of locally grown food. f. An Efficient and Responsive Government: An efficient and responsive government that partners with citizens and other governmental entities to meet collective needs fairly; while suDDortine education. environmental Drotection. and human services. Action: A kev strategv to accomplish this vision is the intent to encourage future urban growth within incorporated cities and unincorporated areas already characterized by urban growth, with existing and planned services and facilities. These actions strengthen our environmental and rural assets, focus public expenditures, and encourage concentrated development where appropriate. Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Page 30 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents How to read the Countywide Planning Policies - Commented [CW31: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC The policies within the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) have equal importance, and each one should be understood in the context of the entire document. The CPPs specify how directive a policy should be. Many of the policies utilize one of three different words to do this: shall, should, and may and are defined as follows: • "Shall" means implementation of the policy is mandatory and imparts a higher degree e of substantive direction than "should". "Shall" is used for policies that repeat State of Washington requirements or where the intent is to mandate action. However, "shall" cannot be used when it is largely a subjective determination whether a policy's bjective has been met. • "Should" means implementation of the policy is expected but its completion is not mandatory. The policy is directive with substantive meaning, although to a lesser degree than "shall" for two reasons. (1) "Should" policies recognize the policy might not be applicable or appropriate for all municipalities due to special circumstances. The decision to not implement a "should" policy is appropriate only if implementation of the policy is either inappropriate or not feasible. (2) Some "should" policies are subjective; hence, it is not possible to demonstrate that a jurisdiction has implemented it. • "Maw means the actions described in the policy are either advisable or are allowed. "May gives permission and implies a preference. Because "may" does not have a directive meaning there is no expectation the described action will be implemented. Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Page 31 of 158 Table of Contents The policies in this chapter outline the timing of required updates and the process and procedures for adopting and ratifying changes to the Countywide Planning Policies CPPs Policies for Update and Ratification (UR): UR-1. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies should be dynamic and regularly monitoredfor applicability and effectiveness.) a. The adopted Countywide Planning Policies should be reviewed through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council- prior to each required comprehensive plan update as required by RCW 36.70A.130. . Pr-epesed-Policy revisions shall be reviewed for impacts according to the State Environmental PFA#-,enet+-Rglicy Act (SEPA), consistency with PSRCs Multicounty Planning Policies (MPPs) and shall be ,.,.asistefA . i the State Growth Management Act (GMA). b. The County or a City may propose a policy amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies. Commented [CW4]: 3/1/21 Review by LUTAC Removed "Regional Growth Strategy" from policy per LUTAC comments. UR-2. Proposed amendments should be considered on a regular basis and voting is subject to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council by-laws.) Commented [CW5]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC a. Kitsap County shall take action to consider and adopt amendments or revisions to ✓ the Countywide Planning Policies following recommendation from the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. b. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council will strive for ratification by all Cities and Tribes during the 90 days following the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of its subject ordinance. The adopted CPP will become effective upon ratification by three or more cities in Kitsap County. c. A City or Tribal Council that does not ratify the revised Countywide Planning Policies within 90 days of the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of its subject ordinance shall provide a written statement of its objections to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, in order to facilitate further review. (See Appendix A for process flowchart). d. Once the ratified revisions to the Countywide Planning Policies take effect, a City or the Governor's office may appeal the revisions to the Growth Management Hearings Board within a further 60 day period. Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Page 32 of 158 Table of Contents Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance X Date Page 33 of 158 Back to Agenda Element A Countywide Growth Patterns Insert Photo Here Page 34 of 158 Table of Contents Element A. Countywide Growth Pattern (CW) The vision for the future of Kitsap County, "seeks to maintain and enhance the quality of life that makes our County a special place to live and work. Eenvision a future in which our natural systems are protected; the water quality in our lakes, streams and Puget Sound mare enhanced; the village character of some of our smaller towns is preserved; the historical nature of our communities is respected in order to preserve our heritage for future generations; a diversified economic base that supports good jobs, contributes to healthy downtowns in our Cities and affordable housing choices; the rural appearance of our county is perpetuated. This vision of the future, shared by citizens and elected officials, includes the following elements: a. Livable urban communities and neighborhoods, centers for employment, civic activities, housing: ■ Attractive, well designed, bike/pedestrian-friendly and livable urban communities, enhanced by preserved historic properties and neighborhoods, that are supported by efficient and high quality services and facilities, and provide a range of housing choices. ■ Healthy cities that are the region's centers for employment, affordable housing choices, and civic and cultural activities. b. Vital diversified economy: An economy that provides training, education, and living wage jobs for residents, supported by adequate buildable land for a range of employment uses and that encourages accomplishment of local economic development goals as articulated in the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance's adopted plan, Kitsap 20/20: A Strategy for Sustainable Economic Prosperity. c. Efficient multi -modal transportation system: Creation of an efficient, clean, and sustainable multi- modal transportation system — including roads and highways, public transportation, ferries, airports, and opportunities for non -motorized travel — that provides efficient access and mobility for county residents, and supports our land use pattern. d. Natural systems protection: ■ Protection and enhancement of the natural environment, including wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, shorelines, water quality, air, climate, and natural resource lands. ■ Creation of a system of open space, trails, parks, and greenbelts that provide opportunities for recreation and that give structure and separation to urban areas. e. Rural character: Maintenance of the traditional character, appearance, economic and ecological functions, and lifestyles of Kitsap County's rural communities and areas 10 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element A: Countywide Growth Patterns Page 35 of 158 Table of Contents to include the production and distribution of locally grown food. f. Responsive Government: An efficient and responsive government that works in partnership with citizens, governmental entities and Tribes to meet collective needs fairly; and that supports education, environmental protection and human services. A key strategy to accomplish this vision is the intention to encourage future urban growth in areas within incorporated cities and in unincorporated areas that are already characterized by urban growth with existing and planned services and facilities. These actions will work to strengthen our natural environment and rural character and are geared to reduce taxpayer costs by focusing the expenditure of public funds, encouraging concentrated development where appropriate, and increasing our choices for housing and jobs." Balancing historical patterns of growth with a preferred vision of the future and legal requirements is an on -going challenge. Tradeoffs must be made to balance the costs with the gains; flexibility is necessary to adapt to changing conditions. These policies are intended to reflect the long-term goals of the people living, working and doing business here. The policies in this chapter are focused on the important role of both urban and rural areas in Kitsap County as growth occurs. In addition, the policies outline how the KRCC member jurisdictions will work together to achieve common goals regarding the countywide growth pattern. Policies for Countywide Growth Pattern (CW): CW-1. Roles of Cities, unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), and designated CentersCommunities a. The primary role of Kitsap's ^~'-a~ ,.,-worm' Cities and unincorporated UGAs is to encourage growth, through new development, re -development and in -fill. (See Appendix B for current and projected population distribution.) Population growth should be directed to Cities, urban growth areas and centers with a transportation system that connects people with jobs and housing. b. Each of Kitsap's wban eenurunit Cities and Unincorporated UGAs should maintain and enhance fester its unique vision as a high -quality place to live and work, through urban design, historic preservation, and arts that improve the natural and human -made environments; promote healthy lifestyles; contribute to a prosperous economy; and, increase the region's resiliency in adapting to changes or adverse events. C_ natural - amenities and provide „pen spaee t;nLs to ♦he 4fl—at v.,t e.d. For unincorporated UGAs, support annexation into cities. CW-2. Roles of Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element A: Countywide Growth Patterns Commented [CW6]:3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Removed reference to centers per LUTAC direction Modified b. removed foster and added maintain and enhance per comment received. Modified d. — changed the word promote to support per LUTAC We will discuss at LUTAC Commented [CW7]: 3/1/21 Added centers to c. This is consistent with the approach to distinguishing between rural and urban centers (See Element D — policy R-2) . If the approach to nomenclature changes, I would change this as well so the language it appropriate. We will discuss as LUTAC. Page 36 of 158 Table of Contents a. Keep regional vision in mind when making local decisions. 49. into eities or ifteerper-ationw Eb.Maintain/enhance natural systems and rural character. �C.Include a variety of lowdensAylow-density rural centers, communities - densities, and uses. CW-3. To achieve these goals the he Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council member jurisdictions should: a. Make decisions together when needed. b. Coordinate and cooperate on land use policy, capital planning, infrastructure development, environmental issues, and cultural resource management/planning. c. Establish and keep updated ., Buildable Land Analysis lysis Pr 3. .� Work together to meet the Buildable Lands program requirements in RCW 36.70A.215. d. Develop a program for the Transfer of Development Rights to preserve lands with important public benefits. e. Maintain/preserve distinct urban identities with green breaks, open space or other natural features. Promote rphasing of infrastructure development within Urban Growth Areas- f Develop and implement land use policies, regulations, and incentives to promote the efficient use of urban areas. g Incorporate provisions addressing community health, equi , , and displacement into appropriate regional, countywide, and local plans.ning-arid deeision making 12 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element A: Countywide Growth Patterns Commented [CW8]: 3/1/21 Review by LUTAC Reinserted the term green breaks into e. per LUTAC direction Per written comment - also changed the first sentence in CW-3 referring to goals there are not goals to refer ack to. New language is more direct. We will review at LUTAC Page 37 of 158 Back to Agenda Element B Urban Growth Areas (UGA) Insert Photo Here Page 38 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element B. Urban Growth Areas (UGA) The baste « e for designating Urban Growth Areas iR4o-encourage the location of urban density residential, commercial, and industrial developments in-feas-where services can be most economically provided. The benefits of directing growth to designated urban areas include: o Higher density residential development within walking or bicycling distance of jobs, transit, schools, and parks. o Maximizing benefits of transportation and infrastructure investments o Limiting urban expansion into rural and forested lands. o Promotion of in -fill or redevelopment of existing urban areas. o Preservation of open space, critical areas and lands designated for resource protection. o Accommodation of employment growth in a concentrated pattern. fa ' 1 o Promotion of attractive residential neighborhoods and commercial districts which provide a sense of community. o A harmonious relationship with regional planning as articulated by Vision 20540 and Transportation 20440, adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council as the growth and transportation strategy for central Puget Sound. The policies in this chapter are focused on Urban Background: The Growth Management Act was amended in 1997 requiring Kitsap County and Cities to monitor countywide development activities in five-year intervals in order to test their Comprehensive Plans' growth and land absorption assumptions. Two different analyses are used: (1) The Land Capacity Analysis, first conducted by Kitsap County in 2002, estimates the existing land supply based on a set of defined assumptions, e.g. market factor, speed of land absorption, critical areas exclusions, etc. It uses a consistent, agreed - upon methodology, with allowance for documented variations for individual jurisdiction's conditions. (2) The Buildable Land Analysis (as required by the State GMA) uses recorded permit activity to track and monitor residential, commercial, and industrial growth. It will be updated throughout Kitsap County in 2007. It is an adaptive management tool for comparing development assumptions, targets, and objectives with actual development. If inconsistencies are found, the County and Cities must then implement reasonable measures, other than adjusting Urban Growth Areas, that will be taken in order to comply with the GMA. The following countywide planning policies relate to this regional program to monitor the buildable land supply for future growth as forecasted by the State and distributed through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Growth Areas (UGAs) and limited circumstances when urban growth may take place outside of urban growth areas. This includes policies directing how the county and cities work together on Buildable Lands and Land Capacity efforts, the distribution of proiected population and employment growth prior to updating comprehensive plans and the process, and criteria for expanding an UGA. Element B also outlines how the county and cities coordinate growth within unincorporated UGAs prior to land being annexed into cities, and policies focused on coordination for National Historic Towns and both Fully Contained Communities and Master Planned Resorts. Policies for Urban Growth Areas (UGA): IUGA-I. Land Udlization- apacity (RCW 36.70A.115)_& Alonitoring ProgramsBeview and Evaluation Program (Buildable Lands — RCW 36.70A.215):I Commented [Cw9]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC 14 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Page 39 of 158 Table of Contents Consistent with RCW 36.70A.115, the County and Cities shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their housing and employment growth (derived from population distribution), as adopted in the applicable Countywide Planning Policies. �T a. The County and the Cities shall maintain a Land Capacity Analysis Program using a consistent, agreed -upon methodology to estimate die -land supply available to accommodate future residential, commercial, and industrial growth. b. The County and die —Cities shall participate and work together to meet the Buildable Lands program requirements in order .i ^^ green upo 4tik able to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of their respective Comprehensive Plans. c. The County and Cities shall establish procedures for resolving disputes in collection and analysis of Land Capacity and Buildable Lands data. In the event a resolution cannot be achieved, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall be a forum to review and if possible, facilitate any disputes between parties. UGA-2. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing appropriate reasonable measures within its juFisdietional If the Buildable Lands aAnalysis shows that a jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan growth goals are not being met, that jurisdiction shall implementing additional reasonable measures to reduce the differences between growth and development assumptions and targets and actual development patterns: n order- to use its designated urban land more "`�eientlT Each 'urisdiction is responsible for im lementin appropriate reasonable measures within its jurisdictional boundaries. Commented [CWI 0]: 3/l/21 Reviewed by LUTAC UGA-3. Process and criteria for -to ensure re ional coordination when establishing, expanding, and adjusting Urban Growth Areas in Kitsap County:1I Commented [CW11]: 3/l/21 a. Urban Growth Areas are areas "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature" RCW 36.70A.110(1)) except under specific circumstances, as fully contained communities and master planned resorts as authorized by the Growth Management Act. b. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas shall be associated with an existing or future city. c. All Urban Growth Areas shall be reflected in County and respective City comprehensive plans. d. Sufficient area-ca aci must be included in the Urban Growth Areas to accommodate the adopted 20-year population distribution and color ide employment as adopted by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. aa4- 15 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Based upon comments received, LUTAC is comfortable with this policy except for sub -policy h. LUTAC gave direction to remove the proposed language for h. This has been done. New language for h. is based on state law and rules. We will review this new language at LUTAC and make additional changes as you find appropriate. Also note that per a written comment I added "Kitsap County" to f. to make it clear who they would have to apply for any UGA change. Page 40 of 158 Table of Contents e. 36.70A. �)TTto focus public and/or private investment where growth is desired, a jurisdiction may phase growth within its Urban Growth Area (RCW 36.70A.1100)). Utility development and/or expansion may be phased to support efficient and cost-effective growth and to prioritize investments. f. The County, City, or interested citizens may initiate an amendment to an existing Urban Growth Area through the Kitsap County annual comprehensive plan amendment process as authorized by the Growth Management Act. g_Any ^ isdietion seeking to expand it^expansion of an Urban Growth Area shall sieve esult in zoning that will ensure dv^a ss-a --urban growth patterns and densities consistent with the Growth Management Act and be consistent with the Cib,'s adopted Comprehensive Plan and any inter -local agreement between the City and the County. h. M urban growth area expansion shall not result in new areas being included for population or employment capacity that exceed what is necessary accommodate the growth management planning projections, plus a reasonable land market supply factor, or market factor. In determining this market factor, counties and cities may consider local circumstances.1 commented [cw12]: 3/1/21 — based upon feedback from LUTAC, It has been re- written. g. if an adepted e proposed, 20 year pr-ejeeted p ..l..tion disti7ib tieft require ..f its Uriba Growth Area the respective :. isdi tiefi shall ,. fidu,.* planning and analysis, addressing the following eendifiens� _. Update ..te and,. nfrm the e eit y analysis for land within the existing - Urban rroyith Are C r residential ial v and/or indi 'trial lands, ieh takes irate .,t allll development.. in e withthe ,. .. erll .,1 UGA o ♦hte Iast UGA exp TT.;s sh al h-e b s e d tip on tip date Buildable Land and hand Capaeity Analyses that fellow the guidelines of D CNV 36.70A.215 or other- analysis determined a :..to for- the paFtie lar- UGA A ...l..o.l T., .., :Stene5, ., isdi .tions :sting UGAe :..tent with the Growth Management A et and tT.o jufisdietion's adopted CompFehensive Plan. iii. Detefmine whether the adoption and implementation Of suitable r.nhlo ghpi,l,i be ,. :.7 orv.l ifthe r]..:l,i.,T.lo T ..„,1 Analysis Data,..,. eelleetiand .analysisanalysisfor- the Land/''..paeit„ Analysis be - done Data one e .,tiyel.. The Goup y will be r sih-le t r .l.,t., ey-sgegrer:T.;.,.. ..t1, .....,1 a ,.:ty i the rated pei-7tiefi of the Urban Gr,....t1, Area, and the City for the ineerpofated peftion. i. Expansion of Urban Growth Areas shall direct growth first to areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and 16 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas There is not much of a gap that needs to be filled here when reviewing the entire policy. The intention is to identify a set of the circumstances when a UGA expansion may be considered and what info is needed as part of this process. The new h is taken from WAC 365-196-310 (see below). One question is that I am unsure if the county and cities have established a market factor. We should discuss and add. So, the intent of this policy is to say that a UGA expansion is not warranted unless you can identify a capacity deficiency. The Market factor just anticipates that not all areas available for development will develop during the planning period. Some people may not sell or may land be developed with less pop or employment units than anticipated. 15% is a typical market factor. We will discuss this at LUTAC WAC 365 (e) The urban growth area may not exceed the areas necessary to accommodate the growth management planning projections, plus a reasonable land market supply factor, or market factor. In determining this market factor, counties and cities may consider local circumstances. Cities and counties have discretion in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating growth. Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. Page 41 of 158 Table of Contents service capabilities to serve development; second to areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided; and third to areas that are adjacent to incorporated cities or established Urban Growth Areas once the available land meeting the first or second priority has been designated. Areas which have existing public facilities or where public facilities can be reasonably extended and are not currently at urban densities should be considered first within this category. jJ n isdietie as part ofitsC,.mpr-ehensiye nt.,., —arnemd-m-p- t em Subarea Plan py-eeess, that Aan application for an expansion of the -a UGA shall p>=epare or update a eomparison of potential areas f f e include: Planning and zoning regulations currently in place. An evaluation of how a full range of urban -level infrastructure and services would be provided within potential expansion areas, including appropriate capital facility analysis. Fire Storm Water Solid Waste Police Potable Water Park & Recreation Facilities Transportation Sewer Schools Utilities: Power and Telecommunications, including Broadband Emergency Medical Services All service providers including special districts and adjacent jurisdictions should be included in the evaluation. Best available infrastructure technology may be used provided that it has been approved by the jurisdiction as part of a broader review of available technology. iii. shallOther factors should be addressed in evaluating areas for Urban Growth Area expansion, including but not limited to: environmental constraints; economic development; preservation of cultural, historical, and designated resource lands. The City and County shall conduct early and continuous public involvement when establishing, expanding, or adjusting Urban Growth Areas. Residents of unincorporated areas should be consulted and actively involved in the process affecting them. UGA-4. Coordinated Growth Management in Urban Growth a. Adopted City and County comprehensive plans shall reflect the intent that all land within unincorporated Urban Growth Areas will either annex to a city or incorporate within the 20-year planning horizon. b. To maximize the efficient use of urban lands, subdivisions in Urban Growth Areas shallshould be consistent with the associated jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan and underlying zoning densities, or where applicable, interlocal agreement between the county and city. 17 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Commented [CW 7 3]: 3/l /21— LUTAC comments have been responded to. Written comment asked that interlocal agreements be referred to in b. We will review this together at LUTAC. Page 42 of 158 Table of Contents c. As described in the &ewtl, r,r,,nagem ent "�', Cities are the primary provider of municipal services and facilities in their Urban Growth Areas, responsible for demonstrating within their Comprehensive Plans the capacity to provide all urban services within their associated Urban Growth Area(s). This may be accomplished through a collaborative process with Kitsap County and/or other service providers. d. The County and Cities shallshould establish procedures to facilitate the smooth transfer of governance for associated Urban Growth Area(s) through the adoption of ,interlocal agreements as per Appendix Q Urban Growth Area Nlan g€rnen4 Agre€rne-rrt�, e. For Urban Growth Areas: The County should plan with associated cities and local communities to address land uses, infrastructure needs, level of service standards as identified in these policies, and other issues as needed. The results should be reflected in the County Comprehensive Plan. The County should provide a level of urban facilities and services consistent with the County's ability and appropriateness to provide such services for those Urban Growth Areas that will be associated with a specific city or that will eventually incorporate. UGA-5. Policies for distribution of Distribution- ef20-year population and employment growth On"y"^•"^*is I as foireeasted by the IAL Offlee of Fiancial '� a. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall coordinate the process for distributing the forecasted population- and employ growth €er4hej3,eried- 2005 2025 2044 and every five years thefe"ao consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and PSRC's most recent Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). Following receipt of KRCC's recommendation, Kitsap County shall adopt any revision to population or employment targets. t� peptilation The County and cities as part of its next Comprehensive Plan update anw- , nw-nt � shall reflect those adopted ,growth targets in their Comprehensive Plan. and two C,;tios sha]I w^^o thvair C,^mpFchonsiN,e an- amendfnepAs upon that The distribution process should consider countywide demographic analysis, the Land Capacity Analysis, the Regional Growth Strategy, and the OFM projections, and it shall promote a countywide development pattern targeting over three quarters (76%) of new population growth to the designated Urban Growth Areas. The County and the Cities recognize that the success of this development pattern requires not only the rigorous support of Kitsap County in the rural areas, but also Cities' Comprehensive Plans being designed to attract substantial new population growth. a-.b.The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) provides a framework for the Kitsm Regional Coordinating Council to consider as population growth is distributed. 18 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Commented [CW14]: 3/l/21 LUTAC has reviewed full policy. Per LUTAC direction, a reference to Appendix A has been included in sub policy h. Will also circle back on UGA-5e — received comment about what this means Will come back to LUTAC for review Page 43 of 158 Table of Contents Population distributions should support the RGS while also recognizing countywide demographic information, jobs/housing balance, designated centers, transit service/access to high -capacity transit, and growth trends. In supporting the RGS, growth should be focused in metropolitan cities (Bremerton and the Bremerton UGA), Core cities (Silverdale), and High Capacity Transit Communities (Bainbridge Island, Kingston, Port Orchard and Port Orchard UGA, and Poulsbo and Poulsbo UGA). 4-c.Population distribution and employment targets will be reviewed through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council . The review will include an analysis of the Cities' and County's progress in achieving target distributions consistent with the Buildable Lands review and evaluation program. If the 76% UGA target mentioned above for new population growth and the overall population targets are met or exceeded, the target for new population will revert to five sixths (83%), as per the revised County -wide Planning Policies adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance #258-01 on August 20, 2001. Otherwise, the target may be reaffirmed or explicitly modified. Ed. The County and cities should work together to r T,.Wan Gvs_,•.., ^ ..,,... hall develop an estimate and/or range of the additional population and employment that it could accommodate and service during the 24 20-year planning horizon, consistent with its vision for future community character. The estimate shall consider the need for increasing population density within the Urban Growth Areas to promote efficient service delivery, avoid sprawl, and preserve community character. Vie. The population and employment -estimates and/or ranges shall be provided to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, with a statement of need concerning adjusted Urban Growth Area boundaries. e. