The URL can be used to link to this page

06 June 6, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda and PacketCITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Commission 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 iing@portorchardwa.gov PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 61h, 2023 — 6:00 pm *** Attendees and Planning Commissioners may attend in person at City Hall or via Zoom*** Join Zoom Meeting, Public Link: httys:Hus02web.zoom.us/i/86180242823 Dial -in (phone audio) only: + 1253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 8618024 2823 Planning Commissioners please use individual webinar links. 1. Call to Order: 6:00 p.m. Pledge of allegiance. 2. Welcome and Introduction. Planning Commission and City Staff Introductions. 3. Audience Comments: Topics not listed for public hearing on tonight's agenda. Please limit comments to 3 minutes. 4. Approval of Minutes from May 2, 2023. (Attachment) (ACTION) 5. Business Items: a) PUBLIC HEARING: Housing Action Plan (Attachment) (ACTION) The City of Port Orchard is considering the adoption of a Housing Action Plan (HAP) which identifies strategies, actions, and policy tools to create enough housing options to meet community needs. The HAP is a policy document with a set of steps for the City to support and encourage new housing production that meets local housing needs for residents of all income levels. Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, Senior Planner b) PUBLIC HEARING: LR23-CODE AMENDMENT-04 POMC 2.20 Planning Commission (Attachment) (ACTION) The City of Port Orchard is considering revisions to Port Orchard Municipal Code 2.20 for clearer guidance and regulations for the Planning Commission. Staff Contact: Josie Rademacher, Assistant Planner c) DISCUSSION: Open Space Request (Attachment) The City of Port Orchard has received a request to designate certain property in Amherst Plat as permanent open space. Staff Contact: Jim Fisk, Senior Planner d) DISCUSSION: McCormick Village Report (Attachment) A progress report of McCormick Village Commercial. Staff Contact: Nick Bond, Community Development Director e) DISCUSSION: Director's Report Update to the Planning Commission on recent related to past and upcoming Planning Commission activity. Staff Contact: Nick Bond, Community Development Director 6. Adjourn Next Planning Commission Meeting — July 4, 2023 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Planning Commission Minutes 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: (36o) 874-5533 • Fax: (36o) 876-498o Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 2, 2023 Hybrid Zoom Teleconference COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bek Ashby, Tyler McKlosky, Stephanie Bailey, Dave Bernstein, Joe Morrison, and Paul Fontenot. Absent: Annette Stewart. CITY STAFF: Community Development Director Nick Bond, and Assistant Planner Josie Rademacher. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Ashby called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION: Chair Ashby introduced the present Planning Commissioners, Vice Chair McKlosky, Commissioner Bailey, Commissioner Bernstein, Commissioner Morrison and Commissioner Fontenot and present City staff, Community Development Director Nick Bond, and Assistant Planner Josie Rademacher. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public comment was open to any subject not related to the public hearing. There were no comments from the public regarding issues not on the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL 4, 2023: Commissioner McKlosky made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected from the April 4t' meeting. Commissioner Fontenot seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: LR23-CODE AMENDMENT-05: POMC 20.24.040, COUNTER COMPLETENESS Community Development Director, Nick Bond, introduced the presented ordinance to amend Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 20.24.040. Bond stated that this section of code outlines the requirements for determining applications counter complete. This process is important to the City and applicants in determining accurate submittal dates to calculate permitting timelines. Bond states that since the adoption of POMC 20.24.040, the City has seen an increase in electronic submittals. Bond stated that while the interpretation of the existing code has allowed the City to maintain acceptable processing periods, clarifying electronic submittals and the payment of associated permitting fees should provide more certainty to all users of this section of code. Chair Ashby opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Chair Ashby closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morrison made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amending Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 20.24.040 as presented. Commissioner Bernstein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. PUBLIC HEARING: HOUSING ACTION PLAN (HAP) Community Development Director Nick Bond introduced the City's proposed Housing Action Plan (HAP). Bond stated that the Housing Action Plan (HAP) was funded by a grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce the City received back in July of 2022. Bond stated that for the last 10 months, the consultant team and city staff have been working on developing the Housing Action Plan. The plan is meant to provide a number of recommendations on how the City can remove barriers to creating housing, specifically affordable housing. Scott Bonjukian, from Maker's Architecture, and Andrew Oliver, from Leland, gave a presentation on the changes that have been made since the last draft was presented. Chair Ashby opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Chair Ashby closed the public hearing. Chair Ashby gave a presentation of her comments on the Housing Action Plan. Commissioner Bailey made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Bernstein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bailey made a motion to continue the public hearing until the June 61h Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner McKlosky seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. DISCUSSION: LR 23-CODE AMENDMENT-04 POMC 2.20 PLANNING COMMISSION Assistant Planner, Josie Rademacher shared that City staff provided a redline version of Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 2.20 outlining the proposed changes to the code for the Planning Commission to discuss. that includes the recommendations from the Planning Commission provided during discussion at the April Planning Commission meeting. Rademacher stated that should the Planning Commission choose to move forward with the provided recommendations, they should consider scheduling a public hearing for the next scheduled meeting on June 6th, 2023. Commissioner Morrison made a recommendation to hold a public hearing at the June 6th Planning Commission meeting on the proposed amendment of POMC 2.20. Commissioner Bernstein seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Page 2 of 3 D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director, Nick Bond, shared information on a training opportunity for Planning Commissioner's and Elected Officials through the Southwest Washington Planners Forums on the Comprehensive Plan Update Process, that will be held on May 1 lth, from 12- 1:30pm. Additionally, Bond shared that the Commercial element of the McCormick Village project which includes a mix of housing types is in for permitting and that the 2 grants the City applied for from the Recreation and Conservation Office of Washington State to make sport court improvements to Givens Park, and shoreline restoration to accommodate the Port Orchard Community Event Center were approved by the legislature. ADJOURN: Chair Ashby adjourned the meeting at 7:40 pm. Bek Ashby, Chair Nick Bond, Community Development Director Page 3 of 3 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (36o) 874-5533 • FAX: (36o) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 5a Meeting Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing- Housing Prepared by: Nick Bond, Development Subject: Action Plan Director Issue: The City of Port Orchard is currently developing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to identify strategies, actions, and policy tools to create enough housing options to meet community needs. The HAP is a policy document with a set of steps for the City to support and encourage new housing production that meets local housing needs for residents of all income levels. Staff presented the Existing Conditions Report in February which revealed that housing production in Port Orchard falls short of what is needed, putting pressure on housing prices, rents and limiting housing options for Port Orchard's lowest -income households. Staff provided an initial draft of the HAP to the Land Use Committee in March and the Planning Commission in April meeting concurrent with a presentation from the City's consultant, Makers Architecture. Even though the report was not quite finished, staff wanted to share some preliminary recommendations from the report. Staff and Maker's Architecture refined the HAP based on Planning Commission's and the Land Use Committee's initial input. Staff provided public notice for the May 2, 2023 public hearing consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25 on April 18, 2023. At the May meeting, the Planning Commission provided additional input to the April 25, 2023 draft HAP's contents. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to the June Planning Commission meeting. Staff provided the April 25, 2023 draft HAP to the City Council and discussed the draft with the City Council at the May 16 meeting. Based on the input received from the Planning Commission and City Council, staff revised the HAP and is provided in redline version in tonight's packet. As of the date of Report preparation, the Department of Community Development received one comment regarding the HAP which generally was consistent with the Planning Commission's May discussion. The Planning Commission is requested to continue the public hearing on the revised draft Housing Action Plan and take additional public testimony. The Planning Commission is asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the HAP after the conclusion of the public hearing. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution accepting the Housing Action Plan dated May 24, 2023. Suggested Motion: ""I move to recommend that the City Council approve a Resolution accepting the May 24, 2023 Housing Action Plan, as presented." Attachments: Public comments, April 25, 2023 draft Housing Action Plan Redline, May 24, 2023 Housing Action Plan with appendicies, and Resolution Port Orchard Housing Action Plan II 11;im:VIINI *J Second Draft - April 25, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 2 Thank You Special thanks to the Port Orchard community for sharing your time, knowledge, and energy to shape this housing action plan that meets your needs and interests. Mayor Robert Putaansuu City Council Fred Chang John Clauson Shawn Cucciardi Scott Diener Cindy Lucarelli Jay Rosapepe Mark Trenary City Staff Nick Bond, Director of the Community Development Department Jim Fisk, Senior Planner Josie Rademacher, Assistant Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Consultant Team MAKERS Architecture & Urban Design: Bob Bengford, Scott Bonjukian, Markus Johnson Leland Consulting Group: Chris Zahas, Andrew Oliver Stakeholder Organizations Interviewed Port Orchard City Council and Mayor Kitsap Housing Authority Disney & Associates Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce Tarragon Contour Construction McCormick Communities Washington State This plan was supported by a Department of Commerce grant for cities to support housing affordability. DRAFT - MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 0 1 Page 3 Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................... 1 - Background Information....... 2 - Regulatory Strategies............ 3 - Programmatic Strategies ..... 4 - Citywide Planning Strategies 5 - Funding Strategies ................ 6 - Implementation ..................... Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 4 .................................................................................................. 6 ................................................................................................18 ................................................................................................34 ................................................................................................ 50 ................................................................................................ 59 ................................................................................................71 ACS. American Community Survey, an annual product of the U.S. Census Bureau. ADU. Accessory dwelling unit. AMI. Area median income. CHAS. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a product of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. GIS. Geographic information system. GFC. General facilities charge. HAP. Housing Action Plan. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LEHD. Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. MFTE. Multifamily tax exemption program. MSA. Metropolitan Statistical Area. OFM. Washington State Office of Financial Management. POMC. Port Orchard Municipal Code (city law). RCW. Revised Code of Washington (state law). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 4 Executive Summary The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. The process to develop the HAP included a review of Port Orchard's system of policies, programs, and regulations which shape opportunities for housing development and which impact the affordability of existing and new housing. The purpose of this effort is to identify ways to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices accessible to a greater variety of incomes. The priorities for the HAP were informed by an existing conditions and housing needs assessment, public engagement, discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission, and City staff. The HAP is intended to inform updates to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (most notably the Land Use and Housing elements) and to guide implementation strategies such as development regulations, housing programs, and infrastructure spending priorities. The City is not obligated to adopt any of the recommended changes contained within this report except where specific requirements exist within state law in which case the City may consider the recommendations found in this report as an option for complying with the law. The report is intended to provide a menu of options for consideration as the City works to address housing diversitv. affordabilitv. and access to 0000rtunity It is recognized that Port Orchard has taken significant steps to promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunities through regulatory updates in recent years. Because of this, many of the recommendations contained in this report are focused on fine tuning zoning regulations rather than suggesting significant zoning changes. Port Orchard has comparatively few recommended zoning changes compared to other similarly sized jurisdictions due to recent actions taken by the City Council. The programmatic strategies and citywide planning strategies contained within the report are generally more significant changes to city policies that require careful consideration. Research Questions These research questions developed at the beginning of the project drove the housing analysis and the subsequent actions and strategies. 1. What are the most pressing housing needs in Port Orchard for each segment of the population? 2. What are we most concerned about and most hopeful about for residential development in Port Orchard over the next 10 years? 3. What code updates can be made to meet the needs of all economic segments of the Port Orchard community? 4. What are the biggest longstanding or new barriers to affordable and diverse residential development in Port Orchard? 5. What new or updated tools, policies, staff capacity, and funding are most likely to meet Port Orchard's housing goals? Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 5 Housing Actions and Strategies The housing actions are organized by broader strategy sections of this plan. The implementation timeline is an estimate of how long it will take to implement an action. There are also many sub -sections which may require different timelines if additional community outreach is needed, alignment with the City's annual budget process is necessary, or there is a desire to roll policy updates into the next major Comprehensive Plan update. See Section 6 for more details on implementation priorities. Strategy Description I Regulatory Strategies 2.1 Expand the allowed uses High 0-6 months 2.2 Streamline the building type standards Medium 0-6 months 2.3 Adjust form and intensity standards High 0-6 months 2.4 Adjust other standards Medium 0-6 months Programmatic Strategies 3.1 Anti -displacement strategies Medium Ongoing 3.2 Homelessness strategies High Ongoing 3.3 Support staffing needs Medium Ongoing Citywide Planning Strategies 4.1 Housing Element updates Medium 12-24 months 4.2 Land Use Element updates High 12-24 months 4.3 Public land for affordable housing Low Ongoing 4.4 McCormick East Neighborhood Planning Medium 12-24 months Funding Strategies 5.1 Adjust the multifamily tax exemption program High 0-6 months 5.2 Development fee adjustments Low 0-6 months 5.3 Local bank funding Low Ongoing 5.4 Tax increment financing Medium 6-12 months 5.5 Funding for ADU development Medium 6-12 months 5.6 State advocacy Low Ongoing Next Steps The scope of Port Orchard's housing challenges demand that a variety of strategies and actions be pursued immediately and simultaneously. This plan informs and recommends high priorities for 2023 and beyond, such as code updates (Strategy 2) and refinements to the multifamily tax exemption program (Strategy 5.1). A housing coordinator staff position should be created and hired to implement all HAP strategies and serve as the City's lead on housing policy and coordination. Updates and evaluation are recommended in the next Comprehensive Plan update in 2024, and other programmatic, funding, and planning actions can begin as soon as resources are allocated. See Section 6 — Implementation for detailed next steps. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 6 1- Background Information 1.1- Project Purpose Port Orchard is a great place to live, but it is getting more expensive. As the population grows and diversifies, the supply of homes and variety of homes is not keeping pace. As a result, it is getting harder for people of average means and different family structures to find and afford a home across all areas of the city. The supply of housing is closely linked to the price of housing. The purpose of the Housing Action Plan is to identify strategies that promote more housing options for current and future residents at all income levels and support increases in the housing supply. Port Orchard's residents are diverse and each household has its own preferences and experiences in how they live. This plan is intended to help guide City actions over the next several years to promote more housing choices for current and future residents. The City is able to undertake this project thanks to grant funding provided by Washington State through the Department of Commerce. This grant program allocated funds for cities with the goal of supporting housing affordability through regulatory and planning actions. 1.2 - Housing Needs A brief summary of Port Orchard's current and future housing needs is provided below. For more detail, refer to the complete HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report in the -Appendix B. which contains detailed information on the full range of Port Orchard's demographics, household incomes, employment trends, housing inventory and production statistics, housing affordability considerations, existing housing funding and policy frameworks, and a discussion of buildable land capacity in the city. Port Orchard is a fast-growing community with a 2022 population estimate of 16,400 and a 2044 population target of 26,087 residents.' The city has grown on average 4 percent annually since 2000 and is expected to grow at a rate of close to 3 percent over the next 20 years (excluding possible annexations), potentially exceeding countywide growth targets. Some of the city's growth has been due to annexations in the 2000s, but the continued forecast for rapid growth, as well as decreasing vacancy rates over the past decade, suggests an ongoing demand for housing in Port Orchard.2 Current permitting data indicates that housing in Port Orchard is being produced at a rapid rate. In total, 5,198 units are in some stage of permitting citywide, and 2,482 of those units are planned to be completed between 2022 and 2024, of which 45 percent will be multifamily units.3 This permit data reflects all potential housing production currently permitted, including all proposed development throughout McCormick Woods. Although not all units that have been permitted will necessarily be constructed, this number demonstrates the continued high rate of ' 2022 Population: Washington Office of Financial Management Postcensal Population Estimate. 2044 Population Target: Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update, 2022. 2 Census -reported rental vacancy rates have declined from 7.8% to 5.8% between 2010-2020. CoStar, a commercial real estate database, showed multifamily rental vacancy rates declining from 6.5% to 3.5% between 2012 and 2022. 3 City of Port Orchard Permit Data Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 7 housing production and demand in the cit%This high rate Of hA"q*Rg PFGdUGt*eR Will nearly de ble the nit„s hO going inveRtgry within the next so„oral years. Even with this high rate of production, prices are still increasing as detailed below. About 60 percent of Port Orchard households are homeowners and 40 percent are renters. Nearly 70 percent of households are family households, and the average household size is 2.4 people.4 As shown below in Figure 1, there is a mismatch between household size and housing unit size, with larger housing units available compared to household sizes. This shows a need for increased supply of smaller housing units to better serve the variety of household sizes in the city. Household Size Housing Unit Size drooms 27% 3-person household 16°i° 2-person � 3 household 4& 34% bedrooms � 41% Figure 1. Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04 Port Orchard's median household income (MHI) was $71,789 in 2020. This is $7,250 less than the Kitsap County median, though it has increased 21 percent since 2010 - a higher rate than county and statewide income increases over the same period. However, this increase was much more pronounced for homeowner households than renter households, as shown below in Figure 25 Overall, about eight percent of Port Orchard residents earn under $10,000 per year, compared to four percent countywide, and over a quarter of renters earn under 30 percent of the median family income (MFI).6 4 2020 American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04. 5 American Community Survey 2020 Five -Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index 6 The Median Family Income for the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by HUD, was $102,500 in 2022. DRAFT — MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 0 1 Page 8 $71,719 $75,600 $59,325 $97,524 ■ 2010 2020 $44,074 $46,209 $70,268 $78,969 on on no on Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard Kitsap County (All Households) (Ownership Households)(Renter Households) $77,006 $67,548 Washington Figure 2. Inflation -Adjusted Median Household Income in Port Orchard and Region, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index Figure 3 below shows a detailed breakdown of Port Orchard and Kitsap County household incomes, showing the range of income levels found throughout the city. The largest share of households earn between $75,000 and $100,000 per year. Port Orchard has smaller shares of high -income earners making over $150,000 per year than Kitsap County, and a much larger share of the lowest -income households earning less than $10,000 per year than countywide averages. ' 16, 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% ■Port Orchard OKitsap County Y -�C -NL -�L -SL -se -�L ,C O O O O O O Ln O Ln 0 'Uq Y bMR b�.oR v - Y -se Y O O O CD CD rn CD Lin b4 W b4 to W b4 I� b4 } Ln C)N Ln O CD N CD O N b4 O Ln O O N Ln b4 b4 b4 Figure 3. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B19001 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 9 Lower -income Port Orchard residents face significant challenges paying for housing -70 percent of households earning under 30 percent of the MFI spend more than half of their income on housing costs, and 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of the MFI spend over 30 percent of their income on housing costs.' This shows a need for deeply subsidized housing for Port Orchard's lower -income residents, corroborated by stakeholders who described over 1,000 people on the waiting list for housing vouchers administered by the Kitsap Housing Authority. Family size and composition can also affect housing needs, particularly when correlated with incomes. In Port Orchard. 69 percent of households are family households. Of these, most are married -couple families. nearly 3,000 households. The remaining 824 are classified as "other family." which includes single -parent households. Census data indicates about 250 Port Orchard households are single mothers earning less than the federal poverty level. This is about five times higher than the number of married -couple households below the poverty level.$ Kitsap County statistics are similar. This data shows another group of Port Orchard residents who potentially have needs for deeply subsidized housing. / , In recent years, housing prices have risen rapidly in Port Orchard when compared with incomes, as shown below in Figure 4. Rents increased 28 percent and home values increased 56 percent between 2015 and 2020, compared to only a 15 percent increase in incomes over the same period. This shows that housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident in recent years, a trend also seen across the country. As of 2020, the average Port Orchard household could afford a home worth about $303,012, but the typical home in the city was worth 1.5 times as much, $468,702.9 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Median Gross Rent Zillow Home Value Index ` Median Household Income Figure 4. Change in Home Prices, Rents, and Incomes in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: Zillow, American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, DP04, Leland Consulting Group HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 8 2021 American Community Survey, Table 617010 9 Home affordability calculated using Freddie Mac interest rate as of December 2022, Zillow home price data, income data from 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 10 A housina affordabilitv chart illustratina home Drices which would be affordable to a varietv of income levels is shown below in Figure 5. Port Orchard's median incomes and sales prices are both shown. This data illustrates the degree to which ownership housing has become out of each for manv Port Orchard residents. even those earnina more than the citv's median household income.10 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 ■ Household Income ($1,000s) ■ House Price ($1,000s) $400 $300 Median Household $200 Income ($71) $192 $96 $100 $50 A household earning $100,000 could not afford the median Port Orchard sales price of $468,000 even though they are earning $575 nearly $30,000 more than the median household income. $383 $287 $150 $75 $100 ■ $200 $766 Figure 5. Housing Prices Affordable to Various Incomes with Port Orchard Median Income and Sales Price, 2021. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Preliminary Kitsap County housing targets indicate that Port Orchard will see a demand for up to 4,804 new housing units by 2044. This is fewer housing units than are currently in the Dermittina Diaeline and indicate that Port Orchard may exceed its housina and/or DODUlation growth targets prior to 2044. Figure 6 shows the breakdown of these units by household income level, based on Port Orchard's current income distribution. The breakdown of units by income is relatively even. It includes about 1,000 units over the next two decades for the lowest -income households which can only be met through regulated affordable (i.e., subsidized) housing, and nearly 1,000 units for households earning between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI (often referred to as "workforce" housing) which can be provided through a variety of channels 10 Note that housina price data from Zillow is used for this analvsis. whereas other data comes from the US Census American Community Survey. Although the Census does collect data on the value of homes. Census home value data reflects the occupants' assessment of their home's value when surveyed, rather than the market realities of how much people are currently paving for housing. Zillow's Home Value Index is a well -researched dataset which aaareaates current sales values to reflect up-to-date market prices and therefore is a more accurate representation of what Port Orchard households would currently need to pay in order to purchase new housing in the city, Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 including subsidized units, vouchers, other incentive programs such as MFTE, and filtering" of existing units as new housing stock is built. There will also remain a demand for about 1,200 market rate housing units targeting households earning more than 120 percent AN over the next 20 years. 1,400 � 1,200 N O 1,000 800 a� a� z 600 U) c 400 3 a� z 200 0 0-30 30-50 50-80 80-100 100-120 120+ % AMI Figure 6. Housing Demand by Income Bracket in Port Orchard, 2022-2044. Sources: Leland Consulting Group, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies "Filtering" refers to the process by which new housing units depreciate overtime, becoming more affordable to lower -income households as other new units are added to the supply. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 12 1.3 — Geographic Equity within Port Orchard Port Orchard is becoming inc easingly stratified based on geography and income levels. The areas of Port Orchard located west of SR-16 have higher median incomes, higher property values, and housing costs. Areas east of SR-16 have median incomes that are lower than average, and property values and housing costs are typically lower. There are growing concerns of equity in investment and opportunity among Port Orchard residents based on where a person lives. Increasing, affordable housing types are being constructed in areas where incomes are lower and less affordable housing types are being constructed in areas where incomes are higher. New schools (including a new second high school) are planned in the areas west of SR-16 and add to concerns of unequal investment. N Census Tract921.01 Census Tract921.02 Census Tract922 Census Tract923 Census Tract924 Census Tract925 Census Tract928.01 40t 01 $45,096 /$36,299 $28,431535,065 $33,671 $38,Z6Z $36,995 M1le6ian lnrnme 1pe. aplrl Median lnmmr(perra�lul MxNan lnmme(perranlal McA�an lirmmziyerra�lra� Mzdian lnrrme(peirap�f Mahan lnrnmeiryurap Mudlan lncunr:.per copliol 1456,600 $361,600 $317,700 $268,200 $329,800 $350,200 $339,800 Me.:llan valuenlrrvnx n_n�pretl unnc McAlan vz Weoln.vne.r-n rupien umrc Mwl:an vas:w.ornwnc.r- r::piwl unnc MMian,zlwofnwnc..,-n rupiwl ::nir. Mwlmn var:x. of nwiw.r-nsrupiM unnc Mwlian rzluenfnxne:- rupleA untt. Median ruluuofownc: occupcd umis Figure 7. Median Income and Median Home Value of Owner -occupied Unit in Port Orchard, 2021. Sources: 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Census Reporter Profile This housing strategy includes recommendations that seek to encourage greater geographic equity and opportunities for people at all income levels to live in all areas of the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 13 1.4 - Racially Disparate Impacts "Racially disparate impacts" occur when policies, practices, rules or other systems result in a disproportionate effect on one or more racial groups. Manypast and present zoning policies used in cities across the nation have racially disparate impacts, reflecting a systemic issue as a result of federal laws, programs, and economic and housing policies dating back half a century or more. Under RCW 36.70A.070(2). cities in their comprehensive glans must identifv "local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing." While this HAP does not complete this mandatory work, instead deferring to the next major comprehensive plan update due in 2024. one brief example of this concept applied to household tenure statistics is provided below. „eGpleS' and o+hR*G*t*es. In Port Orchard, for o..a., ple- _40% of all households are occupied by renters. About 35% of White households are renters, while 58% of Hispanic and Latino households and 88% of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households are renters.12 Therefore, policies that restrict the supply and price of rental housing can have a disproportionate impact on people of color. Further, almost half of all renter -occupied households are considered cost - burdened, while just one in 10 owner -occupied households are considered cost -burdened. White Households Asian households Black households Hispanic and Latino households Other / Two or more race households Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander... 