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Couneil shall eompile the jurisdietions' f. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, after conducting a public hearing, shall recommend the estimate and/or ranges of 20 year20-year population and employment distribution to Kitsap County for adoption as an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies. g. Kitsap County should give substantial weight to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council's recommendation in adopting the 20-year population and employment distribution. h. Following adoption of the estimates and/or ranges, each jurisdiction should update its comprehensive plan, se -as toto arrive at a final population -targets consistent with the estimate and/or within the original range as adopted within Appendix A. i. After each jurisdiction has completed its comprehensive plan update, the final adopted target should be compiled and reviewed through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council process and the revised population and employment 19 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Page 44 of 158 Table of Contents distribution incorporated into the Countywide Planning Policies. A final distribution to Urban Growth Areas versus non -Urban Growth Areas within the range specified above should then be calculated. 20 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Page 45 of 158 Table of Contents UGA-6. Policies for Growth Outside of Urban Growth Areas: Fully Contained Communities, National Historic Towns and Master Planned Resorts commented [Cw15]: 3i1/21- reviewed with LUTAC a. A Master Plan r—;.W roeeSS and Just a note that the text box will be removed (as will the p decision criteria for fully contained communities, national historic towns, and master planned resorts should be incorporated in the County's Comprehensive Plan, must reflect the standards and requirements in the GMA, and in addition must address the following: Provision of necessary public facilities, including but not limited to parks, schools, and public safety facilities should be provided within or along with the development, consistent with adopted capital facility and level of service standards; Future assessment of adverse impacts to public infrastructure, nearby communities, adjacent rural areas, environmental resources, and designated resource lands. Such impacts should first be avoided, second minimized, and third mitigated; Under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.350), fully contained communities (FCCs) may be considered, provided that a portion of the twenty-year population forecast is reserved for & subsequently distributed to the FCC. The GMA requires that FCCs provide for a mix of uses that would provide jobs, housing, & public facilities and services to support a long-term residential population. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.360) also allows the consideration of proposed master planned resorts (MPR's) outside of Urban Growth Areas for shorter -term residential uses. Master planned resorts are described as self- contained, fully integrated planned developments in areas with significant natural amenities. The GMA allows for areas with a federal landmark designation to be developed as National Historic Towns (RCW 36.70A.520). The designation may allow urban services in rural areas dependent upon historic development pattern. Its boundaries and land uses must be consistent with those over the course of its history, but not specific to any point in time. Vision 2040 policies state that new FCC's are to be avoided. iii. Provisions for review of such developments through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council process, in addition to other procedural requirements. Consistent with guidance provided in Vision 20540, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall avoid the establishment of a Fully Contained Community (FCC). Only if it is found necessary to accommodate future urban population growth may the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council recommend the creation of an FCC and a corresponding new community reserve population. Any such designation shall be fully consistent with all Countywide Planning Policies establishing new Urban Growth Areas (Elements B3 an 5UGA-3 and UGA-5) and (RCW 36.70A.350 (2)), which, in part, requires that a new community reserve population be established no more than once every five years as a part of the designation or review of Urban Growth Areas and that the Urban Growth Areas shall be accordingly offset. 21 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas others) as part of document formatting. Page 46 of 158 Table of Contents In addition, the following shall be included in any County Comprehensive Plan requirements governing FCCs: i. a phasing plan that monitors and requires concurrent development of commercial and employment uses with residential development, to ensure that the community is fully contained; ii. a mechanism to ensure that the timing of the development components will be fully regulated by the phasing plan; iii. a substantial public benefit. As Vision 20540 requires comprehensive review and consideration of the regional impacts of any proposed Fully Contained Community, the County shall forward the proposal to adjacent counties, the Puget Sound Regional Council, and the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council for review at the earliest possible point in the process. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall review the proposal for regional impacts to the following: i. the regional growth strategy as included in Vision 20540; ii. the split in population growth between the countywide urban and rural areas; iii. other elements of the Countywide Planning Policies. 22 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element B: Urban Growth Areas Page 47 of 158 Back to Agenda Element C Centers of Growth (C) Insert Photo Here Page 48 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element C: Centers of Growth ( Overview and Purpose: Centers are the hallmark of Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRCI Regional Growth Framework. The region's growth strategy identifies Centers as an integral feature for accommodating residential and employment growth. Centers guide regional ,growth allocations, advance local planning, inform transit service planning, and nd represent priority areas for PSRC's federal transportation funding. Growth in Centers has significant regional benefits, including supporting multi -modal transportation options, compact growth, and housing choices near jobs, climate goals, and access to opportunity. As important focal points for investment and development, Centers represent a crucial opportunity to support equitable access to affordable housing, services, schools, health, quality transit service, and employment, as well as to build on the community assets currently present within centers. Centers serve multiple and equally important purposes. First, the designation of Centers in the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies demonstrates consistency with the multi -county planning policies adopted by PSRC. Further, within the Regional Geographies established by PSRC, it establishes a countywide planning policy to direct growth to all types of Centers, thereby implementing the regional center framework policies. Finally, by directing growth to Centers, Kitsap County will prioritize infrastructure investment to support growth and urban levels of development in Centers. Types of Centers: There are a variety of Center types and subtypes as defined in the March 22, 2018, Regional Centers Framework Update adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council and are as follows: • Regional Growth Centers (RGC) o Metro Growth Center The n„^ot Sou a o Urban Growth Center Regional r,.,mei has • Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) o Industrial Growth Center o Industrial Employment Center • Countywide Centers (CC) o Countywide Growth Center o Countywide Industrial Center • Local Centers (LQ • Military Installations (MI) 24 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Commented [CW16]: 3/1/21 No new changes in this chapter. Changes will be inserted once they are prepared and discussed by LUTAC. Page 49 of 158 Table of Contents o Major Installations o Smaller Military Installation The policies in this chapter are solely focused Centers of Growth. This includes outlining the purpose of different Center designations and how they are officially designated, utilized to accommodate population and employment growth, and the relationship between Centers designations and transportation funding. Policies for Centers of Growth (C): C-1. In decisions relating to population and employment growth and resource allocation supporting growth, Centers have a high priority. C-2. Centers are focal points of growth within Kitsap County and areas where public investment is directed. Centers shall: • Promote housing opportunities in close proximity or easy access to employ • Support development of a multimodal transportation system which reduces the dgpendence on automobiles; • Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services. C-32. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Poli Growth in Kitsap County eneourage the development of Centers ^ ^--ding t^should be prioritized in Centers, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and the following typology: a_Regional Growth Centers: Regional Growth Centers are locations of more compact. pedestrian -oriented development with a mix of housing, jobs, retail, services, and other destinations. Centers receive a significant share of the region's population and employment growth compared with other Darts of the urban areas while providing improved access and mobilitv — especially for walking, biking, and transit There are two types of Regional Growth Centers: i. Metro Growth Center — These Centers have a primary regional role. with dense existinghousing ousing and jobs, transit service and are planningfor or significant growth and will continue to serve as major transit hubs for the region. These Centers also provide regional services and serve as major civic and cultural centers. ii. Urban Growth Center — These Centers have an important regional role, with dense existing jobs and housing, transit service and planningfor or significant growth. These Centers may represent areas where major investments — such as high capacity transit — offer new opportunities for growth. 25 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Commented [CW 17]: 1/14/21— addition of policy introduction Page 50 of 158 Table of Contents b. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers: Manufacturing/hndustrial Centers preserve lands for family -wage jobs in basic industries and trade and provide areas where employment may grow in the future. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers form a critical regional resource that provides economic diversity, supports national and international trade, generates substantial revenue, and offers higher than average wages. There are two types of Manufacturing/Industrial Centers: i. Industrial Growth Center: These regional clusters of industrial lands have significant value to the region and the potential for job growth. These large areas of industrial land serve the region with international employers, industrial infrastructure, concentrations of industrial jobs, and evidence of long-term potential. The intent of this designation is to continue the growth of industrial employment and preserve the region's industrial land base for long-term growth and retention. Jurisdictions and transit agencies should aim to serve with public transit. ii. Industrial Employment Center: These Centers are highly active industrial areas with significant existingjobs, core industrial activity, evidence of long-term demand, and regional role. They have a legacy of industrial employment and represent important long-term industrial areas, such as deep -water ports and major manufacturing. The intent of this designation is to, at a minimum, preserve existing industrial jobs and land use and to continue to grow industrial employment in these Centers where possible. Jurisdictions and transit agencies should aim to serve with transit. Regional A il.,nufaet„Fing11ndustr:,,l Center-.,;., majoF, existing ,-egional uses v.,hieli eannot be easily mixed at higher- densities 1.vith A-ther- ineompatible and related tises, large retail uses of non related offiees are diseetir-aged. Pro of adequate publie faeil:ties and sefviees, ineluding good a s to the r 26 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 51 of 158 Table of Contents eflteF " (Vision 2040) c. Countywide Centers: There are two types of Countywide Centers — Growth Centers and Industrial Centers: i. Countywide Growth Centers serve important roles as places for concentrating jobs, housing, shopping, and recreational opportunities. These are often smaller downtowns, high -capacity transit station areas, or neighborhood centers that are linked by transit, provide a mix of housing and services, and serve as focal points for local and county investment. ii. Countywide Industrial Centers serve as important local industrial areas. These areas support living wage jobs and serve a key role in the county's manufacturing/industrial economy. d. Local Centers: Local Centers are central places that support communities. These places ranee from neighborhood centers to active crossroads and playan n important role in the region. Local centers help define community character and usually provide local gathering places and communitv hubs: thev also can be suitable for additional growth and focal points for services. e. Military Installations: Military Installations are a vital Dart of the region. home to thousands of personnel and iobs and a major contributor to the region's economy. While military installations are not subject to local, regional, or state plans and regulations, Kitsap local governments and Tribes recognize the relationship between regional growth patterns and military installations, and the importance of how military emplovment and personnel affect all aspects of regional planning_ Maior Military installations are designated by the PSRC: smaller military installations ma be recognized by KRCC as a type of countywide center or equivalent. As of 2007, Naval Base Kitsap — Bangor and Naval Base Kitsap — Bremerton is designated as Major Military Installations. As of 2017, two Kitsap County military bases met the criteria as a Smaller Military Installation, Naval Base Kitsap — Jackson Park and Naval Base Kitsap — Keyport. Mixed Use Centers are a generie ,.,ate,.ery that , « be deseribe,t i terms 27 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 52 of 158 Table of Contents iv-. 1. Tra poftation u,lb-s .. e 1,.,.ntionn of regional inter modal a eeti„n that to.minaln the B-efnetw..n National A: oA or eft.,in t.-. sit stations. C-4 Center designations shall be consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional Centers Framework dated March 22, 2018, and the following policies: a. Designation of Centers General Policies i. Regional Centers must be designated by Puget Sound Regional Council and included in the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. Countywide Centers are designated by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) and included in the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. Local Centers are designated in local jurisdictions' comprehensive plan. Military Installations are recognized by PSRC and KRCC. ii. Officially recognized Regional and Countywide Centers by PSRC and KRCC are identified and categorized in Appendix F. Candidate Centers (regional and countywide,) may also be designated in Appendix F. iii. Centers must be identified in the local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan with specific information about the type of Center and the specific gee rag phic boundaries. The Comprehensive Plan shall include policies aimed at focusing growth within the Center consistent with the applicable criteria established by PSRC and the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. Center boundaries may expand or reconfigure over time but shall continue to meet the minimum criteria as set forth by PSRC Regional Centers Framework and Kitsap Coun , ide Planning Policies. Failure of a local jurisdiction's comprehensive plan to maintain a centers designation will result in its removal from Appendix F. 28 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 53 of 158 Table of Contents iv. The KRCC's land use technical advisory committee (LUTAC) shall review the requests for the Center and Candidate Center designation and supporting technical memorandum/documentation and provide a recommendation to the KRCC on the proposed designations. V. Every JanuaryYd (or first weekday) of a year preceding the PSRC transportation funding, cycle, the KRCC shall invite jurisdictions to submit requests for designation of Centers or Candidate Centers. Initial requests for a Center or Candidate Center shall be processed as an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies. KRCC shall establish procedures and timelines ensuring the amendment process is conducted within 180 days from the initial request invitation. b. Regional Growth Centers and MIC Designation The designation of Regional Growth Centers (RGC) and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) is made by Puget Sound Regional Council. However, prior to designation by PSRC, an RGC or MIC must be designated as a Candidate Regional Center in the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies and local comprehensive plan. i. Jurisdictions seeking regional designation must follow the application designation process and criteria as set forth by PSRC in the Regional Centers Framework and Designation Procedures. ii. Prior to seeking RGC or MIC designation by PSRC, the Center shall be designated as a Candidate RGC or MIC in the Countywide Planning Policies. Each jurisdiction seeking initial designation of a Candidate RGC or MIC shall provide the KRCC with a technical memorandum containing the following information: • May; • Discussion on how the Candidate RGC/MIC meets or is nlanned to meet the eligibility criteria as a new RGC or MIC as defined by PSRC. At a minimum, the following should be addressed: ■ Commitment as a local priority through investment as a livable center; ■ Intent for subarea planning that meets regional requirements; ■ General analysis of infrastructure and utility capacity or planned capacity; ■ General analysis existing land uses or planned mix of land uses; ■ General environmental review that the center is appropriate for dense development; ■ Planned or existing transit services; • Current count of activity units and planned activity units (activity units means the sum of population and jobs units per gross acre as defined by PSRC; calculation of activity units shall be completed by PSRC or other accepted methodology as set forth in the technical memorandum); • Land eaimeity evaluation. 29 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 54 of 158 Table of Contents Centers identified in local comprehensive plans I Fe Figure 1: RGC/MIC Center Process Jurisdictions prepare sub- area plans c. Countywide Growth and Industrial Center and Candidate Designation Pursuant to the Regional Centers Framework, Countywide Centers are designated in the local comprehensive plan and by KRCC through the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. The Regional Centers Framework includes criteria for the designation of Countywide Centers; the KRCC must find that Countywide Centers meet this criterion prior to recognition in the countywide planning policies. 30 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 55 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Center identified in local comprehensive plan A Candidate Countywide Growth Center meets 5 activity units/acre and a Candidate Countywide Industrial Center meets 500 jobs JJ Figure 2: Countywide Center and Candidate Center Designation Process i. Each jurisdiction seeking to designate a Countywide Center shall provide the KRCC with a technical memorandum demonstrating that the proposed Center: • Meets the basic standards as established in the Regional Centers Framework for designating countywide centers; • Is characterized and boundaries defined in the local Comprehensive Plan with supportive policies; • For growth countywide centers, the current count of at least 10 activity units (activity units mean the sum of population and jobs units per gross acre as defined by PSRC; calculation of activity units shall be completed by PSRC or other accepted methodology as set forth in the technical memorandum); • For the countywide industrial center, current county of at least 1,000 existing jobs and/or at least 500 acres of industrial land; • A mix of uses (does not aptly to countywide industrial center); • Information of available multi -modal transportation serving the center. ii. Candidate Countywide Centers may be requested for inclusion in the Kitsag Countywide Planning Policies and shall provide the KRCC with a technical memorandum demonstrating that the Candidate Countywide Center: • Is identified in a local comprehensive plan; 31 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 56 of 158 Table of Contents • Meets the basic criteria of a Countywide Center in the Regional Centers Framework or has planning place to meet basic criteria; • For Growth Countywide Centers, has a minimum of 5 activity units and demonstration there is capacity and planning for additional growth; (activity units mean the sum of population and jobs units per gross acre as defined by PSRC; calculation of activity units shall be completed by PSRC or other accepted methodology as set forth in the technical memorandum). • For Countywide Industrial Centers, has a minimum of 500 jobs with planned capacity for at least 1,000 jobs. d. Conversion of Candidate Centers Conversion of a Candidate Center to a full Center shall be processed as follows i. Conversion of a Candidate Center to full Center can occur at any time; ii. Demonstration through a technical memorandum that the Candidate Center now meets the full requirement(s) of the Center (RGC, MIC or Countywide) as set forth in PSRC's Regional Centers Framework and the Kitsap Countywide Policies; iii. Recommendation of LUTAC to the KRCC Board; iv. The KRCC Board will consider the request for candidate center conversion within 90 days of LUTAC's review and recommendation. The requesting jurisdiction shall present to the KRCC Board the candidate center and outline the technical memorandum to demonstrate that the candidate center now meets full center status; V. Upon a to change the candidate status to full center status on Appendix F, the conversion shall be complete, and no further amendment or ratification process is necessar. 32 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 57 of 158 Table of Contents Candidate Center in listed in the CPPs I Candidate Center meets full requirements of Center as defined by PSRC and/or CPPs Jurisdiction submits technical memorandum at any time KRCC Board considers request for candldat center conversion 6i;i TAC reviews and offers recommendation Majority vote of KRCC to change candidate status to full center status Figure 3: Conversion of Candidate Center to Full Center e. Local Centers PSRC's local centers desienation and criteria allow for local consideration of the uniaue characteristics of neighborhood centers and important crossroads of the Kitsap Peninsula. Local Centers are designated in local comprehensive plans and shall be consistent with the following: i. Be located within a city, unincorporated urban growth area, or rural community: ii. Local comprehensive plans include the local center boundaries, supportive policies, and evidence the area is a priority of investment — such as planning efforts or infrastructure. f. Military Installations (MI) Maior Military Installations (MMII) are identified by PSRC and are defined as installations with more than 5,000 enlisted and service personnel. Smaller Military Installations (SMI) criteria are specified by RCW 36.70A.530 and identifies them as federal military installations, other than a reserve center, that employs 100 or more full-time personnel. jaekson Park KtypefE All militafy installations are identified on Appendix F. 33 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 58 of 158 Table of Contents Tl.o AvA SMIg All Military Installations (both MMII and SMI) in Kitsap County shall be considered countywide centers, as allowed by PSRC's Centers Framework, in order to ensure: i. Freight routing and mobility into and between the recognized military installations; ii. Accessibility and connectivity to transportation corridors; iii. Safety, accessibility, and mobility conditions where freight and passenger transportation systems interact. The identification of SMI Military Installations as countywide centers shall not be used as justification or support urban levels of densities if the MI is not located within an urban growth area. Any Military Installation (MMII or SMI) that meets the personnel criteria as defined above shall be considered a countywide center and may request inclusion in Appendix F following the same procedures for candidate countywide centers as described in Section 4.a.v. above. g. Prioritization of funding for centers Federal. state. regional. and countvwide transportation and economic develonment funds should be prioritized to regionally designated centers as well as transportation system linkages between regional growth centers. Subregional funding, especially countywide and local funds can also be prioritized to local centers. G 3. Reeognizing that eommunities evolve over- time, a jur-isdietion may r-equest of - . I . Center- be decision during the status. ill considered, and . Countywide Planning Poheies a made next A in Center amendment eyele. by the Puget Sound Regional Couneil. ehange status M*y- require aetion 34 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 59 of 158 Table of Contents 35 Living wage is the minimum hourly wage needed by a sole provider working full time (2080 hours per year) to cover the costs of food, shelter, clothing, and other basic necessities for their family. The assumption is that living wages vary across communities, based on differences in the cost of living and size of household. [Sources: Economic Policy Institute & KEDA] Living Wage: Living Wage Calculator for Kitsap County, Pennsylvania State University: b—gs:Hlivingwage.mit.edu/ Minimum Wage: WA State Dept of Labor & Industries: h—q://www.Ini.wa.gov/ Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element C: Centers of Growth Page 60 of 158 Element D Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns (R) Insert Photo Here Page 61 of 158 Table of Contents Element D: Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns (R) Rural areas of Kitsap County are characterized as having a variety of parcel sizes, with a diversity of land use activities. These areas also contain significant amounts of complex natural systems. It is a high priority to preserve and enhance the rural character of these areas. Counties are responsible for designating and regulating rural areas through the comprehensive planning process. However, rural preservation is a regional issue, and it is important to coordinate these planning objectives with the Cities. The policies in this chapter are focused on rural lands uses and development patterns. This includes policies focused on preserving rural character and the natural environment, development patterns including Rural Centers and Rural Communities, establishing and maintaining rural levels of service, and conservation and support for small-scale natural resource land uses in the rural area. Policies for Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns (R): R-1. Preserving rural character and enhancing the natural environment.) Commented [CW18]: 3/v21 Reviewed by LUTAC a. Preserve the character of identified rural areas by protecting and enhancing the ✓ natural environment, open spaces, recreational opportunities, and scenic and historic areas. Support small scale farming and working resource land, promote locally grown food, forestry, eco- and heritage -tourism. Support low -density residential living and cluster development that provides for a mix of housing types, rural levels of service, cultural activities, and employment that services the needs of rural areas at a size and scale that is compatible with long-term character, productivity, and use of these lands. b. The County shall establish low intensities of development and uses in areas outside of Urban Growth Areas to preserve resource lands and protect rural areas from sprawling development b c. This policy is not intended to preclude the future designation of Urban Growth —Areas. e-A.Manage and reduce rates of development in rural areas over time through continued and increased allocation of growth to Urban Growth Areas.T� ..t intemdod to p eelude the future doss .n ti A-n o-f Lh2h-an rr..,.,rl, Areas IR-2. Preserving rural land use and development patterns: a. Rural Communities Centers are already -existing residential and commercial areas of more intensive rural development designated in the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan under RCW 36.70A.070(5) In -fill is expected. Rural Cemnmnit Centers should be serviced by transportation providers and other services consistent with the Levels of Service adopted by Kitsap County for roads 37 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element D: Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns Commented [CW19]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC but this will come back to LUTAC to discuss. Option to move forward — the term Rural Centers remains but all other centers in the document would have had the term "urban" placed in front of them to ensure they are distinguished. This was approved by LUTAC but we will bring it back one more time. Urban has not been placed in front of other policies yet pending this discussion. Page 62 of 158 Table of Contents and by Kitsap Transit for transit upon their designation as an area of more intensive rural development. These Centers include: i. Port Gamble ii. Suguamish iii. Kevuort iv. Manchester v. Type 3 LAMIRD b. Rural Communities are smaller developed areas with existing residential commercial and/or industrial land uses where growth is not expected. These areas may include some LAMIRD characteristics but have not been found to meet the full set of LAMIRD criteria. They may include clear neighborhoods with limited services. Examples of such communities include, but are not limited to, Burley, Sunnvslope. Seabeck. Lake Svminaton. Indianola and Hansville. a-c. Transportat]on Hubs may be located within existing areas of more intensive development. Walking, bicycling, and transit are the major forms of travel. Transportation Hubs are locations of regional intermodal connection. Examples are ferry terminals and transit stations with convenience services. dThe County shall develop criteria consistent with the Growth Management Act for designating future industrial and commercial development outside of Urban Growth Areas that protect rural character while encouraging vehicle trip reduction. The criteria should allow for industrial resource -based land use and recreation and for convenience commercial that is scaled to serve the daily needs of rural residents. R-3. Establishing and maintaining rural levels of service:) a. Rural level -of -service standards shall address sewage disposal, water, transportation, and other appropriate services. The standards shall be developed based upon levels of service typically delivered in rural areas consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(16). b. For purpose of trip reduction, develop a range of alternative modes of transportation consistent with rural levels of service to connect Rural Communities with urban Centers. c. When sewers need to be extended to solve isolated health, environmental, and sanitation problems, they shall be designed for limited access so as not to increase the development potential of the surrounding rural area. R-4. Conserving small-scale natural resource use in rural areas:) a. Rural land use designations in the County's Comprehensive Plan shall recognize ecological functions and support rural uses such as farming, forestry, mining, recreation, tourism, and other rural activities, and permit a variety of low -density residential uses ,that preserve rural character and ecological functions; and can be sustained by rural service levels. b. The County's Comprehensive Plan policies shall promote clustering residential development and other techniques to protect and enhance significant open spaces, 38 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element D: Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns Commented [CW20]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Commented [CW21]: 3/1/21 Review by LUTAC Page 63 of 158 Table of Contents 39 natural resources, cultural resources, and critical areas for more effective use of the land. Clustering should not increase residential housing units in the overall area designated as rural, consistent with designated rural densities. Development clusters shall be designed, scaled and sited in a manner- consistent with rural character and the provision of rural levels of service. The County's Comprehensive Plan policies shall support Rural Communities as locations of employment, a mix of housing types, and cultural activities for rural areas that primarily function as locations for service needs such as grocery stores, shopping, and community services, and small-scale cottage industries for the surrounding rural area. Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element D: Rural Land Uses and Development Patterns Page 64 of 158 Back to Agenda Element E Countywide Strategies for the Natural Environment (NE) Insert Photo Here Page 65 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element E. Countywide Strategies for n..e c.,aee Preservation, Preservation,Resouree Critieal Areas, Air Quality, and Water - Natural Environment (NE) Open s )aeeThe natural environment is defined as land area consisting of open space, natural systems, resource lands and critical areas ao.. n . These critical areas include wetlands, wildlife conservation areas, steep slopes, frequently flooded areas and areas with a critical recharging affect. These open-spaee lands also include aesthetic functions such as view sheds of the water or ridgelines. Many of these natural systems are inter -connected and cross multi- jurisdictional boundaries within the County. The strategy is to conserve these areas and connect them to create a regional open space network to protect critical areas, conserve natural resources, and preserve lands and resources of countywide and local significance. The purpose of these strategies is to enhance the quality of countywide water, soil, and air resources and, petentially, elimateand reduce and mitigate countywide effects on the changing climate. The policies in this chanter are focused on a varietv of issues involvine the natural environment. This includes coordination to protect and create open space corridors, critical areas, listed species and both air and water quality/quantity. In addition, this Element addresses watershed and land use planning alone with policies that address immacts to Kitsap resulting from chanties to our climate. Policies for Open Space Preservation, Resource Protection, Critical Areas, Air, and Water Quality/Ouantity (NE): NE-1. Creating a regional network of open a. The County and the Cities shall implement the Kitsap County Open Space Plan and the Kitsap County Non - Motorized Plan, which identify a countywide green space strategy that incorporates planning efforts of the County, Cities, state agencies, non-profit interest groups and land trusts in the County. b. The County and the Cities shall preserve and enhance, through inter jurisdictional planning, significant networks and linkages of open space, regional parks and public/ private recreation areas, wildlife habitats, critical areas and resource lands; historic and cultural landscapes; water bodies and trails. c_The County and the Cities shall frame and separate urban areas by creating and preserving a permanent network of urban and rural open space, including parks, recreation areas, critical areas, and resource lands. d. The Kitsap CountyOpen Space Plan should be reviewed for consistency, where appropriate, with the objectives of the Regional Open Space Plan. e. Planning and investment into parks and open space should consider the proximity of those amenities to urban areas and underserved communities. 41 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element E. Natural Environment Commented [CW22]: 3/l/21 Review by LUTAC Added Kitsap County before non -motorized plan in a. per LUTAC comments Page 66 of 158 Table of Contents NE-2. The County and the cities will cEonservinge and enhaneingenhance the County's natural resources, critical areas, water quality/quantity, and environmental amenities while planning for and accommodating sustainable growth y:l commented [cw23]: 3i1i21 LUTAC has reviewed a The County and the r;t:o t,.,ll Pprotecting critical areas (wetlands, aquifer Based on written comments received, additional changes recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded have been proposed for h. areas, steep slopes, and geologically hazardous areas) and should consider other This new policy was focused on Puget Sound recovery but environmental amenities such as view corridors, canopy cover, and ridgelines. has been broadened to cover additional areas consistent with MPP-EN 16-19. We will review these changes b. The County and the Gifies shall Eestablishing and implementing Best Management Practices to protect the long-term integrity of the natural environment, adjacent land use, and the productivity of resource lands. c. The County and the Giti xs �Eestablishing procedures to preserve significant historic, visual and cultural resources including views, landmarks, archaeological sites, and areas of special locational character. d. The County and the Cities shall Eencouraginge the use of environmentally sensitive development practices to minimize the impacts of growth on the County's natural resource systems. e_The County and the ��Pprotecting and enhancinge the public health and safety and the environment for all residents, regardless of social or economic status, by reducing pollutants, as defined by WA State and federal law. e—Reduce impacts to vulnerable populations and areas that have been disproportionately affected by noise, air pollution, or other environmental impacts. The Goupt...,n.l the C:ties a sidder the impets of in- lnstr:.,l ., ind eeffifnereiai uses envulfierable Populations and areas that haveJaeen- dis ortionalely affected bnoise, air,and water- olhA en when e ..,ln.,t:ng4he- f The County and the Cities shall Wworking together to identify, protect, and restore networks of natural habitat areas and functions that cross jurisdictional boundaries. gT,.o r .,nt , n l ra:o > "Protecting-preteet and enhancinge ecosystems that support Washington State's Priority Habitat and Species as identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. g-h.Work together to preserve, restore, and reduce impacts on natural systems, including Pueet Sound. wildlife and salmon, and water aualitv of Kitsan Countv's watersheds and ecosystems- NE-3. Protection of air quality is accomplished by reducing the levels of toxins, fine particles, and greenhouse gases released into the environment, especially through 42 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element E. Natural Environment Page 67 of 158 Table of Contents transportation activities.) a. The County and Cities, in their respective comprehensive plans, should include specific goals and policies to enhance air quality by reducing the release of toxins, fine particles, and greenhouse gases. b. The County and Cities should adopt and implement purchasing policies/programs for vehicles/equipment that use clean efficient fuels. NE-4. Protection of water quality and quantity is amount of toxins and pathogens in our water sup] by reducing the a. The County and Cities should adopt policies in their Comprehensive Plans to reflect that surface and storm water and aquifer recharge areas should be treated as a resource. b. The County and Cities should continue to be models for low impact development and implement such programs whenever practical. c_The County and Cities should develop and implement a program, as funding allows and where feasible, to retrofit infrastructure to current standards infrastfueture that was developed prior- to the implementation of best praetiees in surface and storm water management programs. [t/SfES�L7........ NE-5. Listed species recovery under the Endangered Species Act The County and the Cities shall preserve, protect, and where possible, restore the functions of natural habitat to support ESA -listed species, through the adoption of comprehensive plan policies, critical area ordinances, shoreline master programs and other development regulations that seek to protect, maintain or restore aquatic ecosystems associated habitats and aquifer through the use of management zones, development regulations, incentives for voluntary efforts of private landowners and developers, land use classifications or designations, habitat acquisition programs or habitat restoration projects. b. The County and the Cities shall provide incentive -based non -regulatory protection efforts such as acquisition of priority habitats through fee -simple and conservation easements from willing sellers. c. The County and the Cities shall jointly establish and implement monitoring and evaluation program to determine the effectiveness of restoration, enhancement, 43 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element E. Natural Environment Commented [CW24]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Commented [CW25]: 3/1/21 Review by LUTAC Commented [CW26]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Page 68 of 158 Table of Contents and recovery strategies for salmon including ESA -listed species. Each jurisdiction shall apply an adaptive management strategy to determine how well the objectives of listed species recovery and critical habitat preservation/restoration are being achieved. NE-6. Coordination of watershed and land use a. The County and the Cities shall participate in a planning program that determines changes in stream hydrology and water quality under different land use scenarios at full build -out of designated land use classifications. b. The County and the Cities shall coordinate land use planning using watersheds or natural drainage basins to implement strategies for restoration of aquatic habitat and to reduce impacts to other natural systems and participate in efforts to improve the health of our waterways. c. Kitsap County shall coordinate and maintain a regional database of best available science for the purpose of modifying Critical Areas Ordinances, if funding is available. d. Upon adoption of a state classification system, the Cities and the County shall establish a single system for stream typing. Commented [CW27]: 3/l/21 Reviewed by LUTAC INE-7. Policies and actions to address climate changed Commented [CW28]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC. Please note inclusion of the term "urban" in a. a. The County and the Cities should Econtinue support for focusing growth in urban This change has been made throughout document. areas, centers, and high capacity transit areas located near transit options and ✓ proximity to jobs. b. The County and the Ceities should update land use regulations, where appropriate, to allow electric vehicle infrastructure and businesses that promote climate change goals consistent with state requirements. c. The County and the Ceities should establish and/or support programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to increase energy conservation and alternative/clean energy among both public and private entities. d. The County and the Cities Pshould provide continued support for using natural systems to reduce carbon in the atmosphere by establishing programs and policies that maintain and increase forests and vegetative cover. e. The County and the Ceities should plan for and consider impacts from climate change including sea level rise, flooding, wildfire hazards, and urban heat on both existing and new development. f. The County and the Cities should Krecognize state and regional targets to reduce 44 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element E. Natural Environment Page 69 of 158 Table of Contents greenhouse gas emissions as the r,., rAy and e4iestha update local plans and regulations. 45 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element E. Natural Environment Page 70 of 158 Back to Agenda Element F. Contiguous, Compatible, and Orderly Development (D) Insert Photo Here Page 71 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element F. Contiguous, Compatible, and Orderly Development (D) Upon designation of Urban Growth Areas, the County and Cities will need to develop consistent implementation measures to ensure that development occurs in an orderly and contiguous manner. The intent of the following countywide planning policies is to minimize differences in urban development regulations and standards between the County and the Cities and to facilitate the economical provision of urban services to development. Coordination between KRCC members is vital to ensure contiguous, compatible, and orderly development in the county. The policies in this chapter not only outline the purpose for, and reasons why inter jurisdictional planningis 's important at the federal, tribal, state, local, and special purpose government but how that coordination with take place at the KRCC. h1 addition, these policies focus on specific topics where coordination is essential. This includes but is not limited to land use, transportation, infrastructure planning and community design and development. Finally these policies outline measures to address displacement as growth occurs in Kitsap and how KRCC members can look at growth issues through an equity lens important decisions are made. Policies for Contiguous, Compatible, and Orderly Development (CCODI: D-1. Encouragement of cooperative inter -jurisdictional planning by federal, tribal, state, local, and special purpose government:) a. Inter jurisdictional discussion, information exchange, and coordination of proposals shall be initiated as early and expeditiously as possible by the responsible agencies, to aid in the smooth transition of governance. b. Initial inventories and analyses of utilities and public services information are critical to the planning process and shall be made available as early and expeditiously as possible by the responsible agencies. c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council may establish or designate on- going technical committee(s) comprised of representatives from utilities and service providers to investigate long-range regional needs for various facilities and services, including but not limited to those for transportation, sewer and storm drainage, availability and delivery of potable water, solid waste, broadband, parks and recreation, and open space. d. The Countywide Planning Policies will further the implementation of Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040 as adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Commented [CW29]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC l ✓ ID-2. Inter -regional coordination of land use and transportation, environmental, and infrastructure planning:) Commented [CW30]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC a. The County and the Cities shall participate in the Puget Sound Regional ✓ 47 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element F. Development Page 72 of 158 Table of Contents Council and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Locally -generated data shall be provided to the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization for use in their coordination of population forecasts, land use, and transportation. c. The planning proposals of these regional organizations shall be monitored and adjustments recommended to insure that they accurately reflect local needs and plans. d. Recognize and work with corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries (including natural systems, and transportation and infrastructure systems) in community planning, development, and design. 0-3. Fiscal It is recognized that fiscal disparities exist as a result of growth and changes in municipal boundaries. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall monitor the Revenue Sharing Inter -local Agreement among the County and Cities (shown as Appendix D) and seek additional ways to address fiscal disparities as they relate to promoting coordinated development and the implementation of the Growth Management Act. b. The County and the Cities shall work together to insure that all fees associated with development approval are based upon the real cost of service and act to encourage development within designated Urban Growth Areas. c. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall facilitate on -going regional discussion on revenue equity issues. 0-4. Community design and development: (Strategies should promote orderly development that reflects the unique character of a community and encourages healthy lifestyles through building and site design and transportation connectivity. In addition, sustainable economic and environmental development techniques should be utilized to enhance the quality of life: a. Utilize design strategies to ensure that changes in the built environment provide continuous and orderly development. b. Encourage development that reflects unique local qualities and provides an economic benefit to the community. c. Design mixed use developments and local street patterns to improve the environment for overall mobility and accessibility to and within the development through multi -modal transportation options that serve all users. 48 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element F. Development Commented [CW 31 ]: 3/ 1 /21 Reviewed by LUTAC. This policy was discussed for removal but LUTAC ultimately decided it should remain Commented [CW32]:3/21/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Page 73 of 158 Table of Contents d. Design of transportation networks should fit within the context of the built and natural environment, enhancing the community, connectivity, and physical activity in the area community wide and specifically in designated growth centers and high transit areas. e. Design schools, institutions, and public facilities to be compatible with the surrounding community character and needs. f. Use sustainable building techniques (such as rehabilitation/re-use, LEED [Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design], Low Impact Development, energy -efficient fixtures, etc.) in the design and development of the built environment. g. Support urban design, historic preservation, and arts to enhance quality of life. h. Promote solar, wind, tidal, wave generation, and other renewable energy generation where appropriate to serve the community. Commented [CW33]: 3/l/21 Reviewed by LUTAC low incomes, and historically underserved communities is important. It ensures all people can attain the resources and opportunities to improve their quality of life. Policies focused on equity are contained throughout the Countywide Planning Policies. a. Support PSRC in the development of a Regional Equity Strategy that will provide tools, resources, and guidance to integrate this issue into planning processes. b. Planning for parks/open space, future growth, housing transportation, public facilities, and services, and where uses are located all have an impact on our community. As comprehensive plans are updated, the County and cities should consider how these decisions impact historically underserved communities and coordinate on ways to address for those impacts to etg her. Ill-6 uisplacement: has the region continues to grow, population and employment rg owttl Commented [CW34]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC is focused within our urban areas. As redevelopment takes place, however, there is a potential for physical, economic, and cultural displacement of low- income households Please note that Per LUTAC the first sentence was modified from "As our region" to "As the region". that may result from planning, public investments, private redevelopment, and market pressures. As important planning, transportation, and redevelopment takes place: a. Consider developing strategies and interiurisdictional processes between the Coun and cities to mitigate the impacts of displacement. a b. Consider implementingstrategies trate,gies that will encourage development of affordable housing 49 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element F. Development Page 74 of 158 Table of Contents 50 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element F. Development Page 75 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element G. Siting Public Capital Facilities Insert Photo Here 51 Page 76 of 158 Table of Contents Element G. Siting Public Capital Facilities (CF) The Growth Management Act requires local governments to inventory existing capital facilities owned by public entities, to identify locations and to determine capacities to meet future demand for growth without decreasing levels of service. The Washington State Office of Financial Management is responsible for identifying and maintaining a list of essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years as required by the Growth Management Act. Counties and cities are also required to coordinate the siting of countywide and statewide capital facilities to mitigate potential adverse impacts from the location and development of these facilities. The policies in this chapter are focused on areas where coordination is necessary for the siting of capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature and transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. This chapter also provides policies regarding the need for identification and proper location of all public facilities. Policies for Siting Public Capital Facilities (CF): CF-I. Identification of needed capital facilities: The County and the Cities shall each inventory their existing capital facilities and identify needed facility expansion and construction and provide that data to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. CF-2. Location of capital and public facilities: a. If the primary population served by the facility is urban, the facility should be located in a City or Urban Growth Area, where feasible. a.b.An,v siting work for state facilities should reflect current state law. C. Cet4ain publie eCapital and public facilities s eh as ..,a,,.,.'..... a r,...arie. that generate substantial travel demand should be located shoo-11a h.o Iorated first in Designated GenleFs 52 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element G. Capital Facilities Commented [CW35]: 3/1/21 This chapter has been reviewed by LUTAC but since the last review, we have worked this through TransTAC. Policy changes reflect those comments received from that group. In addition, LUTAC previously and rightfully noted that this chapter was very confusing. GMA only requires that CPPs cover "(c) Policies for siting public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature, including transportation facilities of statewide significance as defined in RCW 47.06.140;" The above requirements are met with the polices proposed. However, policies over time have intermixed this requirement with siting requirements for all capital and public facilities and essential public facilities. While there are some policy changes in this chapter (that we have mostly gone over), these changes will hopefully address the confusion that was created with the current terminology. Page 77 of 158 Table of Contents if not feasible to a^ so along or near major transportation corridors and existing public transportation routes.) b- Public facilities shall not be located in design*^ r-eseurees land �tieal areas, or athef- Meals here siting of sueh c eifities ul d- be in patible. areas where the siting of such facilities would be incompatible with requirements to protect designated resource lands, CF-4 Some regionally significant public capital facilities, stieh as these for- waste ,,and):.,^ may be mote iatel� located outside of Urban Growth Areas due to exeeptional bulk Public facilities located beyond Urban Growth Areas should be self-contained or be served by urban govemm^services in a manner that will not promote sprawl. into site planning and development. CF-53. Establishing a process and review criteria for the siting of facilities that are of a countywide or statewide nature: When essential publie faeility as defined ned i RCW 36 7n n 2nn :..facilities that are of a countywide or statewide nature -are proposed in Kitsap County, and its location has not been evaluated through a regional siting process pursuant to WAC 365-196-550 (3) (d), the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall appoint a Facility Analysis and Site Evaluation Advisory Committee composed of citizen members selected by the member jurisdictions to represent a broad range of interest groups to evaluate proposed public facility siting and provide a recommendation to the city or county where facility is being proposed. At a minimum, this evaluation shall consider: The impacts created by existing facilities; The potential for reshaping the economy, the environment and community character; iii. The development of specific siting criteria for the proposed project, giving priority consideration to siting within Designated Centers; iv. The identification, analysis and ranking of potential project sites; V. Measures to first minimize and second mitigate potential physical impacts including, but not limited to, those relating to land use, transportation, utilities, noise, odor and public safety; vi. Measures to first minimize and second mitigate potential fiscal impacts. 53 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element G. Capital Facilities Commented [CW36]: This was one of the criteria under for CF-3 (now CF-5). This seemed like a much more appropriate place to put it. Commented [CW37]: This was also under C-3 (Now CF- 5 previously) Page 78 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents CF-6 Uses shall adhere to local health district or state agency rules regarding commercial and industrial use of on -site sewage systems. CF-7 The multiple use of corridors for major utilities, trails and transportation rights -of -way is encouraged. CF-8 County and City comprehensive plans and development regulations shall not preclude the siting of essential public facilities. CF-94. Air transportation facilities in K]tsap County:) b. The Counties -County -and the Cities shall recognize the importance of airports as essential public facilities and the preservation of access to the air transportation system. cThe County and the Cities shall ensure the safety of the community and airport users through compatible land use planning adjacent to airports, minimizing noise impacts, and coordination of the airport with ground access. Examples would include not encouraging or supporting higher residential densities, schools, or hospitals near airports or airport approach corridors. d. The County and the Cities should clearly communicate the decision -making authority associated with development of new and modifications to existing air transportation facilities, including the role of federal, state, county and local regulators. e. The County and Cities should establish and implement procedures for public engagement associated with the development of new airports or changes or expansions to existing airports, as mandated through existing federal and state laws. f. Changes to air transportation facilities should align with the Port of Bremerton's adopted master plan. Eg. The County and Cities are encouraged to coordinate when updates to regulations are being considered to implement airport safety requirements that could impact another iurisdiction. emergeney tise. CF-10 Transportation facilities and services of statewide significance 54 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element G. Capital Facilities Commented [CW38]: These four items were previously under CF-3 (now 5 but seemed better as stand alone polices or that they should be moved. The last sentence was moved under CF-2 Commented [CW39]: 3/l/21 New policy c. is being proposed based upon comment received. The intent is to ensure jurisdictions coordinate well on airport regulations. Especially on safety zones that could overlap jurisdictions. Page 79 of 158 Table of Contents sk When Sj3eircrti9n-zc'!E 'btofcexxri the TeEs'r'rrcn c icsv^ricti--xL 47 06 �1 40 i9 'irc^,^^ooca ^^ted "'dictio^x:9 "I;AIIId ^ ordx :atE together- in " ""itatio^xi f � x pia 7urx gE� .,irh the Washington State Depa en4 of spor-tatier . Jurisdictions, transit agencies, ��ten� and the Washington State Department of Transportation impacted by transportation facilities or services of statewide significance as defined int RCW 47.06.140 should cooperate in the planning, maintenance, and improvements of the facilities. 