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■ Rent . Own Figure 8. Share of Household Tenure By Race/Ethnicity. Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table B25003 series 12 Source: American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, B25003 Tables. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 14 Figure 9 below shows the same data by total number of households. White alone 1,417 2,864 95 Asian 99 98 Black or African American 73 Hispanic or Latino origin I s W 206 One/Two or more races U Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 143 193 27 1,000 2,000 3,000 Households ■ Rent d Own 4,000 5,000 Figure 9. Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity. Source: A CS 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table B25003 series A common form of rental housing is multifamily (apartment) buildings, which are more limited in where and how they can be built in Port Orchard compared to where and how single-family homes are regulated. Zoning matters for social welfare because where people live makes a difference. Neighborhood quality can have significant effects on long-term outcomes like school performance, income, labor mobility, and health. It also contributes to the multi - generational wealth gap if some people are not able Figure 10. Example of multifamily housing. to purchase quality homes that increase in value as much over time as homes in higher -priced neighborhoods, resulting in smaller inheritances for descendants. People of color generally pay higher shares of their income for housing costs and have less savings for down payments, meaning the home prices they can afford are lower or they are forced to rent. Smaller homes which have lower costs are needed not only for people of color, but also Port Orchard's large share of small households (56% of households are made up of one or two people but only 37% of housing units are studio, one- or two -bedroom units). Occasionally, larger multi -bedroom homes are good options for people who want to split costs with extended family members or roommates, but apartments with three or more bedrooms are rare and there are few shared -living options like cottage clusters or triplexes available. Common racially disparate policies and practices at the local level include the following: 0 Minimum lot sizes Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 15 • Lack of available land zoned for multifamily housing and middle housing (like duplexes and townhomes) • Multifamily housing only allowed in busy commercial districts, polluted industrial areas, in hazardous areas like floodplains, and/or near loud and auto -oriented arterial roads • Multifamily housing not being allowed near amenities like parks, schools, grocery stores, and healthcare facilities • Excessive minimum setbacks, building height limits, parking standards, historic preservation standards, and other restrictions that limit the housing capacity on individual sites, especially for multifamily and middle housing • Excessive fees, complicated processes, and unclear regulations, especially for small projects commonly undertaken by local homeowners and small investors like adding an accessory dwelling unit or building a duplex • Complete prohibitions on low-cost building materials • Lack of trees and park space in areas near multifamily housing or neighborhoods with lower incomes • Lack of low-cost transportation options like pedestrian/bike routes and transit service connecting multifamily housing to jobs and services Racially disparate impacts are not Iimitorl to Dnrt A-nrl this issue has been gaining much -needed attention across the state and country, even earning a statement on zoning from the White House. Other E+tydev, -types of racially disparate impacts have historically included; redlining, where people of color were not able to access loans and credit in certain neighborhoods; highways built through communities of color; and disinvestment in infrastructure like transit, schools, and parks in communities of color. It should be noted that some of the least racially diverse census tracts in the city are those that were primarily developed while in unincorporated Kitsap County and which were only annexed by the City of Port Orchard over the past 15 years (see Section 1.3). These are also areas where the City is seeing significant development of multi -family and middle housing. This Housing Action Plan provides a number of strategies to address most of these issues, which focus on easing regulations and streamlining standards to make it easier to build middle housing and multifamily housing in more locations. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 16 1.5 - Military Population A unique characteristic of the Port Orchard population is the presence of military personnel, families, and contractors. The military_ provided countywide data on its civilian population for this report, but provided no data on active duty population nor data specific to personnel living in Port Orchard. Census data shows approximately 645 Port Orchard residents, representing 5.5% of the employed population of the city, employed in the Armed Forces overall, with a moderate margin of error.13 This likely reflects enlisted personnel rather than civilian employees but provides a general picture of the extent of military employment in the city. In addition, anecdotal information provided by stakeholders, appointed and elected officials suggests that the City houses a significant military population in Port Orchard due to employment opportunities both at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Naval Station Kitsap. A significant portion of this population is transient and may only live in Port Orchard for short periods of time. The military_ population is diverse, potentially more so than Port Orchard's non- military population, and some of these residents receive housing stipends which are not reflected in household income data. Housing stipends in 2023 (known as Basic Allowance for Housing) vary from $2.136 (E01) to $3.372 (007) per month for personnel with dependents. 14 When reviewing the data collected for this report and in considering recommendations on to increase housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity, it is important to consider that some important information about the City's military population was not able to be considered when formulating recommendations. I 1.6 - Public Engagement The Housing Action Plan was informed by early and continuous public engagement. Engagement was conducted to create a plan that meets the needs and interest of the Port Orchard community. Key activities included: • One-on-one interviews with 14 stakeholders • Housing survey with 140 responses • Public kickoff meeting and presentation at City Council (July 26, 2022) • Check -in meeting with existing conditions and housing needs analysis at City Council (January 10, 2023) and Planning Commission (February 7, 2023) • Draft plan presentations at Planning Commission (April 4, 2023) • Public hearing at Planning Commission (May 2, 2023) 13 2021 American Community Survey, Table DP03 14 Personnel can decide how to allocate the BAH without a penalty for deciding to conserve some dollars on rent to pay other expenses. Therefore. actual out-of-pocket expense for an individual may be higher or lower than the prescribed rate based on choice of housin. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 17 1.76 - State Law Updates In April 2023 the Washington State Legislature passed several housing -related preemptions and other housing regulations. The following may affect Port Orchard the most significantly. Cross-references to HAP strategies are provided where preliminary review finds there are actions Port Orchard should take to meet new requirements. Direct effects to City government • HB 1110 - Reduces other zoning and permitting barriers to middle housing. See Strategy 2.4.2, Strategy 2.4.10, and Strategy 4.2.4 for recommendations to comply. • HB 1337 - Preempts common regulations on accessory dwelling units (ADU). See Strategy 2.1.7 for development regulation changes needed to comply. • SB 5412 - Housing developments in urban growth areas that comply with a Comprehensive Plan which has undergone an environmental analysis are exempt from additional environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act. • SB 5258 - Cities must provide a short plat procedure for unit lot subdivisions, which is a division of a parent lot into separately owned unit lots (this is often a useful tool for middle housing). See Strategy 2.4.9 for recommendations to comply. • SB 5258 - Also, impact fees for residential development must be lower for smaller units; see Strategy 5.2 for recommendations to comply. • SB 5491 - Cities are encouraged to allow single -stairway residential buildings up to six stories tall and with up to four units per floor (currently such buildings can only be up to three stories tall). See Strategy 2.4.7 for recommendations. • HB 1042 - Cities cannot use development regulations (such as density limits or parking) to prevent additions of housing with an existing building envelope in a zone that allows multifamily use. • HB 1181 - Comprehensive Plans must include a Climate Change & Resiliency Element Indirect effects to City government • HB 1771 and SB 5198 - Rules are strengthened for giving mobile home park residents an opportunity to purchase the property when it is proposed for closure or conversion, and for displaced residents receive relocation assistance. • SB 5258 and SB 5058 - Encourages construction of small condominium buildings by modifying the procedures for construction defect actions and warranty claims and exempts buildings with 12 or fewer units and two or less stories from condo defect provisions such as extra inspections. There is a new exemption to the real estate excise tax for first-time homebuyers of condominiums (including townhouses). • HB 1474 - Creates statewide down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers with income less than the area median who were themselves, or are descendants of someone who was, excluded from homeownership in Washington by a racially restrictive real estate covenant prior to 1968. HB 1074 and SB 5197 - Strengthened tenant protections upon move -out or eviction. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 18 2 - Regulatory Strategies While the City of Port Orchard does not directly supply or control the private housing market, it does shape what is possible on Port Orchard's land through zoning and development regulations. 2.1- Expand the Allowed Uses Action: Allow more housing types in more zones to promote middle housing and affordable housing. Providing more flexibility to integrate a variety of housing options is an important tool to expanding housing supply and land capacity. In the HAP community survey, 70% of respondents support the concept to "Allow more housing types like duplexes, cottages, and townhouses in single-family neighborhoods if they're compatibly sized and designed." This concept was also supported by most stakeholders when it came up in interviews. It should be noted that the recommended changes in this section mostly omit the McCormick Villaael has entitlements established in the 1980s and 1990s and are subiect to a varietv of development agreements inherited from Kitsap County and subsequently modified by the City of Port Orchard. Most of these agreements have terms of 20 years with the possibility of extensions. The area also lacks fixed route transit service and commercial services which makes middle housing and affordable housing more difficult to accommodate. As such, the City and this HAP have focused on other parts of Port Orchard where increasing the supply ofof housing to people of all income levels is more viable. With that said. the Citv should still allow for middle housina types in the McCormick Woods area even if they are unlikely to be constructed soon, and there are some smaller unentitled properties in the area which are opportunities for more diverse lot confiaurations and buildina types (for example, see Strategies 4.2.3 and 4.4). Consider the following changes to allowed uses. 2.1.1 - R5 ZonF Consider eliminating this zone from the code, as there are no current mapped R5 zones and the proposed changes to R4 (including height bonuses) likely make this zone unnecessary. If implemented, the R6 zone could be renamed to R5 to avoid a gap in zone naming. 2.1.2 - NMU Zone The use table in POMC 20.39.040 allows multi -family of 5+ units in Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) zones, but the apartment building type is not permitted in NMU. Allow the apartment building type in the NMU zone to correct the inconsistency. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 19 ?.1.3 - Congregate Living Housing Streamline the standards for congregate living housing. This type of housing operates, also known as single -room occupancy (SRO), dorms, or hostels, provides a dignified housing option for people with the lowest incomes. This form of housing historically served as an invaluable affordable housing option, but these buildings were mostly zoned and demolished out of existence starting in the 1970's.15 Conversions of existing buildings (such as aging hotels) may be more likely than new ground -up congregate living developments, but in either case the zoning code must be supportive for it to occur. Congregate living facilities are restricted, being a conditional use in almost every zone they are allowed. This use has supplemental standards inserted within the definition () that include: • Residents must have leases of at least 30 days • The use must be in a center and within one -quarter mile of transit service • The facility must have 24-hour resident management • The facility is prohibited from having medical care or social welfare services on -site (as this could categorize the use as permanent supportive housing, see Strategy 2.1.4 below) Specific recommendations and considerations: • Providing land use standards within a definition is not best code practice. Move the standards to POMC 20.39.100. • Allow congregate living housing in some non-residential zones by -right, notably in the CMU zone. • Clarify the parking requirements. Section POMC 20.124.130 should be amended to clarify whether congregate living is considered a multifamily residential use, and if not, it should have a parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per bedroom/resident or less. Under Table 20.124.140, clarify the blank cell for congregate living by entering "none" (and for other uses with no parking requirements). See Strategy 4.2.4 for related actions. • Amend the standards to allow more flexible lease arrangements by deleting "at a time" after "30 days." This allows a minimum stay to still be required but avoids requiring that residents have monthlong leases. • Consider renaming uses. There is some confusion between "Congregate Living" and "Congregate Care"; the latter is differentiated by having on -site medical and/or social services for residents but it is undefined in code and regulated as a sub -use of "Group Living." 2.1.4 - Adult Family Homes New state legislation passed in 2020, RCW 70.128.066, provides a way for adult family homes to have seven or eight beds. The standards and definition under POMC 20.39.100(10) should be updated accordingly. 15 "The Hotel -Spirit." Slate. July 2022. https-.//slate.com/business/2022/07/hotels-rental-market-housing-prices- shortage-solution.html Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 20 2.1.5 - Supportive Housing Under RCW 35A.21.430 (2021), Washington cities may not prohibit permanent supportive housing or transitional housing in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted (other parts of state law define "multifamily" as four or more units). This supersedes a similar 2019 law, RCW 35A.21.305. Similarly, emergency shelter and emergency housing may not be prohibited in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Port Orchard is mostly in compliance, except emergency shelter and emergency housing must also be allowed in the GMU zone, where hotels are allowed. Consider providing definitions which reference state law: • Emergency housing: RCW 36.70A.030 • Emergency shelter: RCW 36.70A.030 • Permanent supportive housing: RCW 36.70A.030 • Transitional housing: RCW 84.36.043 Some jurisdictions require operational plans and information -sharing on supportive housing uses. For example, the City of Bellevue requires registration information from applicants prior to certificate of occupancy with the following information (and it must be updated when it changes):16 • Name and contact information of property manager(s) and/or owner(s) who may be contacted in case of emergency or code violations • Name and contact information for on -site facility staff (if applicable) • Standard operating procedures plan for the facility, including: o The number of residents intended to be housed in the facility o A description of the supportive services provided to the residents of the facility, on site and off site, including names and contact information of service providers • A safety and security plan describing measures that the operator will employ to promote the safety of Supportive Housing occupants and surrounding residents; and • A code of conduct that applies to all individuals granted access to the proposed Supportive Housing use. Seattle has more limited requirements. The code offers a number of waivers and modifications for parking and design standards that are reviewed administratively. A community relations plan is required." 16 Bellevue Municipal Code LUC 20.20.845.E.2, https://bellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.20.845.E.2 17 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.057, https://I ibrary.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT23 LAUSCO_SUBTITLE_I I I LAUSRE_C H 23.42G EUSPR23.42.057PESUHo Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 21 ?.1.6 — Tiny Homes Consider defining and permitting tiny homes in as another relatively affordable housing option but doing so in a limited number of lower intensity zones, such as R1 and R2 zones. Because tiny homes are uncommon or unknown in Port Orchard, the City could potentially create a pilot program that allows limited construction on one or two sites in partnerships with the property owners (such as at a religious facility). There are currently several building code limitations that the City would have to address to make tiny homes viable to build. Other regulatory considerations and potential categories of tiny homes are shown in the following table. Home ] Type Permanent ADU ConsiderationsTiny qq I When a permanent tiny home is placed on a lot with a principal structure, treat the tiny home as any other type of detached ADU. Such homes must be on permanent foundations with all required utility connections. .. Example — _- - _ _ = Permanent When more than one permanent tiny home is placed cluster on a lot, apply permanent tiny home cluster - standards. Such homes must be on permanent raw foundations with all required utility connections. _l Consider density provisions, such as limiting tiny ` t homes to 250-404-400 square feet of floor area and r s counting each home as one -fifth of a dwelling unity for density purposes. Consider providing basic R„ design standards similar to cottage housing. .�.. _— Explore reasonable parking requirements that balance affordability with neighborhood integration, — consider one space per two or three tiny homes as a' starting point. Do not allow tiny homes to be used for short-term rentals. Consider whether tiny homes should be able to use a unit lot subdivision to create homeownership opportunities. See some example standards from Langley.1$ -------- Consider limiting permanent clusters to lower intensity residential zones such as R1 and R2. t '$ Langley Municipal Code 18.22.290. https:/https://www.codepublishingcom/WA/Langley/#!/Langleyl8/Langley1822.html#18.22.290/WA/Langley/#!/Langleyl8/Langley1822.html#18.22.290 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 22 Figure 11. Tiny home options 19 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.054 and 23.42.056. https://I ibrary. municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT23 LAUSCO_SUBTITLE_I I I LAUSRE_CH 23.42GEUSPR Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 23 2.1.7 — Backyard Cottages and Accessory Dwelling Units New state law in 2023 (under House Bill 1337) preempts some types of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations by cities. The Growth Management Act is amended to preempt local ADU regulations which conflict with the following: • Cities must adopt at least three of these four options: o No requirement for off-street parking o No requirement for property owner occupancy o No limitations of less than two ADUs per lot o Limiting ADU impact fees to no more 50% of the fees for princpal units.20 • In addition, cities must allow ADUs to contain at least 1,000 square feet in floor area and for detatched ADUs to be at least 24 feet tall • Cities may not impose setbacks, lot coverage limits, tree rention requirements, restrictions on entry door locations, or other design standards which are more restrictive than for principal units • ADUs cannot be restricted from being sold as a condominimum unit • No restrictive covenants or deeds may prohibit ADUs after the effective date of the bill Port Orchard must make the following code changes within six months after the adoption of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. Public health, safety, building code, and environmental permitting requirements may continue to apply to ADUs. Building Type Standards These standards under POMC 20.32.030 govern the design of backyard cottages (detached ADUs). Under subsection (3)(i), the option for backyard cottages to be limited to 40 percent of the total square footage of the primary dwelling must be removed Under subsection (4), the maximum number of backyard cottages allowed per lot must be increased to at least two; alternatively, the City can adopt reductions to its impact fees so that the maximum fee for an ADU is no more than 50% of the fees that would be applicable to the principal unit. See also new state law requirements under Strategy 5.2. ADU Standards - General Requirements These standards under POMC 20.68.100 govern the general approval criteria for ADUs. Under subsection (2), the maximum number of ADUs allowed per lot must be increased to at least two; alternatively, the City can adopt reductions to its impact fees so that the maximum fee for an ADU is no more than 50% of the fees that would be applicable to the principal unit 20 The city is currently compliant with the 2 of 4 requirements because there is no off-street parking requirement, and no requirement for owner occupancy. Except for school impact fees, the city's park and transportation impact fee structures are also compliant. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 24 • The City may wish to add a new subsection clearly stating that ADUs may be created from existing structures, including but not limited to detached garages, even if said structure violates current code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage • The City may wish to add a new subsection clearly stating the ADUs may be sold or conveyed as a condominium unit independently of the principal unit • The City may wish to add a new subsection clearly stating that ADUs do not trigger any requirements for public street improvements as a condition of permitting. ADU Standards - Bulk, Location, and Design These standards under POMC 20.68.110 govern additional design requirements for ADUs. Under subsection (1), detached ADUs must be allowed in at least the NMU and BPMU zones where single-family detached houses are also allowed Under subsection (3), the option for backyard cottages to be limited to 40 percent of the total square footage of the primary dwelling must be removed Under subsections (7) and (9), the restrictions on the placement of entry doors for ADUs must be removed Zoning Standards Chapters 20.34 and 20.35 POMC govern lot standards for backyard cottages. Where they are allowed, the primary street setback for detached ADUs must match the same setback for principal buildings or be removed (note that POMC 20.68.110(5) already requires that detached ADUs be located in rear yards, which is a permissible requirement under state law). Similarly, the minimum lot size for a backyard cottage must match the same size for detached houses (applicable in the NMU and BPMU zones). The rear setback for a detached ADU abutting an alley must be zero feet. Subdivision Standards The City may wish to add a new subsection in its subdivision regulations clearly stating that no new restrictive covenants or deeds may prohibit ADUs. Other protections can also be added, such as not allowing the development of ADUs to trigger requirements for private street improvements, not allowing restrictions on renter occupation, and not allowing restrictions on the development of other building types and land uses permitted by City zoning.21 See related recommendations for middle housing in Strategy 2.4.10. 