55 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element G. Capital Facilities Page 80 of 158 Element H. Transportation Insert Photo Here Page 81 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element H. Transportation The Growth Management Act requires that transportation planning be coordinated with the land use elements of local comprehensive plans as well as among local and state jurisdictions_ Tht- In addition, transportation policies should be consistent with the policies contained within Puget Sound Regional Councils (PSRQ Transportation and Vision plans. Coordination of land use and transportation plans ,,fin allewallows Kitsap County and the Kitsap = the cGities to meet three inter -related transportation goals: • Serve Deli .natea genter �Rreduce sprawl, conserve land and make more efficient use of infrastructure, • Preserve d.o 41 t, mal o ent, i ,, ludi,,,..,,ater and air quality and potentially, elim4eair and water quality, the natural environment, and address impacts contributing to climate change. • Provide a balanced system for the efficient, clean, safe movement of people, goods and services ..,,,ong Design tea Cente within Kitsap County and the larger Puget Sound region. The intent of the following policies is to define appropriate methods and strategies to achieve these goals through inter -regional and intra-regional coordination among transportation and land use planning agencies. For the purpose of this Policy, the following transportation facilities are of countywide significance: a. state and federal highways; b. wiaje -principal arterials; c. public transit facilities and services; d. non -motorized facilities eefi .,iron designated ee tefsm hich provide regional transportation connections; e. marine transportation facilities (ferries, shipping); f. airports and heliports and/or freight); g. rail facilities (passenger and/or freight) The following facilities and system components should be included in the multi -modal network: a. roads, including major highways, arterials and collectors; b. public transit, including bus, rail, and park & ride lots; c. non -motorized facilities; d. vehicle and public or private passenger only ferries; e. airports; f. parking facilities that support the multi -modal network; g. facilities related to implementation of transportation demand management_ strategy; h. intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Policies for Transportation (T): 57 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Commented [CW40]: 3/1/21 While LUTAC had reviewed initial Transportation policy changes being considered, the policies have changed based upon comments from TranTac and Trans Pol. It is anticipated that we will take this back to TransTAC for final review in March. Page 82 of 158 Table of Contents T-1. Strategies to optimize and manage the safe use of transportation facilities and services: a. The County and the Cities shall each emphasize the maintenance and preservation of their existing transportation network. b. Through the regular update of the Transportation Element of their Comprehensive Plan, the County and the Cities should each identify Level of Service (LOS) and prioritize operational and safety deficiencies, with the goal of stibstantially "achieving zero deaths and serious injuries. c. The County and the Cities should utilize Transportation System Management strategies such as parking restrictions, traffic signal coordination, transit queue jumps (traffic signal modification equipment that allows busses to move ahead of other vehicles), ramp metering, striping development of non -motorized transportation facilities, traffic calming devices, and real time sensor adjustments for traffic signals. d. The County and the Cities should develop and implement access management regulations that provide standards for driveway spacing and delineation and encourage the joint use of access points where practical. e_The County and the Cities shall should actively seek opportunities to share facilities, expertise, and transportation resources, such as multiple use park & ride/parking lots or shared traffic signal maintenance responsibility. Advance the resilience of the transportation system by incorporating redundancies, preparing for disasters and other impacts, and coordinated planning for system recovery e_.i Jurisdictions and agencies should consider emergency management and disaster preparation as part of their transportation planning, including redu*da±!�!y resiliency needs. T-2. Reducing the rate of growth in auto traffic, including the number of vehicle trips, the number of miles traveled, and the length of vehicle trips taken, for both commute and non -commute trips: a. The Getm�y and d+L- GifiesJurisdictions and agencies shall provide both infra -structure and policy incentives to increase the use of non- SOV modes of travel. The range of infrastructure incentives to encourage the use of non-SOV modes of travel could include the following: • Provide public transit, including preferential treatments for transit, such as queue by-pass lanes (dedicated bus lanes that allow for transit queue jumps), traffic signal modifications, and safe, transit stops. 58 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 83 of 158 Table of Contents • Provide integrated transfer points to facilitate seamless trips between transit and other modes of travel, particularly at ferry terminals, including park & ride lots, bike storage facilities, carpool/vanpool and transit advantages to ease ingress/ egress, with proximity to actual connection points, and innovative transit -oriented development. • Provide ^R-; ..,.,.. e—at". al bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including safe neighborhood walking and biking routes to school. • During the development of all state, ,.,., nly, and eity highway capacity improvement projects, consider the market demand for non-SOV travel and the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, park & ride lots, and appropriate infrastructure for both bicycling and walking. ii. The range of policy incentives to encourage the use of non-SOV modes of travel could include, but is not limited to the following: • Increased emphasis on the Commute Trip Reduction Program already in place (including ridesharing incentives), with Kitsap Transit designated as the lead agency, including program promotion and monitoring. • Managed parking demand at ferry terminals, employment, and retail centers to discourage SOV use through privileged parking for HOV users, fee structure and parking space allocations. • Encouraging telecommuting, flexible and compressed work schedules, and home -based businesses as a viable work alternative. • Encouraging the shift of work and non -work trips to off-peak travel hours. • Congestion pricing. • Auto -restricted zones. • Promotion of driver awareness through educational efforts. 59 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 84 of 158 Table of Contents b. The County and the Cities shall develop standards for -Complete Street standardss that address bicycle and pedestrian facilities for development of new streets and reconstruction of existing streets as appropriate, consistent with State law. c. In Designated Centers, the jurisdictions should complete missing vehicular and non -motorized links between key arterials to ,,d to pedestrian and 1.:eyele c cil without compromising safety standards. d. The County and the Cities shall develop bicycle and pedestrian plans, which should be coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries with particular consideration to providing safe routes for children to walk and to bike to school. e. Kitsap Transit shall review and comment on development proposals where appropriate, to operation of appropriate transit services. Vision 2050 and Transportation 2050 emphasize Complete Streets, which ensure that transportation facilities serve all users and all ages and abilities. By designing and operating Complete Streets, local jurisdictions provide pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders with safer travel and can avoid expensive retrofits, encourage physical activity and help create walkable communities. There is no singular design prescription for Complete Streets; each one is unique and responds to its community context. facilitate convenient use and T-3. Environmental and human health impacts of transportation policies: Transportation improvements shall be located and constructed to discourage/minimize adverse impacts on water quality, human health, safety, and other environmental features. The County, the Cities, and Kitsap Transit shall should eensidef-programmiog capital improvements and transportation facilities tha4-designed to promote human health and alleviate and mitigate impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, such as: high -occupancy vehicle lanes; public transit; vanpool/ carpool facilities; electric and other low emission vehicles including buses; charging stations for all types of electric vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian facilities transp^rto�,shared mobility options, and partnerships with the private sector. The County and the Cities shall ensure environmental protection, water quality, and conformance with ESA requirements through best management practices throughout the life of the transportation facilities.,, in Faee:l:t , design, and : particular to impaet deyel..prne«t strategies f :. the,.,.11,.,.t:,.., ....,1 t..,,..t...,....t ,.F..t,.,.., I ,. kOF ..4,,,1 ...rF ee r, E) ff ii. Avoiding ,. nstr,.,.tion during the rainyseason. Regular and routine .r. nto.,.anee of systems. d. The County, the Cities, and Kitsap Transit should support Puget Sound Clean Air Agency public education about anti -pollution measures. 60 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 85 of 158 Table of Contents T-4. Recognizing that the County and the Cities each encompass a range of development and density patterns, each jurisdiction shall designate its Centers consistent with the criteria set forth in Element C of the Countywide Planning Policies. The following policies relate to planning guidelines to support transit and pedestrian travel appropriate to each type of urban and rural development or re- development: The County and the Cities shall each prepare development strategies for their Designated Centers that encourage focused mixed use development and mixed type housing to achieve densities and development patterns that support multi - modal transportation. Transportation plans and programs should serve all users, address access to employment and education opportunities, and recognize and minimize negative impacts to people of color, people with low -incomes, and people with special transportation needs. In Urban Growth Areas, comprehensive plans should promote pedestrian- and transit- oriented development that includes access to alternative transportation and, in the interest of safety and convenience, includes features, such as lighting, pedestrian buffers, sidewalks, and access enhancements for physically challenged individuals. c. Rural Communities shall accommodate appropriate pedestrian/bicycle connections and transit service and facilities consistent with rural levels of service in order to minimize vehicle trips. T-5. Transportation linkages between designated local and regional Centers: a. Regional corridors shall be designated for automobile, freight, transit, HOV facilities, rail, marine, bicycle, and pedestrian travel between designated Csenters as part of the countywide transportation plan. b. The transportation system linking Designated Centers within the county shall be transit- oriented and pedestrian and bicycle friendly. T-6. Freight transportation: a. The freight system in Kitsap County should be developed, expanded, and maintained to support the efficient and reliable movement of goods for local, regional, and international #edecommerce. a. Pre c Ue�i e11tc9 ter" tie icv1,ement of fiegit "L•� al l.o�T7 entti-fied asp aft of the b. The County and the Cities shall work to ensure that compatible land uses are applied along designated freight corridors; including, but not limited to, corridors for air, rail, road and marine traffic. c. The County and the Cities shall use appropriate roadway standards for designated freight corridors. 61 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 86 of 158 Table of Contents T-7. Transportation relationships with the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization: a. The Countywide Planning Policies should suppot4 adeptedbe compatible with regional and state plans and policies. b. The County and the Cities shyshould actively participate in the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) to assure that transportation planning in the two regions is consistent and accurately reflects local needs related to identified regional system components. e. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Coiineil shall serve as the poin4 of eeer-dination to assufe Puget Sound Regi ,«.,1 Cnuffl .:1 and Deni4wi1., DTD01 planning pr-o .«.,ms �C. Tbp T,.,.«t.,t:..,, T.,,..«....o,.. ont D«.,...-.,.,, lTTD\ for- TI;ts.,« n.....,t.. shall ....«t:«„o t.. l,o ......«t ,.'the « al TIP adepted by the Puget C,.,,n,1 Regional Cetiv,,.;l T , eal T-9. Coordination of intra-county transportation planning efforts: The Puget Sound Regional Council reviews Cities' and the County's Comprehensive plans for consistency of land use and transportation elements. The County and the Cities shall address compatibility between land use and transportation facilities by: Not using new road improvements to justify land use intensification. Managing access on new transportation facilities outside Urban Growth Areas. iii. Allowing phased development of improvements including acquiring right of way. 62 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 87 of 158 Table of Contents iv. Using comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure that development does not create demands exceeding the capacity of the transportation system, such as: density limits in areas outside of Urban Growth Areas; concurrency management and adequate public facility regulation; integrated multi -modal and non - motorized networks. c. The County and the Cities shall work together in a coordinated, iterative process to periodically reassess whether regional land use and transportation goals can realistically be met. If transportation adequacy and concurrency cannot be met, the following actions should be considered: Adjust land use and/or level of service (LOS) standards and consider adopting multi- modal solutions. Make full use of all feasible local option transportation revenues authorized but not yet implemented. iii. Work with Washington State Department of Transportation (including Washington State FeFF:os_) Kitsap Transit, and the private sector to seek additional State transportation revenues, state and federal grants for infrastructure improvements, and local options to make system improvements necessary to accommodate projected population growth. d. Adjacent jurisdictions in Kitsap County shall develop eensisten4coordinate when assigning street classifications system and developing street standards. e. Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council may establish a process for evaluating development impacts including those that may affect neighboring jurisdictions within the county. f. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall ftmetie should work together to ensure that transportation planning, system management and improvements at local, regional, and state levels are coordinated, complementary, and consistent with adopted comprehensive land use plans. T-10. Coordinated and consistent level of service (LOS) standards: a. The County and the Cities should develop comparable level of service standards among the County, Cities and the State of Washington for identified regional system components. b. The County and the Cities shall adopt roadway LOS standards. Urban growth management agreements shall designate level of service standards. Jurisdictions ffhwshould also expand LOS standards to address multimodal concurrency, including non -motorized modes of transportation. c. The County and the Cities shall adopt transit LOS in the form of "Service Standards" adopted by the Kitsap Transit Board of Commissioners. The standards 63 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 88 of 158 Table of Contents shall consider both frequency of service and bus capacity. d. Consistent with State law, the County and Cities shall recognize the Level of Service Standards for Highways of Statewide Significance, including principal arterial ferry routes, that have been adopted by the Washington State Department of Transportation, in their respective Comprehensive Plans. e. For State highways and facilities of regional significance, i fielfie c^..a...,ei4 fiffr-y eute the County and the Cities shall include the Level of Service Standards adopted for these routes by the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Peninsula RTPO, and the Washington State Department of Transportation, in their respective Comprehensive Plans. f. On highways and streets which are subject to concurrency requirements, the County and the Cities shall each identify capacity deficiencies and either address them in terms of identified funding, adjustment to the LOS standard (when set by the local agency), on ^ temporary ba i ^r placing restrictions on development, which could include modifications to permit applications, denial of permit applications, or e a temporary moratorium on development. g. On highways and streets which are subject to concurrency requirements, new development should not cause LOS to degrade to a level lower than the adopted standard, consistent with State law. 64 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element H: Transportation Page 89 of 158 Back to Agenda Element I. Housing Insert Photo Here Page 90 of 158 Table of Contents Element I. Housing (AH) The Growth Management Act (GMA) equires cities and counties to encourage the availability of housing that is affordable for all income levels at a variety of housing densities. Local jurisdictions are also encouraged to preserve existing housing resources in their communities, and to provide an adequate supply of housing with good access to employment centers to support job creation and economic growth. (WAC 365.196.410) VISION 20540 also takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the range of housing needs. Hoesingis- AddYessia thr-Rughout GMA requirements and Vision policies are reflected the Countywide Planning Policies- See box , right for speeifie roF Jobs -Housing Balance: Jobs -housing balance refers to relationship of housing supply and the job base. There are transportation implications in terms of improving accessibility between where jobs are located and where people live, as well as access to goods, services and other amenities. Policies in Element C: Centers of Growth, Element F: Contiguous, Compatible and Orderly Development, and Element J: Countywide Economic Development are all part of the County's overall approach to jobs -housing balance. Countywide Planning Policies Addressing Jobs -Housing Balance C:2/ C:4 Centers as areas of a mix of business, commercial and residential uses CCODA-c Mixed used development ED:1-b Employment for diverse segments of the community ED:1-e Economic Prosperity and increased job opportunities ED:2 Promoting development of designed industrial and commercial areas ED:3 Monitoring land supply Best Practices in Housing: The County and the Cities recognize the value of housing practices that preserve existing neighborhoods and communities, use land more efficiently, make services more economical, and meet the diverse needs of our county's changing demographics. The Community Design and Development Policies in Element F: Contiguous, Compatible and Orderly Development address key innovative practices and design principles for development and housing. Affordable Housing: Housing affordability refers to the balance (or imbalance) between household income and housing costs. Affordable housing is a major challenge in Kitsap County. The following definitions relate to the Countywide Planning Policies: Housing shall mean housing intended for a full range of household incomes. These income levels are defined as follows (WAC 365.196.410 L2l-e-i-C): ■ Extremely low-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are at or below 30% of the countywide median income. ■ Very low-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range of 31 - 50% of the countywide median income. ■ Low-income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range of 51 - 80% of the countywide median income. 66 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element I: Housing Page 91 of 158 Table of Contents ■ Moderate -income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range 81-95% of the countywide median income. ■ Middle -income shall mean those households that have incomes that are within the range of 96-120% of the countywide median income. ■ Upper -income shall mean those households that have incomes above 120% of the countywide median income. Policies for Affordable Housing fAHI: IAH-I. Coordinated process among County, Cities, and housing agencies for determining and fulfilling housing needs, and the equitable distribution of affordable housing at allincome levels in Kitsap County: The County and the Cities should shall inventory the existing housing stock consistent with the Growth Management Act synchronized with County and Cities' respective Comprehensive Plan updates, and correlate with current population and economic conditions, past trends, and ten--+ear-population and employment forecasts,—_*^ a�Sshort and long range housing needs, including rental and home ownership should also be evaluated. Navy personnel housing policy should also be considered. Local housing inventories; projections, and equitable distribution strategies should be compiled, updated, and monitored needs.. d c. The County and the Cities should each identify specific policies and implementation strategies in their Comprehensive Plans and should enact implementing regulations,- to provide a mix of housing types ^~a ^^^'s '^ identified housing at all income levels, including easy access to employment centers. c-d. The County and the Cities shall incorporate a regular review of public health, safety, and development and environmental regulations pertaining to housing implementation strategies to assure that: i. protection of the public health and safety remains the primary purpose for housing standards ii. regulations are streamlined and flexible to minimize additional costs to housing. IAH-2. Recognizing that the mar-ket phieemarketplace makes adequate provision for those in the upper economic brackets, each jurisdiction should develop some 67 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element I: Housing Commented [CW41]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Page 92 of 158 Table of Contents combination of appropriately zoned land, regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, and/or innovative planning techniques to make adequate provisions for the needs of middle and lower income persons. a. Where possible, expand areas zoned for moderate density ("missing middle") housing to bridge the gap between single-family and more intensive multifamily development. IAH-3. Recognizing the percentage share of the existing and forecasted countywide population and housing stock, as well as the distribution of existing housing for those households below 12080% countywide median income, the County and the Cities should develop coordinated strategies to disperse projected housing for those below 4-M80% countywide median income throughout Kitsap County, where they are specifically found to be appropriate, in consideration of existing development patterns and densities. These strategies should promote the development of such housing in a dispersed pattern so as not to concentrate or geographically isolate low- income housing in a specific area or community. IAH-4. Provision of affordable housing for households below 44080% countywide median income should be focused within cities and unincorporated UGAs with easy access to transportation, employment, high opportunity areas, and other services.: �a.Local comprehensive plan policies and development regulations that encourage and do not exclude suel}affordable housing. e:b.Housing strategies that -may -include: preservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods as appropriate, including programs to rehabilitate and/or energy retro-fit substandard housing; provision for a range of housing types such as multi -family, single family, duplexes, accessory dwelling units, ^,.,...erative ,,,.e- - and manufactured housing on individual lots and in manufactured housing parks; 68 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element I: Housing Commented [CW42]: 3/l/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Commented [CW43]: 3/l/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Commented [CW44]: 3/l/21 AH-4 has been reviewed by LUTAC. However, comments were received after proposed edits combined i and ii under the policy header. LUTAC asked for these to be separated. After reviewing the intent of the policy many times, the proposed revisions are being proposed for review. This would simply make it clear that as affordable housing is being proposed that it should be directed to urban areas. Removing the rural reference does not mean that below 80% medium income housing will not occur there. Only that it will be focused where there are services. We will discuss at LUTAC. Page 93 of 158 Table of Contents iii. housing design and siting compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; iv. mechanisms to help people purchase their own housing, such as low interest loan programs, "self-help" housing, and consumer education. innovative regulatory strategies that provide incentives for the development of such housing, such as: reducing housing cost by subsidizing utility hook-up fees and rates, impact fees, and permit processing fees; density incentives; smaller lot sizes; zero lot line designs; inclusionary zoning techniques, such as requiring housing for specified income levels in new residential developments; transfers of development rights and/or a priority permit review and approval process and/or other provisions as appropriate. d-..Housing policies and programs that address the provision of diverse housing opportunities to accommodate people experiencing the homelessness, the- e'�older people, people who need physically or mentally "ti,..'�behavioral health supports, and other segments of the population that have special needs. dParticipation with housing authorities to facilitate the production of such housing. The County and the Cities shall also recognize and support other public and private not -for- profit housing agencies. Supporting housing agencies is encouraged through public land donations, guarantees, suitable design standards, tax incentives, fee waivers, providing access to funding sources and support for funding applications, or other provisions as appropriate. IAH-5. Physical, economic, and cultural displacement of low-income households may result from planning, public investments, private redevelopment and market pressure. Consider a ran a of strate ies to mitigate displacement impacts as planning for future growth occurs. IAH-6. The County and the Cities shall collaborate with PSRC to evaluate availability of appropriate housing types to serve future residents and changing demographics. 69 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element I: Housing Commented [CW45]: 3/l/21 This is a new policy for consideration based on comments from LUTAC. This is taken from MPP-H-12 which states: Identify potential physical, economic, and cultural displacement of low- income households and marginalized populations that may result from planning, public investments, private redevelopment and market pressure. Use a range of strategies to mitiaate displacement impacts to the extent feasible. We will review this at LUTAC meeting Commented [CW46]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Page 94 of 158 Back to Agenda Element J. Countywide Economic Development Insert Photo Here Page 95 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element J. Countywide Economic Development (ED) Growth Management Act requires that general economic development policies be identified in the Countywide Planning Policies. Consistent with the goals of the Act, economic development planning must be coordinated with local comprehensive plans. The intent of the following policies is to encourage coordinated economic growth among all jurisdictions in Kitsap County and to add predictability and certainty to the private investment decision. Policies for Countywide Economic Development (ED): ED-1. A general strategy for enhancing economic development and employment:) I Commented [Cw47]: 3i1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC a. The County and the Cities recognize that a healthy economy is important to the health of residents and quality of life in the county. Economic development strategies should be h- ^^^^a .,.:*h address environmental concerns promote equity and access to opportunity, minimize displacement impacts to existing businesses, recognize the importance of existing and emerging technologies, and protect the quality of life. b. A healthy economy provides a spectrum of jobs including entry-level, living wage, and advanced wage earner employment that, raises family income levels and provides opportunities for diverse segments of the community. c. The County and the Cities recognize that the economy in Kitsap County is very dependent on the U.S. Navy and diversification is necessary. Diversification should be promoted through a multi -faceted strategy that includes broadening the customer bases of existing contracting industries, expanding the number of local businesses that benefit from defense contracting, and building the base of business activity that is not directly connected to the Department of Defense. d. The County and the Cities shall collaborate with ports, tribes, and other special districts to encourage economic growth and diversification that is consistent with comprehensive plans and policies for land use, transportation, public transit, regional water supply, capital facilities, urban governmental services and environmental quality. e. Local governments are encouraged to utilize the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance (KEDA) as a resource to provide advice on economic development needs, the potential for retaining and expanding existing industries, including the U.S. Dept. of Defense, and attracting new industries, especially those that would improve wage and salary levels, increase the variety of job opportunities, and utilize the resident labor force. f. The County and the Cities should cooperate / participate with the Puget Sound Regional Council's economic initiatives, including focus on identified industry clusters and clean industry and with the KEDA's adopted plan, Kitsap 20/20: A Strategy for Sustainable Economic Prosperity. 71 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element J. Countywide Economic Development Page 96 of 158 Table of Contents The County and the Cities recognize that widespread access to broadband capability will enhance economic development in Kitsap County. Local governments are encouraged to collaborate with the KEDA to promote the expansion of telecommunications in Kitsap County and to coordinate telecommunications policy with regional and federal agencies, including public utility districts, Bonneville Power Administration, regional transportation planning organizations, and neighboring counties. h. Investments in our people, in particular, efforts of local educational institutions to provide, improve and expand vocational and post -secondary education programs, should be supported to assure a highly skilled, technically trained resident work force. Educational and training programs should be accessible to all and focus on skills that meet the current and forecast needs of the local, regional, and global economy. ED-2. The role of government agencies in assuring coordinated, consistent efforts to promote economic vitality and equity throughout Kitsap County: a. The County and the Cities shall promote Urban Growth Areas and existing industrial sites as centers for employment. b. The County and the Cities shall encourage the full utilization/development of designated industrial and commercial areas. The County and the Cities shall promote revitalization within existing developed industrial and commercial areas to take advantage of the significant investments in existing buildings and infrastructure. c. The County and the Cities shall cooperate with tribes, ports, other special districts, ^^a all p, p, development interest to identify the capital facility needs to support economic development and should identify necessary funding sources. d. The County and the Cities shall collaborate with tribes, ports, and other special districts to identify innovative development methods such as public and private partnerships and community development assistance financing to increase economic vitality. y and the cities ..h ll eoll.,l...rate with flip, XF-D A and flip, PA4,; ♦A establish a eammen method to monitor the supply of designated eeramereial . dust-.-:.,1 sites and- to emsiffire adequate !aad supply for the expartsion of exist:.,.. enterprises and the establishment of new eeenemie enterprises. The menitering- eapaoity, mai sh ll , se flip, Kitsap !`ourAy !`_eogr.,, hie information Systp,m.,«.l Land Capaeity Analysis as a regional database for this information. f The County and Cities .hall establish eemmon infrastructurepelie), and ge.The County, Cities and KEDA shall collaborate to identify opportunities that favor local suppliers for goods and services. 72 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element J. Countywide Economic Development Commented [CW48]: 3/1/21 Reviewed by LUTAC Page 97 of 158 Table of Contents ED-3. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall coordinate the development of land supply monitoring methods, common infrastructure policy and standards, and other strategies among the County, the Cities, Tribes, Ports, and other special districts to encourage economic development in Kitsap County:) Commented [CW491: 3/l/21 Reviewed by LUTAc a. The County and the Cities shall each establish and monitor a development review ✓ process that is timely, predictable, efficient, fair, and consistent. b. Where more than one jurisdiction is involved in planning and permitting a business development, the jurisdictions shall work collaboratively to provide consistent development regulations and permitting. c. The County and the Cities shall encourage small business enterprises and cottage industries, and women- and minority -owned businesses and allow appropriate and traditional home occupations as permitted by local regulations. low and very low access to opportunity to improve access to create economic opportunity for current and future residents of these areas - 73 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element J. Countywide Economic Development Commented [CW50]: 3/l/21 This is a new proposed policy that was suggested during our conversation on housing. This seemed more appropriate in the EcoDevo chapter. This comes from MPP-EC-12 which states Foster appropriate and targeted economic growth in areas with low and very low access to opportunity to improve access to opportunity for current and future residents of these areas Page 98 of 158 Back to Agenda Element K. An Analysis of the Fiscal Impact Insert Photo Here Page 99 of 158 kRack to Agenda Table of Contents Element K. An Analysis of the Fiscal Impact (FI) ln-aToo preserve and maintain the community's quality of life and level of government services, jurisdictions are expected to fully evaluate their financial capacity to provide the full range of urban services (as described in Element B — 3[j]) within designated Urban Growth Areas. The policies in this chapter are focused on the identification of opportunities for coordination which would have a positive fiscal impact, especially for infrastructure projects and service delivery_ Policies for Analysis of Fiscal Impact (FI): IFI-1. The Countywide Planning Policies recognize three opportunities for jurisdictions to consider and plan for urban -level infrastructure and services:) Commented [Cw51]: 3/1/21 LUTAC has reviewed a. During each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan amendments, through the Capital ✓ Facilities Plan, including sub -area plans, Urban Growth Area boundary changes, incorporations, partial dis-incorporations, proposed new fully contained communities and master planned resorts. b. At the point where a jurisdiction is comparing and analyzing geographic areas for possible expansion of its Urban Growth Area (as described in Element B — 3[j]). As part of the development of the Urban Growth Area Management Agreement (see Element B-4 [d] and Appendix Q. These analyses and plans should identify infrastructure and service costs as well as the anticipated revenues, including their sources, to support them. As part of these considerations, jurisdictions should review their financial analyses and plans to confirm their assumptions are achieving the desired effects. IFI-2. Special districts should be included in planning for the provision of urban level services in Urban Growth Areas and should include future population growth in their plans. FI-3. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall facilitate on -going regional discussion of infrastructure and service delivery strategies (see Element F-1 [c]) and revenue equity issues (see Element F-3 [c]).J Commented [Cw52]: 3/1/21 LUTAC has review 75 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element K: An Analysis of the Fiscal Impact Page 100 of 158 Table of Contents 76 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element K: An Analysis of the Fiscal Impact Page 101 of 158 Back to Agenda Element L. Coordination with Tribal Government Insert Photo Here Page 102 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element L. Coordination with Tribal Governments (CT) commented [cwss]: 3/1/21 As out 3/1, no comments have been received asking for changes to this Element. The Suquamish Tribe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and other federally recognized Indian tribes have reservations and/or trust resources within Kitsap County, Washington. These tribes are parties to treaties with the United States Government through which certain rights and privileges both on and off reservation were articulated and remain in effect. These tribes have authorities, responsibilities, interests and treaty rights within their respective reservation boundaries and Usual and Accustomed Areas. Since future growth and land use decisions in Kitsap County affect all governmental entities, governmental agencies must be well informed and continuously involved in regional and local planning. Policies for Coordination with Tribal Governments (CT): CT-1. Meaningful and substantial opportunities for early and continuous tribal government participation shall be incorporated into regional and local planning activities. CT-2. Local jurisdictions should work with the tribes to develop agreements that provide for discussion on comprehensive planning issues among governments and ensure that the tribes are consulted on issues within their interest. The parties will jointly determine the appropriate contents of the agreements and a schedule for completing them. CT-3. Tribal governments, federal agencies, and county and local governments are encouraged to coordinate plans among and between governments and agencies to address substantive areas of mutual interest especially where geographical areas overlay and promote complementary and cooperative efforts. CT-4. City and County governments are encouraged to include Tribal governments in joint comprehensive planning and development activities for areas within the Tribes' Usual and Accustomed areas. Activities include but are not limited to the establishment and revision of urban growth boundaries, distribution of forecasted population; regional transportation, capital facility, housing and utility plans; and policies that may affect natural and/or cultural resources. CT-5. All County, City, and Tribal government agencies shall be included in the normal public notice and comment procedures of other agencies and kept informed of matters of interest to them. CT-6. The County, the Cities, and Tribal governmental agencies are encouraged to keep one another informed about matters of local and regional interest by mutually agreeable means and schedule. 78 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element L: Coordination with Tribal Governments Page 103 of 158 Back to Agenda Element M. Coordination with Federal Government Including Navy Insert Photo Here Page 104 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element M. Coordination with Federal Government including Navy (CF)l Commented [CW54]: 3/1/21 As of 3/1, no additional changes have been requested for this Element. The federal government has unique authorities, responsibilities, interests affecting land use and other activities. Military installations are of particular importance to the economic health of Washington State, as well as to national security. Since the impacts of future growth and development in Kitsap County affect all governmental entities, governmental agencies must be well informed and continuously involved in regional and local planning. The policies in the chapter implement these important goals. Policies for Coordination with Federal Government (CF): CF-1. Meaningful and substantial opportunities for early and continuous federal government participation shall be incorporated into regional and local planning activities. CF-2. It is recognized that constitutional and statutory provisions may constrain federal government agencies from entering into local agreements and processes. However, when possible, the County, the Cities, and federal governments should establish intergovernmental cooperative agreements promoting coordination and involvement in activities that are of mutual interest. CF-3. Federal agencies and county and local governments are encouraged to coordinate plans among and between governments and agencies to make plans as consistent and compatible as possible for properties over which they have authority or activities they authorize and the adjacent areas affected. CF-4. Federal government agencies are encouraged to participate in City, County, and joint comprehensive planning and development activities that may affect them, including the establishment and revision of urban growth areas encompassing, adjacent to or within federally -owned lands; distribution of forecasted population; regional transportation, capital facility, housing and utility plans; and policies that may affect natural and/or cultural resources of interest. CF-5. The following policies relate to promoting coordination among the Cities, County, and the federal government including the Navy: a. All jurisdictions should promote planning that considers the impact of new growth to avoid the potential for encroachment on military readiness activities as described below when developing zoning ordinances or designating land uses affecting military facilities. Each jurisdiction and the Navy should coordinate to identify the types of development and areas of interest to the Navy, method of notice, and opportunities for comment. b. "Military readiness activities" mean all of the following: i. Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military and Naval ships and submarines for combat. ii. Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. iii. Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for 80 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element M: Coordination with Federal Government including Navy Page 105 of 158 Table of Contents proper operation or suitability for combat use. c. "Impacts" include but are not limited to: i. Aircraft, boat, and rail traffic. ii. Incompatible adjacent land uses. d. Through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, jurisdictions should monitor issues that arise in implementing these policies and should identify areas for improved coordination. CF-6. All County, City, and federal governmental agencies shall be included in the normal public notice and comment procedures of other agencies and kept informed of matters of interest to them. (RCW 36.70A.530) CF-7. The County, the Cities, and federal governmental agencies are encouraged to keep one another informed of matters of local and regional interest by mutually agreeable means and schedule. 81 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element M: Coordination with Federal Government including Navy Page 106 of 158 Table of Contents 82 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element M: Coordination with Federal Government including Navy Page 107 of 158 Back to Agenda Element N. Roles and Responsibilities Insert Photo Here Page 108 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Element N. Roles and Responsibilities (RR) The County, Cities, Tribal governments, and special districts are all involved in planning activities related to their statutory authority and responsibility. In addition to the responsibilities defined in previous countywide planning policies, this section further clarifies the planning roles and responsibilities of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council and member agencies. Policies for Roles and Responsibilities (RR): RR-1. The KITSAP REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL I as established by I Commented [CW55]: 3/1/21 LUTAC has reviewed policy interlocal agreement (see Appendix E) to assure coordination, consensus, consistency, and compliance in the implementation of the Growth Management Act and comprehensive planning by County, city and tribal governments within Kitsap County. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council also provides a voice for all jurisdictions and opportunity for citizens and stakeholders to provide input to planning policies to be applied countywide. The interlocal agreement adopted by the County, the Cities and the Tribal governments declared that the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council is necessary to maintain a regular intergovernmental communication network for all local and tribal governments within the county, facilitate compliance with the coordination and consistency requirements of the Growth Management Act, provide an effective vehicle to resolve conflict among and/or between jurisdictions with respect to urban growth boundaries or comprehensive plan consistency, and to build consensus on planning solutions for countywide growth management issues. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall: a. Submit agreed -upon recommendations on behalf of member jurisdictions to multi -county regional agencies and State government on proposed changes to multi -county regional plans, State plans, and laws. b. Provide a forum, as necessary, for achieving coordination in the development of local plans and resolving planning and plan implementation issues that are common among jurisdictions. c. Promote coordination and consistency among local plans and between local plans and the Countywide Planning Policies and the Growth Management Act to the extent necessary to achieve regional policies and objectives. Through the Kit..... .wit,..- and review nd iyidl..d.l e rehe siye plans and .. :d.tedl iffiPlOffiffitatiffl; "; ,,ha4;i'S";s; t.. dlo4o4*Ri4;e .. Sto«d... With the C;0t..t.,,..;d e Planning pelieies. d. Serve as a forum appeals to the Cent. -al Puget Seth dl /'rood. Planning Heaf:ngs Board if the 1pro e es s ,.,..,1 has Hoe« o*l.-austodl ...:tl,out reasd.l„t:eft of thO dliSptlto to amicably together and resolve differences when they occur on important issues impacting our Kitsap County. e. Promote coordination of educational programs and the dissemination of planning- 84 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element N: Roles and Responsibilities Page 109 of 158 Table of Contents related information of regional interest. f. Coordinate the review, revision and monitoring of the Buildable Lands Report, Land Capacity Analysis that aides in developing comprehensive plans, and Countywide Planning Policies. g. Apply for grants and administer contracts relative to regional tasks and plans. h. Conduct the region -wide growth management planning consistent with these policies. i. Initiate and coordinate the development of other regional planning policies and implementation mechanisms that may improve the effectiveness of the comprehensive planning process. j. Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement in policy discussions facilitated by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council. RR-2. KITSAP COUNTY is the regional government within the county boundaries providing various services within unincorporated and incorporated areas as required and specified by law and by legal agreements. Kitsap County shall: Commented [CW56]: 3/l/21 LUTAC has reviewed policy a. Be responsible for the development, adoption and implementation of ✓ comprehensive plans and development regulations and the processing of land use permits for the unincorporated portions of the county. b. Be responsible for coordinating water quality planning in multi jurisdictional watersheds and for other environmental planning activities as agreed to by all affected and interested jurisdictions. c. Be responsible for coordinating the response on the listing for the federal Endangered Species Act in multi jurisdictional watersheds as agreed by all affected and interested jurisdictions. d. Be responsible for being a regional sewer provider to the unincorporated areas of Kitsap County as needed to improve water quality consistent with levels of service outlined in the County Comprehensive Plan. e. Maintain a geographic information system to serve as a regional planning data base. f. Execute Urban Growth Area Management Agreements with each city to address joint issues identified in the Countywide Planning Policies and other matters agreed to be of mutual interest. g. Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement throughout development review and long range planning projects. �RR 3. CITIES within Kitsap County provide a variety of services residents within their respective municipal boundaries. Cities sha to I Commented [CW57]: 3/l/21 LUTAC has reviewed policy 85 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element N: Roles and Responsibilities Page 110 of 158 Table of Contents a. Provide urban governmental services as identified in the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and adopted urban growth management agreements. b. Be responsible for the development, adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans and development regulations and the processing of land use permits within the incorporated portion of the respective city. c. Participate with other agencies in multi jurisdictional planning activities including but not limited to environmental planning, e.g. water quality planning and coordinating the response on the listing for the Federal Endangered Species Act in multi jurisdictional watersheds transportation planning, and growth management strategies. d. Execute a separate Urban Growth Area Management Agreement with Kitsap County to address joint issues identified in the Countywide Planning Policies and other matters agreed to be of mutual interest. e. Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement throughout short and long range planning projects. I R-4. SPECIAL DISTRICTS are governmental subdivisions of the county that are usually established to provide a defined scope of services. Special districts shall: Commented [CW58]: 3/1/21 LUTAC has reviewed policy a. Be responsible for service provision, capital facility planning and other activities as authorized by law and legal agreements. b. Coordinate capital planning and implementation strategies with local governments to assure consistency with comprehensive plan policies, the Countywide Planning Policies, and the WA State Growth Management Act; c. Participate in service provision identification required in each urban growth management agreement; d. Coordinate with other agencies as appropriate in multi jurisdictional planning activities; e. Provide technical assistance as appropriate to assist local governments in comprehensive plan development, adoption and implementation; f. Encourage cooperative agreements and consolidate when possible to formalize participation in local and regional processes; g. Define and implement procedures that assure opportunities for early and continuous public involvement throughout short and long range planning projects. h. Site and size facilities consistent with local plans. RR-5. The County and Cities shall coordinate with the County Department of Emergency Management to ensure the integrity of the National Incident Management system and coordinated response in the event of disasters and other Commented [CW59]: 3/1/21 LUTAC has reviewed policy 86 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element N: Roles and Responsibilities Page 111 of 158 Table of Contents 87 Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies Element N: Roles and Responsibilities Page 112 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Appendix A: Kitsap Countywide Planning Policy Ratification Process r— — — — — — — — — — — County, City, & Tribal Councils review Draft Revisions through pp possible revisions to the CPP's Planning Directors l — — — — — — — — — — — — I 1 The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Board Adopt and Recommend CPPs • Discuss CPP's • Release draft for Public Comment • Public Hearing �Months ZZ • Discuss CPP's Kitsap County • Recommend to County, Cities, & Adoption by Ordinance Tribes • SEPA Review • Kitsap County Public Hearing City & Tribal Councils Ratify • Kitsap County Ordinance . Resolution to Ratify (Within (may change document) 90 days of County Ordinance) Estimated ■ Yes 2 Months ■ No Up to • No Resolution: abstention 3 Months County Ordinance Takes Effect j Begin 60 day City/State Appeal Period to GMHB 3+ Cities Ratify 60 days ................................................................... Note that the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council anticipates refinements to this process over time. 1 If 2+ Cities don't Ratify or Abstain: to KRCC for further discussion Appendix A Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 113 of 158 Table of Contents Appendix B-1: Population Distribution Through 2036 Appendix B consists of scanned pages which will be included in the final draft of Kitsap Countywide Planning Policy Document as they need to be added as PDF pages. Appendix B Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 522-2015 May 11, 2015 Page 114 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents 4pendi , Q TT,.>4 an G..owth AF .. Management Agreeme�1� Commented [CW60]: 3/l/21 Removed based upon �`�gr information from LUTAC that this is no longer being The intent of the Urban ban !`....wth Area Management Agreement ent is to f. a ..hate and utilized. Will bring back to LUTAC eneour-age annexation and/or ineor-poration of urban areas over the 20 year planning period and to ensure eompatibility of development within the Unineor-por-ated Urban Growth Area. Eaeh Urban Growth Area Management Agreement shall: Appendix C Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 115 of 158 Table of Contents Appendix C Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 116 of 158 Table of Contents Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement (adopted December, 2001) Interlocal Agreement Between Kitsap County and the City of Bainbridge Island, City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard and City of Poulsbo Concerning Revenue Sharing Upon Annexation and In Conjunction With Major Land Use Decisions Within a City's Urban Growth Area Adopted by all parties in November -December, 2001. Effective November 24, 2010, the City of Port Orchard is officially withdrawn from this agreement. Effective November 29, 2011, the City of Bremerton is officially withdrawn from this agreement. This Agreement, made pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, is between KITSAP COUNTY (hereinafter, the County), a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, the CITY OF BREMERTON, the CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, and the CITY OF POULSBO, (hereinafter, the Cities), municipal subdivisions of the State of Washington. WHEREAS, through the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, the County and the Cities have worked together constructively on revenue sharing issues that in the past have been adversarial; and WHEREAS, the County and Cities sought a balanced set of revenue sharing provisions that would benefit both the County and the Cities and support the orderly evolution of logical land use patterns and jurisdictional boundaries; and WHEREAS, the County and Cities reached accord on a set of Principles of Agreement for Revenue Sharing in Annexations and in Major Land Use Decisions; and WHEREAS, the County and Cities desire to implement the Principles of Agreement through an interlocal agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1 ANNEXATIONS The purpose of this section is to provide a framework for logical and orderly annexations that are consistent with the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW (hereinafter GMA), and to mitigate the fiscal impact to the County of annexations initiated after the effective date of this agreement. 1.1 The Cities each confirm their willingness to eventually annex all land within their designated Urban Growth Area (hereinafter UGA) boundaries. 1.2 Each City shall encourage annexation of all lands equally, and will support Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 117 of 158 Table of Contents logical and coordinated annexations, consistent with the intent of the GMA. 1.3 As part of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council's 2002 Work Program, the County and Cities will continue to address coordinated development within the UGAs, including infrastructure standards and funding. 1.4 Before the County constructs a major infrastructure improvement within a City's designated UGA, the County and the City will negotiate and execute an interlocal agreement that specifies the level at which the City shall reimburse the County for a portion of its investment in the infrastructure improvement if the area where the improvement is to be located is annexed within a specified period of time. 1.5 The County and the Cities anticipate that each specific proposed annexation will require negotiation of other issues particular to its time, place and geography. The Cities and the County commit to completing these negotiations and executing an interlocal agreement on such issues in a timely manner. 1.6 As part of this agreement, the County will not oppose annexations within that City's designated UGA or invite the Boundary Review Board to invoke jurisdiction. 1.7 The Cities agree to share with the County revenue lost to the County and gained by the annexing City as follows: A. Revenue sharing payments shall be based on the following three sources of revenue: 1. The County's portion of the local retail sales tax levied under Chapter 82.14 RCW. 2. The ad valorem property tax levied by the County pursuant to RCW 36.82.040 for establishment and maintenance of county transportation systems. 3. The admission tax levied by the County pursuant to Chapter 36.38 RCW. B. For purposes of this Section, "lost revenue" means an amount computed as follows: The combined total of the County's collections from all three sources within the annexation area during the calendar year preceding annexation minus Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 118 of 158 Table of Contents The combined total of the County's collections from all three sources within the annexation area during the first full calendar year following annexation. C. The amount of the payment from the City to the County will be based on a three-year "soft landing" approach as follows: 1. The Year 1 payment will be equal to 75% of the County's lost revenue. 2. The Year 2 payment will be equal to 50% of the County's lost revenue. 3. The Year 3 payment will be equal to 25% of the County's lost revenue. D. The calculation of lost revenue pursuant to subsection B of this Section requires revenue data for one full year following annexation. Therefore, the County shall initiate a request for payment under this Section by written notice to the annexing City within two years of the effective date of the annexation. SECTION 2 MAJOR LAND USE ACTIONS The purpose of this section is to recognize that retail development near jurisdictional boundaries has an impact on neighboring jurisdictions and, in particular, on existing businesses and the demand for public services and facilities. This Section is designed to mitigate these impacts by providing that sales tax revenues from new major business development within a City's designated UGA, or from the relocation of an existing major business from a City to a location within the City's designated UGA, will be shared with the affected City. 2.1 For purposes of this Agreement, "major land use" means: A. A new development within a City's designated UGA that houses any single retail tenant greater than 40,000 square feet. B. The expansion of an existing retail business within the City's designated UGA if the expansion is greater than 40,000 square feet. C. A retail business greater than 25,000 square feet that is relocated from a City to the City's designated UGA. Or D. An automobile, truck, recreational vehicle, manufactured or mobile home, or boat dealership, regardless of the size of the building permitted, that is newly located within a City's designated UGA, or relocated from a City to the City's designated UGA. Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 119 of 158 Table of Contents 2.2 The County agrees to share with the affected City revenue lost to the City and gained by the County due to a major land use, as follows: A. Revenue sharing payments will be required only for local retail sales tax revenues generated from major land uses. Because there are limitations, related to confidentiality, on using a figure based on actual sales tax collections from the new or relocated business, the revenue sharing payment will be based on estimated sales tax revenues derived by using industry standards, such as the Washington State Department of Revenue or the Urban Land Institute, for taxable retail sales per square foot for businesses. B. For purposes of this Section, "lost revenue" means an amount computed as follows: Total gross enclosed building square footage of the major land use x Industry standard annual average retail sales per square foot for category of business that most closely resembles the major land use x Tax rate levied under Chapter 82.14 RCW for the first full calendar year following the date on which the County issues a certificate of occupancy for the major land use. C. The County will make revenue sharing payments for the first full three years after the major land use receives a certificate of occupancy. D. The revenue sharing payment from the County to the affected City will be calculated according to the following formulas: 1. For the relocation of a major retail business from a City to the City's designated UGA: a. The Year 1 payment will be equal to 75% of the City's lost revenue; b. The Year 2 payment will be equal to 50% of the City's lost revenue; and c. The Year 3 payment will be equal to 25% of the City's lost revenue. 2. For new development within a City's designated UGA that houses any single retail tenant greater than 40,000 square feet, the payment amount will be 50% of the City's estimated lost revenue each year for the first three years. E. The calculation of lost revenue pursuant to subsection B of this Section Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 120 of 158 Table of Contents requires revenue data for one full year following issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Therefore, the affected City shall initiate a request for payment under this Section by written notice to the County within two years of the date the major land use receives the County's permission to occupy the building. SECTION 3 MISCELLANEOUS 3.1 Duration. This Agreement will remain in effect until the terms of the Agreement are fulfilled. There is no other term agreed to by the parties 3.2 Reevaluation. Any City or the County may request immediate reevaluation of this Agreement by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Revenue Sharing Policy Committee. If the reevaluation fails to yield a resolution satisfactory to the requesting party within six months from the date the request for reevaluation was made, the requesting party may initiate the process for termination provided in this Agreement. 3.3 Termination. After completion of the Reevaluation process required by this Agreement, a party may terminate this Agreement by 12 months' written notice to the other parties. Termination does not extinguish the obligations of the terminating party under this Agreement for annexations initiated, or major land uses for which an application is filed, prior to the effective date of termination. 3.4 Filing. When fully executed, this Agreement shall be filed with the Kitsap County Auditor. 3.5 Notices. Any notices required by this Agreement shall be delivered, or mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: Kitsap County City of Bainbridge City of Island Bremerton Clerk to the Board City Clerk City Clerk Office of the Kitsap County City of Bainbridge Island City of Bremerton Board of Commissioners 280 Madison Avenue N. 345 6`" Street, Suite 600 614 Division Street Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Bremerton, WA98337 Mail stop 4 Port Orchard, WA98366 City of Port City of Kitsap Regional Coordinating Orchard City Clerk Poulsbo Council Chair City of Port Orchard Mayor Kitsap Regional Coordinating City of Poulsbo Council 216 Prospect Street 200 NE Moe Street P.O. Box 1934 Port Orchard, Poulsbo, WA98370 Kingston, WA98346 WA98366 Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 121 of 158 Table of Contents 3.6 Administration. As this Agreement contemplates no joint or cooperative undertaking, each party shall administer the Agreement as to its own responsibilities under the Agreement. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall oversee the revenue sharing process provided for in this Agreement. 3.7 Reporting. The County and the Cities shall report to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council at the start of each calendar year any payments made or received by the reporting jurisdiction pursuant to this Agreement during the preceding calendar year. 3.8 Waiver. The failure by the County or any City to enforce any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition, or of any subsequent breach of any provision, of this Agreement. 3.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement includes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to any matter addressed in this Agreement 3.10 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only upon the written agreement of the parties made with the same formalities as those required for its original execution. 3.11. Countywide Planning Policy. To the extent that anything in this Agreement may be found to be inconsistent with any part of the Kitsap County -wide Planning Policy, the County and City in 2002 will review the applicable parts of the County -wide Planning Policy and revise them in accordance with this Agreement. 3.12 Review. The County and the Cities shall review this Agreement within the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council in December of 2003, and every five years thereafter. 3.13 Effective Date. This Agreement shall take effect retroactively to September 4, 2001, as this date has been expressly agreed upon by all the parties. Appendix D. Revenue Sharing Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 476-2011 Nov. 14, 2011 Page 122 of 158 Table of Contents Appendix E. Current Organizational Adopted by Kitsap County, all four Cities and Interlocal Agreement (adopted the Port of Bremerton: 11/22/12 — 02/14/13. Amendments to the 2001 ILA that established December, 2001) KRCC were made in 2006 and 2007. KITSAP REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the undersigned parties pursuant to provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1967, Chapter 39.34 RCW. WHEREAS, the undersigned members recognize the need and desirability to participate in a forum for intergovernmental coordination, cooperation, and consultation among member agencies in order to bring about a continuous and comprehensive regional planning process and efficient service delivery; and WHEREAS, the undersigned members desire jointly to undertake continuous, cooperative study and planning of regional and governmental issues of mutual interest, including but not limited to development, land use, housing, capital facilities, service, utilities, finances, public buildings, water supply, water distribution and drainage, air and water pollution, parks and recreation, transportation planning, and economic development; and WHEREAS, it is the belief of the undersigned members that regional deliberations, planning, and review can best be achieved with the creation of a separate legal entity whose function and activities are subject to policy direction from the undersigned member agencies according to the provisions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires local jurisdictions to coordinate and ensure consistency when developing comprehensive land use plans and the undersigned members desire to establish the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council as a separate legal entity to facilitate coordination and consistency of comprehensive land use plans as required by the GMA; and WHEREAS, the undersigned members desire to use the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council for developing County- wide Planning Policies (CPPs) under the GMA as a framework to guide Kitsap County and cities situated within the County in developing their comprehensive land use plans. THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and covenants herein it is hereby agreed: NAME This Agreement establishes the KITSAP REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL ("Council'), a separate legal entity since 2001. II. DURATION The Agreement shall remain in force and effect perpetually or until terminated by majority vote of the member agencies. III. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Interlocal Agreement, the following terms have the meaning prescribed to them in this section unless the context of their use dictates otherwise: A. "Member agency" means a voting and dues paying municipal or other government entity located within Kitsap County which is a party tothis Agreement. Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 123 of 158 Table of Contents B. "State" means the State of Washington. C. "Region" means the territory physically lying within the boundaries of Kitsap County. D. "Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council" or "Council" means the separate legal entity established by this Agreement to represent member agencies to carry out those powers and managerial and administrative responsibilities delegated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. E. "Majority vote" means more than one-half of the votes cast when a quorum is present and must include a majority of votes from County commissioners and a majority of votes from the representatives of at least two separate cities. F. "Executive Board" shall mean the representatives of member agencies of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council identified in Article W.B. of this Agreement. G. "Cost Allocation" means annual dues (the annual allocation among Member agencies of the cost of Council operations determined by the Executive Board for the purposes of calculating members' obligations to contribute to the funding of Council operations for the year, and for the purposes of calculating obligations and distributions in the event of withdrawal or termination). H. "Ex Officio Member" means a non -voting, non -dues paying member of the Council. I. "Two-thirds majority vote" means a majority vote and also requires a majority of votes from County commissioners and a majority of votes from the representatives from at least two separate cities. J. "Associate Member" means a member of the Council which is not a party to this Agreement and who enters into a separate agreement with the Council that establishes the Associate Member's level of participation in Council activities. IV. MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION A. Membership. Membership (except for Associate Members and Ex Officio Members) is established by execution of this Agreement and payment of any required cost allocation as established by the Executive Board. B. Executive Board. The Executive Board is comprised of the following representatives of member agencies: 1. County Government: three (3) members of the Kitsap County Board ofCommissioners; 2. City Governments: a. The Mayor of each city having a population of 10,000 persons or less; b. The Mayor and one (1) member of the City Council of each city having a population between 10,001 persons and 30,000 persons; C. The Mayor and two (2) members of the City Council of each city having a population greater than 30,000 persons; d. A city with a Council/Manager form of government may select one (1) member of the City Council instead of a Mayor. The number of additional City Council members representing the city shall be as described in 2(a-c) above. 3. Port of Bremerton: one (1) representative consisting of aPort Commissioner. Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 124 of 158 Table of Contents City Council, and Port of Bremerton representatives may be selected by whatever means established by each specific member agency for a two (2) year term. C. The determination of the population of cities will be the most recent annual population estimate of cities and towns prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. D. A municipal or government entity or a federally recognized Indian Tribe that desires to become a member of the Council must obtain permission to do so by majority vote of the Executive Board. The required permission applies to any entity that wishes to become a Member or Ex Officio Member. A municipal or government entity or a federally recognized Indian tribe that wishes to become an Associate Member must obtain permission to do so by a majority vote of the Executive Board, and must present a draft agreement for the Executive Board's consideration, establishing the proposed terms, duties, powers and privileges for Associate Member status. POWER, AUTHORITY, AND PURPOSE This Agreement does not confer additional substantive powers or authorities on member agencies. The powers and authorities conferred herein are limited to the powers that each member agency is authorized by law to perform. The Council has the following power, authority, and purpose: A. Provide a regional forum for regional deliberations and cooperative decision -making by the region's elected officials in order to bring about a continuous and comprehensive planning process, and foster cooperation and mediate differences among governments throughout the region. B. Consistent with the GMA, coordinate and ensure consistency when developing comprehensive land use plans C. Consistent with the GMA, develop CPPS to be used as a framework to guide the County and the Cities in developing their comprehensive land use plans; D. Coordinate actions to provide for the distribution of state and federal grant funds, including but not limited to federal transportation funding, community development block grants, and low income housing grants. E. Undertake continuous, cooperative study and planning of regional and governmental problems of mutual interest, including but not limited to development, land use, housing, capital facilities, services, utilities, finances, public buildings, water supply, water distribution and drainage, air and water pollution, parks and recreation and transportation planning. F. Coordinate actions to provide for a sustainable economy and environment for the region. G. Carry out such other planning and coordinating activities authorized by majority vote of the Council including participation in other forums and organizations. H. Establish Bylaws, to be amended from time to time, that govern the procedures of the Council. The Bylaws, as may be amended, are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth herein. I. Contract for administrative services and enter into other agreements as deemed appropriate and/or necessary to implement this Agreement. J. Purchase, receive, lease, take by gift, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, improve, use and otherwise deal in and with real or personal property, or any interest therein, in the name of the Council. K. Sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, transfer, and otherwise dispose of its property and assets. Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 125 of 158 Table of Contents L. Sue and be sued, complain and defend, in all courts of competent jurisdiction in the Council's name. M. To engage in any other activity necessary to further the Council goals and purposes to the extent authorized by chapter 39.34 RCW. N. Apply for such federal, state, or private funding of any nature as may become available to assist the organization in carrying out its purposes and functions. O. Identify and examine issues such as governance, growth policies, development standards, service provision, revenue -cost sharing and municipal annexations in urban growth areas. P. Strive to represent the consensus of views on growth management and planning issues among member agencies. The Council makes recommendations on behalf of those jurisdictions to multi -county regional agencies and State government on behalf of member agencies, on proposed changes to multi -county regional plans, state plans and laws. Q. Represent the views or position of member agencies within the County on issues of consistency or the resolution of conflicts related to the multi -county regional growth strategy and transportation plan. R. Make appointments to committees and boards of multi -county regional organizations (e.g. Puget Sound Regional Council, Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning Organization) where appointments are requested to represent more than one member agency of the Council. Members appointed to such committees and boards shall represent the consensus of the views of the Council. If consensus is not reached on a particular issue, the members appointed to such committees and boards shall represent the majority and minority views of the Council, in order to accurately portray the status of discussions on that issue. S. Review this Interlocal Agreement no fewer than every 10 years with the assistance of legal counsel. VI. FINANCING A. Cost Allocation. All members shall pay the annual cost allocation as described in the Bylaws. If payment by a member is not paid timely after notice of the cost allocation is received, the member is subject to having its membership status revoked by majority vote of the Executive Board. B. Local Government Accounting. All services and transfers of property to the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council shall be paid and accounted for in accordance with RCW 43.09.210. VII. FISCAL YEAR AND BUDGET A. The Fiscal Year. The fiscal year shall coincide with the calendar year. B. Adoption of Budget. By September of each year the Executive Board shall adopt a draft annual work program, budget, and cost allocation for the ensuing fiscal year that identifies anticipated activities, goals, revenues, and expenditures for completing the work program. The final work program, budget, and cost allocation for the ensuing year shall be adopted by the Executive Board no later than November of each year. No increase or decrease to the final budget shall occur without the approval of the Executive Board. C. Notice of Budget. On or before September 30, the Executive Board shall provide written notice of the ensuing year's draft budget, work plan, and cost allocation to the designated representative(s) of each member agency. On or before November 30, the Executive Board shall provide written notice of the final budget, work plan, and cost allocation adopted for the ensuing fiscal year to the designated representative(s) of each member agency. D. Accounting, Budgeting, and Reporting. The Council shall be subject to the Budgeting Accounting & Reporting System (BARS) applicable to Category 1 local governments. Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 126 of 158 Table of Contents E. Fiscal Agent. The Council may retain a fiscal agent. The fiscal agent may be a member agency who shall serve, and be subject to removal, pursuant to the terms and conditions as established by agreement between the fiscal agent and the Council. F. Contracting. All contracts made by or on behalf of the Council shall be in accordance with state law, including, but not limited to: Chapter 39.04 RCW, and Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.24 RCW. VIII. WITHDRAWAL FROM AGREEMENT Any member agency has the right to withdraw from this Interlocal Agreement by giving the Executive Board six (6) months prior written notice. Unless otherwise provided by future agreement, any member agency that withdraws shall remain responsible for its financial and other obligations with regard to Council activities until the effective date of withdrawal and with regard to agreements to which the Council is a party and which exist at the time of such notice of withdrawal. Withdrawal by one member agency to this Interlocal Agreement shall not terminate the Agreement as to any other remaining member agencies. Except as provided in Article IX of this Agreement, any member agency that withdraws from this Agreement forfeits any rights it may have to the Council's assets; provided, however, such forfeiture shall not take effect if the Council dissolves within one (1) year of the date of the withdrawal notice. IX. DISPOSAL OF ASSETS Upon dissolution of the Council, any Council assets, after payment of all liabilities, costs, expenses, and charges validly incurred under this Agreement, shall be distributed to member agencies which are members of the Council on the date of dissolution. Distribution of assets shall be in proportion to the funding formula for cost allocation as described in the Bylaws, in accordance with Article VI.B. of the Agreement, and existing at the time of dissolution. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Council shall not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of any member agency. If assets cannot reasonably be distributed in proportion to the funding formula, the Council shall declare the assets to be surplus, and shall offer the assets for sale according to the requirements of chapter 43.19 RCW, and shall distribute the proceeds from the sale in proportion to the funding formula established by the Executive Board in accordance with Article VI.B. of this Agreement. X. LIABILITY AND INSURANCE A. Any loss or liability to third parties resulting from negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Council, Member agencies (excluding Associate Members), Ex Officio Members, and/or employees while acting within the scope of their authority under this Agreement shall be borne by the Council exclusively, and the Council shall defend such parties, at its cost, upon request by the member agency, ex officio agency, and/or employee. B. The Executive Board shall obtain commercial general liability, and auto liability insurance coverage for the Council, Executive Board, and any staff employed by the Council, at levels no less than $1 million single occurrence and $2 million aggregate for each type of liability that is insured. The policy shall name each member agency, and their respective elected officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insured's. The Executive Board shall annually evaluate the adequacy of the Council's insurance coverage. C. The Executive Board shall require that all contractors and subcontractors utilized by the Council obtain insurance coverage consistent with Article X.B. XI. LEGAL REPRESENTATION The Council may retain legal counsel. Legal counsel may be an employee of a member agency, an outside entity, or an individual. In the event of a conflict of interest, the Council may retain substitute or additional legal Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 127 of 158 Table of Contents counsel. Additionally, Council may retain outside legal counsel concerning any matter the Council deems appropriate. Retained counsel shall serve, and be subject to removal, pursuant to the terms and conditions established by agreement between legal counsel and the Council. An adjustment in cost allocation to Members will be made if the Council retains outside legal counsel. XIL ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement supersedes all previous Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council interlocal agreements and all prior discussions, representations, contracts, and/or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties. XIH. MODIFICATION Except as provided by Article XIX, the terms of this Agreement shall not be altered or modified unless agreed to in writing by all member agencies and such writing shall be executed with the same formalities as are required for the execution of this document. XIV. WAIVER The failure of any party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of same, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. XV. NOTICE Except as provided in Article XVIII of this Agreement, any notice required by this Agreement shall be made in writing to the representative(s) identified in Article W.B. of this Agreement. Notice is effective on the third day following deposit with the U.S. Postal Service, regular mail. XVI. SEVERABILITY If any of the provisions of this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. XVII. CHOICE OF LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to its interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity, or other judicial proceeding arising in connection with this Agreement may be instituted and maintained only in a court of competent jurisdiction in Kitsap County, Washington. XVIII. CLAIMS A. Any claim for damages made under chapter 4.96 RC W shall be filed with the Chair of the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, c/o the Clerk of the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners, 614 Division Street, MS-4, Port Orchard, Washington, 98366. B. Upon receipt of a claim for damages, or any other claim, a copy of the claim will be provided by the Clerk of the Board to each member of the Executive Board. XIX. EXECUTION AND FILING A. Counterparts. The parties agree that there shall be multiple original signature pages of this Agreement distributed for signature by the necessary officials of the parties. Upon execution, the executed original signature Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 128 of 158 Table of Contents pages of this Agreement shall be returned to the Clerk of the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners, who shall file an executed original of this Agreement with the Kitsap County Auditor. The Clerk of the Board shall distribute duplicate conformed copies of the Agreement to each of the parties. Parties that sign on as Members at a later date will provide original signature pages of this Agreement to the Clerk of the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners, who shall file the signature pages provided with the Kitsap County Auditor. The Clerk of the Board shall distribute duplicate conformed copies of the signature pages filed later, to each of the parties. Addition of parties at a later date will not constitute a modification under Section XIII of this Agreement. B. Later Approval and Filing. Later approval and filing of this Agreement by additional parties asset forth in Article IV, Section D, shall be deemed an authorized amendment to the Agreement already on file with the Kitsap County Auditor, without the need for reconsideration and approval by parties that have already approved and executed the Agreement. XX. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall go into effect among and between the parties upon its execution by all of the parties, as evidenced by the signatures and dates affixed below and upon its filing with the County Auditor as provided in Article XIX. Appendix E. Current Organizational Interlocal Agreement - Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 Nov. 25, 2013 Page 129 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Appendix F: Regional and Kitsap Designated Centers Adopted 2004 Regional (Adopted by PSRC) City of Bremerton Metro Center Silverdale Urban Core Urban Center South Kitsap Industrial Area Industrial/Employment Center Jurisdiction Jurisdiction's (Comp Plan) Designation KRCC Center Designation Kitsap County Kingston Town or City Center/Transportation Hub Kitsap County Southworth Transportation Hub Kitsap County Suquamish Activity/Employment Center— Transportation Hub City of Bremerton Harrison Employment Center Activity/Employment Center City of Bremerton NW Corporate Campus Employment Center Activity/Employment Center City of Bremerton Port Blakely Employment Center Activity/Employment Center City of Bremerton Upper Wheaton District Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bremerton Lower Wheaton District Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bremerton Sylvan/Pine Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bremerton Perry Avenue Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bremerton Manette Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bremerton Charleston Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bremerton Haddon Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bainbridge Island Winslow Core Town or City Center City of Bainbridge Island Day Road Light Manufacturing Area Activity/Employment Center City of Bainbridge Island Lynnwood - Neighborhood Service Centers* Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bainbridge Island Rolling Bay - Neighborhood Service Centers* Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Bainbridge Island Island Center - Neighborhood Service Centers* Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Poulsbo Poulsbo Town Center Town or City Center City of Poulsbo Olhava Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood City of Port Orchard City of Port Orchard Town or City Center/ Transportation Hub City of Port Orchard Tremont Community Services Activity/Employment Center City of Port Orchard South Kitsap Mall — Mixed Use Center Mixed Use Center/ Neighborhood Kitsap Transit Historic Mosquito Fleet Terminals Transportation Hub *- Special Planning Areas Appendix F. Regional and Kitsap Designated Centers List Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 November 25, 2013 Page 130 of 158 Back to Agenda Table of Contents Appendix G: Centers & Local Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) Matrix Type of Gre txn UGA (per � "� Mixwd Use: High Density jebs DCD!' Federal manage.7 T«......«...rt F.n,:«.!en.P r...: d.«. �k Ineerperated U Urban Yes Y2S �A T T..:..,.,......,.FMed T T!'_ A ; "Rii Y-es Yes NY A DQD!` Center... � Regiefial Uikiax Yes Y2& Regional Competitive Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council Center.. Town/CityCenter Urbali Yes Yes Emp eysnefit/n/�n:..:7 T ed :Fn ot in U6A Tr,.nspo ftati n TS..1... Than if in UG A . Rum! if outside UG A Urban Yes Yes f designated as i renter A.T....ter D,..4.4e,7 De..,..rt.. De,.�ti,.n..l No Limited xDi-a"ri-a-r' set-asittl� LANURBs in fill C-Onsiqtent;A1,:., Existing NO Limited t Existing deftsitr w4h no intensifiea�ien of-dw Rural setaside ** 1ndn..tr*A in D..r..l � EmploymmtLL c6crr'ii7 Dg-,so irpp, 1.....ed T..dustfial NO Tiss••rmr' set -aside # Rural D..r.., !-ar-a,.ten NO NO Rural set aside ** De..ewe T ....dT ..n& No De..:.7enti..1 !'_re...th L+n+ited No l'�c�i"rrrr' Set -aside ** ** tnoi eaeh funding e. el,. set by federal ..fame nnnTT Appendix G. Centers & Local Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) Matrix Adopted by Kitsap County Ordinance 509-2013 November 25, 2013 Commented [CW61]:3/1/21 comment received that LUTAC had agreed to remove this Appendix. We should disucss. Page 131 of 158 DdGK Lv HyIdnua City of Port Orchard �-= Work Study Session Executive Summary `yam■�� � � IIIAI �_'a Issue Title: Water Restoration and Enhancement Draft Plan Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 Time Required: 15 Minutes Attendees: Utility Manager Jacki Brown Action requested at this meeting: Public Works Department Staff requests further discussion of the proposed Plan (see documents attached). This item is scheduled for further discussion/questions of staff at the March 23, 2021 regular meeting, with proposed approval of the Plan to follow at the April 13, 2021 regular meeting. Issue Summary: Since 2018, the City of Port Orchard's Public Works Staff have been actively participating in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee (Committee). The Committee was formed in response to state legislative action in January 2018 which directed the Washington State Department of Ecology to develop Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plans for several WRIA's within Washington by June 30, 2021, that will provide regulation for 'non -permitted' or 'permit -exempt domestic' wells, which have proliferated in many areas and have been largely unregulated. The Plans are intended to provide regulatory sideboards for permit exempt well withdrawals within each WRIA, providing an ecological benefit to each watershed by ensuring that the water withdrawn from the watershed is offset by water returning. The Committee, with the City's contributions, recently completed the preparation of the Plan for WRIA 15. Although lengthy, the vast majority of the Plan consists of enumerating and describing watershed restoration projects throughout the County. Condensed down to action items, the Plan contains two main points: 1. It sets the number of permit exempt wells that can be expected in Kitsap County in areas not within a GMA area or a water system service area (i.e., outside of the City of Port Orchard and other cities in the County); and 2. It sets the amount of water expected to be used by these exempt wells less the amount reintroduced to the aquifers via septic systems (termed consumptive use in the documents). Key benefits from the Plan: Page 132 of 158 aacrc w HyIdnua Executive Summary 3 Page 2 of 4 • Approval of the WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan will benefit City streams by locally regulating the quantities of water being withdrawn from surface aquifers via domestic wells (which are almost exclusively located outside of the City). • Approval of the WRIA 15 WRE-Plan benefits the City by promoting habitat projects within the region that positively impact surface water flows. Key drawbacks from the process: • To approve of the Plan, there must be consensus among all members of the Committee. Absent consensus, Ecology (in its efforts to comply with ESSB 6091) may elect to deviate from the Plan in its development of a new plan that is not subject to input from the local agencies within WRIA 15. In conformance with RCW 90.94.030, the Committee has requested that each participating agency "approve" of the draft Plan prior to final adoption by the Department of Ecology (which must occur by June 2021). The Plan was discussed at both the Utility Committee and Land Use Committee in February. Due to its length, this item will be available for Council discussion at multiple meetings, with proposed action in April. The City Council is requested to review the Plan and consider approval. Background: In January 2018, the Washington Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6091, the Streamflow Restoration law, designed to redress some of the challenges resulting from the 2016 Washington State Supreme Court's decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst, Futurewise, et. al.. The Court's decision held that Whatcom County — following a practice that most counties in the state utilized at the time — failed to comply with the Growth Management Act requirements to protect water resources in its area by ensuring water availability for development to be supplied by a well (which are exempt from Ecology's permitting process). The Court noted the importance of these determinations, holding that wells must be regulated to ensure that water should not be made legally available if a new well would impact a protected river or stream, or an existing senior water right. The Court held that Washington's Counties must take a more expansive role in the regulation of water availability and required that availability determinations were the responsibility of each local agency at the time the agency approved of a building permit that would rely on a well. As a result, many agencies severely restricted approvals of development relying on wells, due to a lack of staffing resources and expertise. After two legislative sessions of extensive discussion and work on these issues, in 2018 the Legislature responded to the resource/burden dilemma placed on local agencies as a result of the Hirst decision with ESSB 6091, often referred to as the "Hirst fix." The law sought to strike a balance by easing restrictions on new domestic wells in rural areas, while providing regulatory sideboards for the review and approval of wells to protect the state's watersheds. A key part of the law was a requirement that Ecology develop and implement a Page 133 of 158 aacrc w HyIdnua Executive Summary 3 Page 3 of 4 plan specific to each watershed, utilizing a collaborative process to engage with tribes, counties, cities, state agencies, and special interest groups within each WRIA. WRIA 15 (our WRIA), and a Committee comprised of many of Kitsap County's tribes, cities', agencies, and special interest groups, has worked to develop a Plan in compliance with ESSB 6091. Per RCW 90.94.030, Ecology invited the City of Port Orchard to participate in the Committee as a jurisdiction within WRIA 15, and staff has been actively participating in the Committee since its inception in 2018. The Plan is lengthy, as it includes a summary of dozens of water quality proposed projects for WRIA 15, occurring throughout all of WRIA 15, projected into the future. In large part, the Plan has no impact on the City of Port Orchard and its residents; however, the City participated in the Committee and its development in order to ensure a voice in the future of WRIA 15 and the interconnected watersheds. In summary: • The committee was formed to develop a plan to regulate and mitigate for non - permitted well withdrawals within WRIA 15, which are outside the City's limits (as the City does not allow new development to be served by a permit -exempt well). • While the City is not directly impacted by the adoption of this plan, the City's surface water bodies are negatively affected by unregulated withdrawals from permit exempt wells surrounding the City. • City staff were invited to participate in the committee to provide subject matter expertise relating to municipal water system management, mitigation efforts and ecological restoration projects. The Plan is designed to benefit City streams by locally regulating the quantities of water being withdrawn from surface aquifers. Similarly, the Plan is designed to benefit the City by promoting habitat projects within the region that positively impact surface water flows. Staff also notes that approval of the Plan may evidence City support of watershed habitat restoration and Ecology programs, generally. This may have a positive effect on the City's pending projects, including but not limited to the Foster Pilot Project and the new $8 million loan for the Marina Pump Station. Recommendation: Discussion and proposed approval of the Plan. Follow-up Notes & Outcomes: The only notable City absent from the Committee in WRIA 15 is the City of Poulsbo, who withdrew from the committee in 2018 due to a lack of staffing available to participate. Page 134 of 158 DdGK w HyIdnua Executive Summary 3 Page 4 of 4 Attachments: Water Restoration and Enhancement 'Draft' Plan, excerpt (full plan with all attachments available at https://www.cityofportorchard.us/draft-watershed-restoration-and- enhancement-plan/) and copy of RCW 90.94.030. Page 135 of 158 DEPARTMENT OF _ ECOLOGY State of Washington Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Draft Plan WRIA 15 Kitsap Watershed February 1, 2021 �1►�e1� 7:L�� i1�e�►�r�I:���Z�1e��:Z��II��i�l Page 136 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Publication Information This document is available on the Department of Ecology's website at: https://ecoIogy.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Streamflow-restoration/Streamflow- restoration-planning Cover photo credit • Curley Creek Courtesy of Kenna Cox Contact Information Water Resources Program Address: 3190 160th Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Phone: 425-649-7000 Websitel: Washington State Department of Ecology ADA Accessibility The Department of Ecology is committed to providing people with disabilities access to information and services by meeting or exceeding the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Washington State Policy #188. To request an ADA accommodation, contact Ecology by phone at 360-407-6872 or email at WRpubs@ecy.wa.gov. For Washington Relay Service or TTY call 711 or 877-833-6341. Language Access The Department of Ecology offers free language services about our programs and services for people whose primary language is not English. We can provide information written in your preferred language and qualified interpreters over the telephone. To request these services, or to learn more about what we can provide, contact our Language Access Coordinators by phone at 360-407-6177 or email at miIlie.piazza@ecy.wa.gov. When you call, please allow a few moments for us to contact an interpreter. Visit Ecology's website for more information. I www.ecology.wa.gov/contact WRIA 15 — FINAL DRAFT PLAN Page ii February 2021 Page 137 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Acronyms Acronym Definition AE Application Efficiency AF/yr Acre -Feet per Year CFS Cubic Feet per Second CU Consumptive Use CUF Consumptive Use Factor GPD Gallons per Day GIS Geographic Information System IR Irrigation Requirements LID Low Impact Development LIO Local Integrating Organization MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge NEB Net Ecological Benefit PE Permit -Exempt RCW Revised Code of Washington WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Areas WRIA 15 — FINAL DRAFT PLAN Page vii Page 138 of 158 February 2021 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Acknowledgements This watershed plan was written as a collaboration between the Department of Ecology, the WRIA 15 Committee, and the technical consultants. We express our sincere gratitude to those that supported the development of the plan and supplemental materials. WRIA 15 — FINAL DRAFT PLAN Page viii Page 139 of 158 February 2021 WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Back to Agenda WRIA 15 Committee Members — Primary Representatives and Alternates Dave Ward, Kitsap County David Nash', Kitsap County Kathy Peters, Kitsap County Commissioner Randy Neatherlin, Mason County David Windom, Mason County Dan Cardwell, Pierce County Austin Jennings, Pierce County Greg Rabourn, King County Joe Hovencotter, King County Eric Ferguson, King County David Winfrey, Puyallup Tribe Seth Book, Skokomish Tribe Dana Sarff, Skokomish Tribe Jeff Dickison, Squaxin Island Tribe Paul Pickett, Squaxin Island Tribe Erica Marbet, Squaxin Island Tribe Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Tribe Alison O'Sullivan, Suquamish Tribe Sam Phillips, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Paul McCollum, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Jacki Brown, City of Port Orchard Thomas Hunter', City of Port Orchard Zach Holt, City of Port Orchard Trent Ward, City of Gig Harbor Brienn Ellis, City of Gig Harbor Michael Michael, City of Bainbridge Island Christian Berg, City of Bainbridge Island Christy Carr', City of Bainbridge Island Teresa Smith, City of Bremerton Allison Satter, City of Bremerton Mayor Becky Erikson', City of Poulsbo Joel Purdy, Kitsap Public Utility District Mark Morgan, Kitsap Public Utility District Bob Hunter, Kitsap Public Utility District Brittany Gordon, Department of Fish and Wildlife Nam Siu, Department of Fish and Wildlife Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Department of Ecology Russ Shiplet, Kitsap Building Association Josie Cummings, Building Industry Association of Washington Joy Garitone, Kitsap Conservation District Nathan Daniel, Great Peninsula Conservancy Sandra Staples-Bortner2, Great Peninsula Conservancy Larry Boltz, Mason Kitsap Farm Bureau (ex officio) Shawn O'Dell, Washington Water Service (ex officio) WRIA 15 Technical Consultant Team Bob Montgomery, Anchor QEA Burt Clothier, Pacific Groundwater Group Chad Wiseman, HDR HDR, Pacific Groundwater Group and Anchor QEA Support Staff Facilitation Team Susan Gulick, Sound Resolutions Angela Pietschmann, Cascadia Consulting Additional support from Cascadia Consulting Staff Department of Ecology Staff Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Chair John Covert, Lead Technical Support Paulina Levy, Committee and Plan Development Support Stephanie Potts, WRIA 15 Alternate Chair Ria Berns, Regional Section Manager Bennett Weinstein, Streamflow Section Manager Mugdha Flores, Streamflow Communications Lead Streamflow Section Technical Staff Northwest Region Water Resources Section Page ix Page 140 of 158 WRIA 15 — FINAL DRAFT PLAN February 2021 WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Back to Agenda Project Workgroup Joy Garitone and Brian Stahl, Kitsap Conservation District Jon Turk, Aspect (Consultant to Skokomish Tribe) Joel Massman, Keta Waters (Consultant to Suquamish Tribe) Alison O'Sullivan and John O'Leary', Suquamish Tribe Austin Jennings and Dan Cardwell, Pierce County Brittany Gordon and Nam Siu, Department of Fish and Wildlife David Nash' and Kathy Peters, Kitsap County David Windom, Mason County Paul Pickett, Squaxin Island Tribe Sam Phillips, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Thomas Hunter' and Zach Holt, City of Port Orchard Brenda Padgham, Bainbridge Island Land Trust Greg Rabourn, King County Seth Book and Dana Sarff, Skokomish Tribe Bob Montgomery, Anchor QEA Burt Clothier, Pacific Groundwater Group Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Department of Ecology Erik Steffens, Great Peninsula Conservancy Joel Purdy, Kitsap Public Utility District Technical Workgroup Eric Ferguson, King County Jon Turk, Aspect (Consultant to Skokomish Tribe) Joel Massman, Keta Waters (Consultant to Suquamish Tribe) Alison O'Sullivan and John O'Leary', Suquamish Tribe Austin Jennings and Dan Cardwell, Pierce County Brittany Gordon and Nam Siu, Department of Fish and Wildlife David Nash', Kitsap County David Windom, Mason County Paul Pickett, Squaxin Island Tribe Sam Phillips, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Thomas Hunter' and Zach Holt, City of Port Orchard Joel Purdy and Bob Hunter, Kitsap Public Utility District Bob Montgomery, Anchor QEA Burt Clothier, Pacific Groundwater Group Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Department of Ecology Thank you to the Committee members that participated in short-term, ad hoc workgroups. Thank you also to Tribal, city and county staff, Kitsap Public Health District, and USGS for providing resources and presentations throughout this process. 'David Nash, formerly with Kitsap County, is now deceased. 'No longer at entity. 'Withdrew from Committee. Page x Page 141 of 158 WRIA 15 — FINAL DRAFT PLAN February 2021 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Executive Summary In January 2018, the Washington State Legislature passed the Streamflow Restoration law (RCW 90.94) to help support robust, healthy, and sustainable salmon populations while ensuring rural communities have access to water. The law, as interpreted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology), directs Ecology to lead local planning Committees to develop Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plans that identify projects to offset potential consumptive impacts of new permit -exempt domestic groundwater withdrawals on instream flows over the next 20 years (2018 — 2038) and provide a net ecological benefit to the watershed. While not all members of the WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee agreed with Ecology's interpretations of the law, this Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan was written to meet the guidance and policy interpretations as provided by Ecology.Z Ecology established the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee to collaborate with tribes, counties, cities, state agencies, and special interest groups in the Kitsap watershed, also known as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15. The WRIA 15 Committee met for two and a half years to develop a watershed plan. To allow for meaningful analysis of the relationship between new consumptive use and offsets, the WRIA 15 Committee divided the watershed into seven subbasins. Subbasins help describe the location and timing of projected new consumptive water use, the location and timing of impacts to instream resources, and the necessary scope, scale, and anticipated benefits of projects. This watershed plan projects 5,568 permit exempt (PE) well connections over the 20-year planning horizon. If implemented as intended, the projects and policy recommendations in this watershed plan can offset the consumptive water use from those 5,568 PE well connections. The projected new consumptive water use associated with the new PE well connections is 766.4 acre-feet per year (1.06 cubic feet per second [cfs] or 684,150 gallons per day [gpd]) in WRIA 15, equal to 123 gpd per PE well connection. This watershed plan also sets an offset target of 1,218 acre-feet per year (equivalent to 177 gpd per connection) for project implementation in order to benefit streams. That target is based upon a consumptive use of 195 gpd per PE well connection which equals 1.68 cfs and 1.087 million gallons per day. This watershed plan includes projects that, if implemented as intended, provide an anticipated offset of 1,066.7 acre-feet per year to benefit streamflows and enhance the watershed. The WRIA 15 Committee set a goal of offsetting consumptive use estimates within each subbasin and agreed that offsets should be as close to impacts as feasible. This plan falls short of the WRIA 15 Committee's goal of meeting the offset need by subbasin (consumptive use is offset in 5 of 7 subbasins and the higher offset target is reached in 2 of 7 subbasins). 2 Some members of the WRIA 15 Committee have different interpretation of RCW 90.94.030. Signing statements and other documents provided in the Compendium provide more information on their interpretations. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page xi February 2021 Page 142 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Table ES-1 presents a summary of the anticipated impacts and benefits by subbasin. Additional projects in the plan include benefits to fish and wildlife habitat, such as several thousand feet of streambed improvements, dozens of acres of restoration and protection, and many miles of riparian restoration across WRIA 15. Table ES-1: Consumptive Use and Project Benefits by Subbasin Subbasin Consumptive Higher Offset Offset Benefits Additional Benefits from Projects Use Estimate Target (acre from Projects (acre feet per feet per year) (acre feet per year) year) North Hood 90.3 136.5 264 Projects would provide direct Canal streamflow benefit, protection and restoration of habitat for fish critical streams. Over 1,600 feet of stream restoration are included along with over ten acres of habitat restoration. West 183.9 277.9 365 Projects would provide direct Sound streamflow benefit, protection and restoration of habitat for fish critical streams. Projects include over 2800 feet of stream restoration, riparian restoration, over 100 acres of land protection, and over 140 acres of habitat restoration. South Hood 155.0 223.4 131 Projects would provide direct Canal streamflow benefit, protection and restoration of habitat for fish critical streams. This subbasin includes projects that will repair up to three miles of riparian area. Bainbridge 67.6 102.2 68.2 Projects would provide direct Island streamflow benefit, protection and restoration of habitat for fish critical streams. Vashon- 50.7 72.9 56 Projects would provide direct Maury streamflow benefit, water rights Island and land acquisition. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page xii February 2021 Page 143 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Subbasin Consumptive Higher Offset Offset Benefits Additional Benefits from Projects Use Estimate Target (acre from Projects (acre feet per feet per year) (acre feet per year) year) South 213.8 394.6 175.5 Projects would provide direct Sound streamflow benefit, protection and restoration of habitat for fish critical streams. Projects include up to nine miles of riparian restoration. South 5.2 11.1 7 Projects would provide direct Sound streamflow benefit, protection and Islands restoration of habitat for fish critical streams. Totals 766.4 1218.7 1066.7 To increase reasonable assurance of plan implementation and track progress, this watershed plan includes policy and regulatory recommendations and an adaptive management process. The 11 policy and regulatory recommendations are included to contribute to the goals of this watershed plan, including streamflow restoration and meeting net ecological benefit. These recommendations enhance water conservation efforts; improve research, monitoring, and data collection; support beaver habitat conservation; plan for better drought response; and finance plan implementation. The watershed plan describes an adaptive management approach, which identifies (1) an ongoing implementation group and lead organization to support watershed plan implementation, (2) a tracking and reporting structure to assess progress and adjust as needed, and (3) a funding mechanism to adaptively manage implementation. Adaptive management will be necessary to achieve the goal of meeting offset needs within each subbasin and improving streamflow where this watershed plan currently falls short, through the identification, development and implementation of projects throughout WRIA 15. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page xiii February 2021 Page 144 of 158 WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Back to Agenda MaA$ouoder4 r7 Rwmn ilon Land fuortn Hood tans) © 5ahhe�ln __ Gouq[X I- 8991�aAe "l PP,iFv r iX4AFY RAC Pu n1r{Femfk Gc [+kxw ( d1 a37AFY + f28AJ-Y , ;k # Canaimi+r +o iMa ��1m.xb r Ortsnl 9arw.7V �1JrF,5+.lr rx• OIo1�A a # rr7P'a.� O1Tetlf Tsyef f C4"w4 ijernlgr S�oAa ar [crldl I— r—I , Prop m 5OC--oLf,I gtnaf Eig Ma,mg"AgulfrrAmoherue NvrL'i "PO Canal, Suulh Mad Canal, first S4ur1G. Uvir& ! If4nd. Venhbh M&LPJV. Shc4h4 96drd CammurllyFolesl Ad VWMEF RIgM AONIu wrs Balnbmpp ♦gland Vamon Maury RKInquNmi s f40rtr, hwd Canal, SOLO Mad [anal, West Saurrrl, SolnDnOp Island, Vadw Maury- Setrih Smr10 Beall Creek plow IrnprovemplEa Vmhorh Mawy I-lehl[ai gnpramnen[ A11 PwjKta .5LN" NOW Carnal r 12ff wN s :::J A� r - 92 AFr Carl Ladino. ftdNVd1AN1 HMVWf&V+ bland :5r6 Wnft • IAFY _ 3a,aF-V LVrli 900nd - !al AFY .I V A PY PvrY 4rChH� I I rr +r + d.' Ira u r 4 1 i I + a h P f-Wa*7 .+ --- - - - - -- -1+ I 1 I } I BnvEh Sarnd 1 r 1442 I !9A ',' �Itl Harbor 4a¢030q - N4W J$.r*W 358 �4rh9 .% :, 7AFY l 1108mrd. +lndw;ndcusorF JsMrrnQ. l{rsan fslarnd '�Fj Wr4S r f'FV Id u6.. .l P Figure ES 1: Summary of findings of the WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan, including estimates for new domestic PE well growth, consumptive use estimates, and project offset benefits. Map prepared by HDR. Page xiv Page 145 of 158 WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan February 2021 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Chapter 1 — Plan Overview 1.1 WRIA 15 Watershed Plan Purpose and Structure The purpose of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan is to identify projects and actions intended to offset the impacts of new domestic permit -exempt (PE) wells to streamflows. The Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan is one requirement of RCW 90.94.030. Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plans must identify projects to offset the projected consumptive impacts of new PE domestic groundwater withdrawals on instream flows over 20 years (2018-2038) and provide a net ecological benefit (NEB) to the WRIA. The WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan (watershed plan) considers priorities for salmon recovery and watershed recovery, while ensuring it meets the intent of the law, as interpreted by Ecology.3 While not all members of the WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee (Committee) agree with the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) interpretations of the law, this watershed plan was written to meet the guidance and policy interpretations as provided by Ecology. References to meeting the requirements of the law throughout this plan refer to Ecology's interpretation of the law and may not encompass the interpretations held by all members of the WRIA 15 Committee. Pumping from wells can reduce groundwater discharge to springs and streams by capturing water that would otherwise have discharged naturally, thereby reducing flows (Barlow and Leake 2012). Consumptive water use (the portion not returned to the aquifer) reduces streamflow, both seasonally and as average annual recharge. A well pumping from an aquifer connected to a surface water body can either reduce the quantity of water discharging to the river or increase the quantity of water leaking out of the river (Barlow and Leake 2012). While this watershed plan is narrow in scope and not intended to address all water uses or related issues within the watershed, it may provide a path forward for future water resource planning. [Language to be included when appropriate]: The Committee, by completing the watershed plan, has developed, and come to consensus on, a technically and politically complex issue in water resource management. That success will set the stage for improved coordination of water resources and overall watershed health in our WRIA. This watershed plan includes seven chapters: 1. Plan overview; 2. Overview of the watershed's hydrology, hydrogeology, and streamflow; s Some members of the WRIA 15 Committee have different interpretation of RCW 90.94.030. Signing statements and other documents provided in the Compendium provide more information on their interpretations. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 1 February 2021 Page 146 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT 3. Summary of the subbasins; 4. Growth projections and consumptive use estimates; 5. Description of the recommended projects to offset the future PE domestic water use in WRIA 15 and meet NEB; 6. Explanation of recommended policy, monitoring, adaptive management, and implementation measures; and 7. Evaluation and consideration of the NEB. 1.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Background for the WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan In January 2018, the Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6091 (session law 2018 c 1). This law was enacted in response to the State Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Whatcom County vs. Hirst, Futurewise, et al. (commonly referred to as the "Hirst decision"). As it relates to this Committee's work, the law, now primarily codified as RCW 90.94, clarifies how local governments can issue building permits or approve subdivisions for homes intending to use a PE well for their domestic water supply. The law also requires local watershed planning in fifteen WRIAs across the state, including WRIA 15.1 1.1.2 Domestic Permit -Exempt Wells This watershed plan, the law that calls for it, and the Hirst decision are all concerned with the effects of new domestic PE water use on streamflows. Several laws pertain to the management of groundwater PE wells in WRIA 15 and are summarized in brief here for the purpose of providing context for the WRIA 15 watershed plan. Washington State follows the doctrine of prior appropriation, which means that the first users have rights senior to those issued later. This doctrine is called "first in time, first in right." If a water shortage occurs, senior rights are satisfied first and junior rights are curtailed. Seniority is established by priority date — the original date a water right application was filed, or the date that water was first put to beneficial use in the case of claims and the groundwater permit exemption. Although groundwater PE uses do not require a water right permit, they are always subject to state water law. In some instances, Ecology has had to regulate PE water users when they interfere with older, "senior" water rights, including instream flow rules. More information is available on Ecology's website: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water- supply/Water-availability. 4 ESSB 6091 includes the following: "ANACT Relating to ensuring that water is available to support development; amending RCW 19.27.097, 58.17.110, 90.03.247, and 90.03.290; adding a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW,- adding a new section to chapter 36.70 RCW,- adding a new chapter to Title 90 RCW,- creating a new section; providing an expiration date; and declaring an emergency. " (p. 1) WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 2 February 2021 Page 147 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT RCW 90.44.050, commonly referred to as "the Groundwater Permit Exemption," establishes that certain small withdrawals of groundwater are exempt from the state's water right permitting requirements, including small indoor and outdoor water use associated with homes. Although these withdrawals do not require a state water right permit, the water right is still legally established by the beneficial use. Even though a water right permit is not required for small domestic uses under RCW 90.44.050, there is still regulatory oversight, including from local jurisdictions. Specifically, in order for an applicant to receive a building permit from their local government for a new home, the applicant must satisfy the provisions of RCW 19.27.097 for what constitutes evidence of an adequate water supply. RCW 90.94.030 adds to the management regime for new homes using domestic PE well withdrawals in WRIA 15 and elsewhere. For example, local governments must, among other responsibilities relating to new PE domestic wells, collect a $500 fee for each building permit and record withdrawal restrictions on the title of the affected properties. Additionally, this law restricts new PE domestic withdrawals in WRIA 15 to a maximum annual average of up to 950 gallons per days (gpd) per connection, subject to the 5,000 gpd and %-acre outdoor irrigation of non-commercial lawn/garden limits established in RCW 90.44.050. Ecology has published its interpretation and implementation of RCW 19.27.097 and RCW 90.94 in Water Resources POL 2094 (Ecology 2019a). For additional information, readers can review those laws and policy for comprehensive details and agency interpretations. 1.1.3 Planning Requirements Under RCW 90.94.030 While supplementing the local building permit requirements, RCW 90.94.030(3) goes on to establish planning criteria for WRIA 15. In doing so, it sets the minimum standard of Ecology's collaboration with the WRIA 15 Committee in the preparation of this watershed plan. In practice, the process of plan development was one of broad integration, collectively shared work, and a striving for consensus described in the Committee's adopted operating principles, which are further discussed below. In addition to these procedural requirements, the law (and consequently, this watershed plan) is concerned with the identification of projects and actions intended to offset the anticipated impacts from new PE domestic groundwater withdrawals over the next 20 years and provide a NEB.' In establishing the primary purpose of this watershed plan, RCW 90.94.030 (3) also details both the required and recommended plan elements. Regarding the WRIA 15 Committee's approach to selecting projects and actions, the law also speaks to "high and lower priority projects." The Committee understands that, as provided in the Final Guidance on Determining Net Ecological Benefit (Ecology 2019b), "use of these terms is not the sole critical factor in determining whether a plan achieves a NEB... and that plan development should be 5 The planning horizon for achieving a NEB is the 20 year period beginning with January 19, 2018 and ending on January 18, 2038. The planning horizon only applies to determining which new consumptive water uses the plan must address under the law. The projects and actions required to offset the new uses must continue beyond the 20-year period and for as long as new well pumping continues. (Ecology 2019b; page 7) WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 3 February 2021 Page 148 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT focused on developing projects that provide the most benefits... regardless of how they align with [these] labels" (page 12). For WRIA 15, this watershed plan recognizes the goal of protecting water quantity as the primary component of habitat for fish populations and aquatic life. In order to provide a benefit to the greatest length of stream channel, the highest priority projects are those in that provide protection or restoration of headwater streamflows. 1.2 Requirements of the WRIA 15 Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan RCW 90.94.030 of the Streamflow Restoration law directs Ecology to establish a Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee in the Kitsap watershed and develop a watershed plan in collaboration with the WRIA 15 Committee. Ecology determined that the intent was best served through collective development of the watershed plan, using an open and transparent setting and process that builds on local needs. At a minimum, the watershed plan must include projects and actions necessary to offset projected consumptive impacts of new PE domestic groundwater withdrawals on streamflows and provide a NEB to the WRIA. Ecology issued the Streamflow Restoration Policy and Interpretive Statement (POL-2094) and Final Guidance on Determining Net Ecological Benefit (GUID-2094) in July 2019 to ensure consistency, conformity with state law, and transparency in implementing RCW 90.94. The Final Guidance on Determining Net Ecological Benefit (hereafter referred to as Final NEB Guidance) establishes Ecology's interpretation of the term "net ecological benefit." It also informs planning groups on the standards Ecology will apply when reviewing a watershed plan completed under RCW 90.94.020 or Streamflow Restoration law RCW 90.94.030(3) (b) At a minimum, the plan must include those actions that the committee determines to be necessary to offset potential impacts to instream flows associated with permit -exempt domestic water use. The highest priority recommendations must include replacing the quantity of consumptive water use during the same time as the impact and in the same basin or tributary. Lower priority projects include projects not in the same basin or tributary and projects that replace consumptive water supply impacts only during critical flow periods. The plan may include projects that protect or improve instream resources without replacing the consumptive quantity of water where such projects are in addition to those actions that the committee determines to be necessary to offset potential consumptive impacts to instream flows associated with permit -exempt domestic water use. (c) Prior to adoption of the watershed restoration and enhancement plan, the department must determine that actions identified in the plan, after accounting for new projected uses of water over the subsequent twenty years, will result in a net ecological benefit to instream resources within the water resource inventory area. (d) The watershed restoration and enhancement plan must include an evaluation or estimation of the cost of offsetting new domestic water uses over the subsequent twenty years, including withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050. (e) The watershed restoration and enhancement plan must include estimates of the cumulative consumptive water use impacts over the subsequent twenty years, including withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 4 February 2021 Page 149 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT RCW 90.94.030. The minimum planning requirements described by Ecology in the Final NEB Guidance include the following (pages 7-8): 1. Clear and Systemic Logic. Watershed plans must be prepared with implementation in mind. 2. Delineate Subbasins. [The Committee] must divide the WRIA into suitably sized subbasins to allow meaningful analysis of the relationship between new consumptive use and offsets. 3. Estimate New Consumptive Water Uses. Watershed plans must include a new consumptive water use estimate for each subbasin and the technical basis for such estimate. 4. Evaluate Impacts from New Consumptive Water Use. Watershed plans must consider both the estimated quantity of new consumptive water use from new domestic PE wells initiated within the planning horizon and how those impacts will be distributed. 5. Describe and Evaluate Projects and Actions for Their Offset Potential. At a minimum, watershed plans must identify projects and actions intended to offset impacts associated with new consumptive water use. Offset benefits must continue as long as the anticipated consumptive use impacts, which are assumed to be in perpetuity. The WRIA 15 Committee prepared the WRIA 15 watershed plan with the intent that the plan, including all projects, is fully implemented. The law requires that all members of the Committee approve the plan prior to submission to Ecology for review. Ecology must then determine that the plan's recommended streamflow restoration projects and actions will result in a NEB to instream resources within the WRIA after accounting for projected use of new PE domestic wells over the 20-year period of 2018-2038. RCW 90.94.030 (6). This section [90.94.0301 only applies to new domestic groundwater withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050 in the following water resource inventory areas with instream flow rules adopted under chapters and 90.54 RCW that do not explicitly regulate PE groundwater withdrawals: 7 (Snohomish); 8 (Cedar-Sammamish); 9 (Duwamish-Green); 10 (Puyallup -White); 12 (Chambers -Clover); 13 (Deschutes); 14 (Kennedy Goldsborough); and 15 (Kitsap) and does not restrict the withdrawal of groundwater for other uses that are exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050. 1.3 Overview of the WRIA 15 Committee 1.3.1 Formation The Streamflow Restoration law instructed Ecology to chair the WRIA 15 Committee, and invite representatives from the following entities in the watershed to participate in the development of the watershed plan: WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 5 February 2021 Page 150 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT • Each federally recognized tribal government with reservation land or usual and accustomed harvest area within the WRIA. • Each county government within the WRIA. • Each city government within the WRIA. • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. • The largest publicly owned water purveyor providing water within the WRIA that is not a municipality. • The largest irrigation district within the WRIA. Ecology sent invitation letters to each of the entities named in the law in September of 2018. Note that WRIA 15 does not have an irrigation district. The law also required Ecology to invite local organizations representing agricultural interests, environmental interests, and the residential construction industry. Businesses, environmental groups, agricultural organizations, conservation districts, and local governments nominated interest group representatives. Local governments on the WRIA 15 Committee voted on the nominees in order to select local organizations to represent agricultural interests, environmental interests, and the residential construction industry. Ecology invited the selected entities to participate on the Committee. Committee members are listed in Table 1. This list includes all of the members identified by the Legislature that agreed to participate on the WRIA 15 Committee.6 Table 1: WRIA 15 Committee Participating Entities Entity Name Representing Kitsap County County government King County County government Mason County County government Pierce County County government Puyallup Tribe Tribal government Skokomish Tribe Tribal government Squaxin Island Tribe Tribal government Suquamish Tribe Tribal government Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Tribal government 6 All participating entities committed to participate in the process and designated representatives and alternates to sit on the WRIA 15 Committee. A roster with the names of the representatives is available in Appendix A. The City of Poulsbo originally participated in the process but withdrew from the Committee in October 2020. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 6 February 2021 Page 151 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT Entity Name Representing City of Port Orchard City government City of Bremerton City government City of Gig Harbor City government City of Bainbridge Island City government Kitsap Public Utility District Water utility Department of Fish and Wildlife State agency Department of Ecology State agency Kitsap Building Association Residential construction industry Kitsap Conservation District Agricultural interest group Great Peninsula Conservancy Environmental interest group Mason-Kitsap Farm Bureau - ex officio Self Washington Water Service - ex off icio Self The WRIA 15 Committee invited the Mason-Kitsap Farm Bureau and the Washington Water Service to participate as "ex-officio" members. Although not identified in the law, the ex-officio members provide valuable information and perspective as subject matter experts. The ex- officio members are active but non -voting participants of the WRIA 15 Committee. The law does not identify a role for the Committee following development of the watershed plan. 1.3.2 Committee Structure and Decision Making The WRIA 15 Committee held its first meeting in October 2018. Between October 2018 and January 2021, the WRIA 15 Committee held 28 Committee meetings.' All Committee and workgroup meetings were open to the public. The WRIA 15 Committee met monthly and as needed to meet deadlines. From March 2020 through April 2021, the Committee met virtually due to the global pandemic. The two and a half years of planning consisted of training, research, and developing watershed plan components. Ecology technical staff, WRIA 15 Committee members, and partners presented on topics to provide context for components of the plan, such as an overview of WRIA 15 hydrogeology, water law, tribal treaty rights, salmon recovery, and local planning processes. Ecology staff chaired the WRIA 15 Committee and provided administrative support and technical assistance. Ecology contracted with consultants to provide facilitation and technical support for the Committee. The facilitator supported the Committee's discussions and decision - making and coordinated recommendations for policy change and adaptive management. The technical consultants developed products that informed Committee decisions and development ' This includes regular Committee meetings and special Committee meetings where most representatives attended. This does not include project workgroup, technical workgroup, or one-time workgroup meetings. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 7 February 2021 Page 152 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT of the plan. Examples include working with counties on growth projections, calculating consumptive use using multiple methods, preparing maps and other tools to support decisions, and researching project ideas. The technical consultants brought a range of expertise to the Committee including hydrogeology, geographic information system (GIS) analysis, fish biology, engineering, and planning. The technical consultants developed the technical memorandums referenced throughout this watershed plan. The WRIA 15 Committee established two workgroups to support planning efforts and to achieve specific tasks: • The Technical Workgroup focused on preparing recommendations for PE well projections and consumptive use estimates. • The Project Workgroup focused on developing and reviewing projects within the Committee's project inventory (additional workgroups that met only one time covered topics such as beaver management, policies, and adaptive management). The workgroups were open to all WRIA 15 Committee members as well as non -Committee members that brought capacity or expertise not available on the Committee. The workgroups made no binding decisions but presented information to the Committee as either recommendations or findings. The Committee acted on workgroup recommendations, as deemed appropriate. During the initial WRIA 15 Committee meetings, members developed and agreed to operating principles.$ The operating principles established a process for meetings, participation expectations, procedures for voting, structure of the Committee, communication, and other needs in order to support the Committee in reaching consensus on a final plan. By statutory design, this planning process brought a diversity of perspectives to the table. Therefore, it was important for the Committee to identify a clear decision -making process. The WRIA 15 Committee strived for consensus, and when consensus could not be reached, the chair and facilitator documented the Committee members' positions. The Committee strived for consensus because the authorizing legislation requires that all members of the Committee approve the final watershed plan prior to Ecology's review (RCW 90.94.030[31 "...all members of a Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee must approve the plan prior to adoption"). Therefore, consensus on the foundational decisions during plan development served as the best indicators of the Committee's progress toward an approved plan. All consensus and dissenting opinions were documented in meeting summaries that were reviewed and agreed upon by the Committee. The Committee recognized that flexibility was needed in terms of timeline, and if a compromise failed to reach consensus within the identified timeline, the Committee agreed to allow the process for developing the plan to move s Complete operating principles can be found on the WRIA 15 Committee EZ View webpage and in Appendix B: https://www.ezview.wa.j4ov/site/alias 1962/37327/watershed_ restoration_ and _enhancement _-_wria_15.aspx WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 8 February 2021 Page 153 of 158 Back to Agenda WRIA 15 WATERSHED PLAN — FINAL DRAFT forward while the work towards consensus continued. The Committee agreed to revisit decisions where consensus was not reached. The Committee reviewed components of the watershed plan iteratively throughout the process in addition to reviewing the draft plan as a whole. [Language to be included when appropriate]: The WRIA 15 Committee reached final approval on the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan on THIS DATE 2021. WRIA 15 — Final Draft Watershed Plan Page 9 February 2021 Page 154 of 158 Back to Agenda RCW 90.94.030 Authorization for new domestic groundwater withdrawals exempt from permitting with a potential impact on a closed water body and potential impairment to an instream flow —Requirements —Watershed restoration and enhancement committees —Watershed restoration and enhancement plan —Fees —Adoption of rules —Application of section. (1) Unless requirements are otherwise specified in the applicable rules adopted under this chapter or chapter or RCW, potential impacts on a closed water body and potential impairment to an instream flow are authorized for new domestic groundwater withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050 through compliance with the requirements established in this section. (2)(a) In the following water resource inventory areas with instream flow rules adopted by the department under chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW that do not explicitly regulate permit -exempt groundwater withdrawals and that have either not adopted a watershed plan, or adopted a partial watershed plan, under chapter 90— RCW, the department shall establish watershed restoration and enhancement committees in the following water resource inventory areas: 7 (Snohomish); 8 (Cedar-Sammamish); 9 (Duwamish-Green); 10 (Puyallup -White); 12 (Chambers -Clover); 13 (Deschutes); 14 (Kennedy-Goldsborough); and 15 (Kitsap). (b) The department shall chair the watershed restoration and enhancement committee and invite the following entities to participate: (i) A representative from each federally recognized Indian tribe that has reservation land within the water resource inventory area; (ii) A representative from each federally recognized Indian tribe that has a usual and accustomed harvest area within the water resource inventory area; (iii) A representative from the department of fish and wildlife, appointed by the director of the department of fish and wildlife; (iv) A representative designated by each county within the water resource inventory area; (v) A representative designated by each city within the water resource inventory area; (vi) A representative designated by the largest irrigation district within the water resource inventory area; (vii) A representative designated by the largest publicly owned water purveyor providing water within the water resource inventory area that is not a municipality; (viii) A representative designated by a local organization representing the residential construction industry within the water resource inventory area; (ix) A representative designated by a local organization representing environmental interests within the water resource inventory area; and (x) A representative designated by a local organization representing agricultural interests within the water resource inventory area. (3) By June 30, 2021, the department shall prepare and adopt a watershed restoration and enhancement plan for each watershed listed under subsection (2)(a) of this section, in collaboration with the watershed restoration and enhancement Page 155 of 158 Back to Agenda committee. Except as described in (h) of this subsection, all members of a watershed restoration and enhancement committee must approve the plan prior to adoption. (a) The watershed restoration and enhancement plan should include recommendations for projects and actions that will measure, protect, and enhance instream resources and improve watershed functions that support the recovery of threatened and endangered salmonids. Plan recommendations may include, but are not limited to, acquiring senior water rights, water conservation, water reuse, stream gaging, groundwater monitoring, and developing natural and constructed infrastructure, which includes but is not limited to such projects as floodplain restoration, off -channel storage, and aquifer recharge. Qualifying projects must be specifically designed to enhance streamflows and not result in negative impacts to ecological functions or critical habitat. (b) At a minimum, the plan must include those actions that the committee determines to be necessary to offset potential impacts to instream flows associated with permit -exempt domestic water use. The highest priority recommendations must include replacing the quantity of consumptive water use during the same time as the impact and in the same basin or tributary. Lower priority projects include projects not in the same basin or tributary and projects that replace consumptive water supply impacts only during critical flow periods. The plan may include projects that protect or improve instream resources without replacing the consumptive quantity of water where such projects are in addition to those actions that the committee determines to be necessary to offset potential consumptive impacts to instream flows associated with permit -exempt domestic water use. (c) Prior to adoption of the watershed restoration and enhancement plan, the department must determine that actions identified in the plan, after accounting for new projected uses of water over the subsequent twenty years, will result in a net ecological benefit to instream resources within the water resource inventory area. (d) The watershed restoration and enhancement plan must include an evaluation or estimation of the cost of offsetting new domestic water uses over the subsequent twenty years, including withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050. (e) The watershed restoration and enhancement plan must include estimates of the cumulative consumptive water use impacts over the subsequent twenty years, including withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050. (f) The watershed restoration and enhancement plan may include: (i) Recommendations for modification to fees established under this subsection; (ii) Standards for water use quantities that are less than authorized under RCW 90.44.050 or more or less than authorized under subsection (4) of this section for withdrawals exempt from permitting; (iii) Specific conservation requirements for new water users to be adopted by local or state permitting authorities; or (iv) Other approaches to manage water resources for a water resource inventory area or a portion thereof. (g) After adoption of a watershed restoration and enhancement plan, the department shall evaluate the plan recommendations and initiate rule making, if necessary, to incorporate recommendations into rules adopted under this chapter or under chapter 90.22 or 90.54 RCW. Any modification to fees collected under subsection (4) of this section or standards for water use quantities that are less than authorized Page 156 of 158 Back to Agenda under RCW 90.44.050 or more or less than authorized under subsection (4) of this section for withdrawals exempt from permitting may not be applied unless authorized by rules adopted under this chapter or under chapter 90.54 RCW. (h) If the watershed restoration and enhancement committee fails to approve a plan by June 30, 2021, the director of the department shall submit the final draft plan to the salmon recovery funding board established under RCW 77.85.110 and request that the salmon recovery funding board provide a technical review and provide recommendations to the director to amend the final draft plan, if necessary, so that actions identified in the plan, after accounting for new projected uses of water over the subsequent twenty years, will result in a net ecological benefit to instream resources within the water resource inventory area. The director of the department shall consider the recommendations and may amend the plan without committee approval prior to adoption. After plan adoption, the director of the department shall initiate rule making within six months to incorporate recommendations into rules adopted under this chapter or under chapter 90.22 or 90.54 RCW, and shall adopt amended rules within two years of initiation of rule making. (4)(a) Until a watershed restoration and enhancement plan is approved and rules are adopted under subsection (3) of this section, a city or county issuing a building permit under RCW 19.27.097(1)(d), or approving a subdivision under chapter 58.17 RCW in a watershed listed in subsection (2)(a) of this section must: (i) Record relevant restrictions or limitations associated with water supply with the property title; (ii) Collect applicable fees, as described under this section; (iii) Record the number of building permits issued under chapter 19.27 RCW or subdivision approvals issued under chapter 58.17 RCW subject to the provisions of this section; (iv) Annually transmit to the department three hundred fifty dollars of each fee collected under this subsection; (v) Annually transmit an accounting of building permits and subdivision approvals subject to the provisions of this section to the department; (vi) Until rules have been adopted that specify otherwise, require the following measures for each new domestic use that relies on a withdrawal exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050: (A) An applicant shall pay a fee of five hundred dollars to the permitting authority; (B) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, an applicant may obtain approval for a withdrawal exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050 for domestic use only, with a maximum annual average withdrawal of nine hundred fifty gallons per day per connection; and (C) An applicant shall manage stormwater runoff on -site to the extent practicable by maximizing infiltration, including using low -impact development techniques, or pursuant to stormwater management requirements adopted by the local permitting authority, if locally adopted requirements are more stringent. (b) Upon the issuance of a drought emergency order under RCW 43.83B.405, the department may curtail withdrawal of groundwater exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050 and approved under this subsection (4) to no more than three hundred fifty gallons per day per connection for indoor use only. Notwithstanding the limitation to Page 157 of 158 Back to Agenda no more than three hundred fifty gallons per day per connection for indoor use only, an applicant may use groundwater exempt from permitting to maintain a fire control buffer during a drought emergency order. (5) Rules adopted under this chapter or chapter 90.54 RCW may: (a) Rely on watershed restoration and enhancement plan recommendations and procedures established in this section to authorize new withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050 that would potentially impact a closed water body or a minimum flow or level; (b) Rely on projects identified in the watershed restoration and enhancement plan to offset consumptive water use; and (c) Include updates to fees based on the watershed restoration and enhancement committee's determination of the costs for offsetting consumptive water use. (6) This section only applies to new domestic groundwater withdrawals exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050 in the following water resource inventory areas with instream flow rules adopted under chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW that do not explicitly regulate permit -exempt groundwater withdrawals: 7 (Snohomish); 8 (Cedar- Sammamish); 9 (Duwamish-Green); 10 (Puyallup -White); 12 (Chambers -Clover); 13 (Deschutes); 14 (Kennedy-Goldsborough); and 15 (Kitsap) and does not restrict the withdrawal of groundwater for other uses that are exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050. Page 158 of 158