21 Example of City preemptions of homeowner associations from Ridgefield, WA: RMC 18.401.140.C. https://library.municode.com/wa/ridgefield/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=CO_TIT18DEC0_CH18.401 PLUND E 18.401.140HOAS Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 25 2.2 - Streamline the Building Types The permitted building types are unique additional layer of form -based regulation. Some stakeholders identified code interpretations and comprehension as a barrier to middle housing development. This may be driving most builders and developers to follow the path of least resistance and continuing to produce what they know best, which are detached single-family homes and garden apartments. Reducing the complexity of the middle housing building types is a strategy to increase their chances of being produced. The simplest approach would be removing building types and consolidating their standards elsewhere (such as POMC Chapter 20.39, Article II Residential Uses). Short of that, this section suggests modifications to reduce duplication and streamline the building type standards. ?.2.1 - Adjust Cottage Court Standards Under POMC 20.32.040, the minimum site size for a cottage court development is 22,500 square feet and an additional 4,500 square feet is needed per unit when there are six or more cottages. These standards apply regardless of the location, and have an unclear relationship to the separate minimum unit lot area of 1,200 square feet. Stakeholders have identified the minimum site size standards as a challenge, and it is unique among cottage housing standards in the region. Consider the following changes to provide flexibility. Remove or reduce the minimum site size. Building footprints, setbacks, parking, and required open space largely dictate how much land area is needed for a cottage court. The preferred approach is to remove the minimum site size standard. If the standard remains necessary, consider 12,000 square feet for standard front -loaded lots and 10,000 square feet for lots with alley access. Reduce the minimum number of cottages from five to four. A minimum of four cottages is standard among other codes in the region. This provides greater flexibility for cottage court design on smaller sites. Adjust the minimum courtyard size standards. The minimum courtyard area is 3,000 square feet (minimum width 40 feet) with an extra 600 square feet per unit required when there are six or more cottages. This should be replaced by a simpler approach which requires a minimum of 400 square feet of common courtyard space per cottage cluster regardless of number of units, and with minimum dimensions of 15-20 feet. These dimensions are more common across the region and have been shown to provide adequate levels of open space in built projects. Allow duplex cottages in all zones where cottage courts are allowed to enable more efficient use of land and materials. This may require a clear statement in the code, since duplex cottages are generally impractical currently with #hea maximum building footprint of 1,200 square feet. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 26 2.2.2 - Consolidate Duplex Types and Standards Of the approximately 2,200 units built in Port Orchard over the past decade (2012-2022), a total of ten units (0.4%) were in duplex buildings. While the building type standards are relatively new (adopted in 2019), it is possible that complex regulations are one reason duplexes are not being produced in greater numbers. It is recommended to simplify the duplex standards. Consolidate the building types "Duplex: Side -by -Side" and "Duplex: Back -to -Back" into one type called "Duplex." The land use term "duplex" could replace "Two-family" in Chapter 20.39 POMC to provide consistency in naming. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. The type "Attached House" could remain if there is a desire to clearly distinguish this option for fee -simple ownership. However, from a design standpoint, a duplex on one lot and a duplex on two lots can have the same appearance. An option to further consolidate "Attached House" could be to provide a building type definition that addresses all forms of duplexes. Example: Definition. A building type that accommodates two dwelling units sharing avommon wall and arranged side -to -side. front -to -back, or top -to -bottom. Duplex units may be placed on a single lot or two separate units: units intended homeownership may require a subdivision, short subdivision, or condominium. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. 9 9 3 - Rename the Tvna Rename the Fourplex building type to Triplex/Fourplex. This type is described as allowing 3-4 units, but its misleading name and may cause some code users to conclude triplex buildings are not allowed. Triplexes should be promoted similarly to duplexes as a middle housing option. 2.2.4 - Adjust Townhouse Type Standards Remove the minimum site size and width and let other zoning standards and market factors dictate the land area needed for townhouse development. While 5,000 square feet is a small site to begin with, this would remove duplication in code and would improve flexibility in where and how townhouse units can be developed. Standards for open space, parking, setbacks, and landscaping would continue to apply and influence required land area and how townhouses are placed on a site. Also see related lot size and width suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. 2.2.5 - Consolidate the Live -Work Type Live -work has limited feasibility outside of the strongest urban markets and could be de- emphasized in the code. It is relatively uncommon since a small number of households are self- employed in businesses which can also be in their home in a separate space (excluding standard office work -from -home setups). Additionally, live -work units are often expensive since they need to be relatively large to accommodate the workspace. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 27 There is an opportunity to retain the live -work standards while streamlining the code; current code illustrations and the limitation of "six units in a row" indicate live -work is intended to be integrated into townhouse -style buildings. Amend the Townhouse building type section to note where standards differ for Live -Work configurations. The separate site area and width standards for Live -Work are proposed to be removed. Notations could also be added to explain Townhouses are allowed in the DMU, CC, and IF zones only if the development includes space designed for live -work use. A related option is to allow or encourage the Apartment building type to be designed with ground floor units that are convertible and usable as commercial space. One option to incentivize this may be providing a height bonus for such designs. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. ?.2.6 - Adjust Shopfront House Standards This building type requires a minimum of two dwellings per lot and a maximum of two dwellings per lot, providing no flexibility in configuration options. It appears no developments have employed this building type. More design options should be allowed. Allow a range of 2-4 units per lot with this building type. 2.2.7 - Building Height All of the building types in Chapter 20.32 POMC have a maximum building height specified, but this standard is either duplicated or overridden by zone -specific maximum building heights in Chapters 20.34 and 20.35 POMC. Maximum building height is a critical and sensitive zoning tool, so it should have clear and consistent standards across the code. A unique case is backyard cottages and cottage courts which are intended to be small. Remove the maximum building height from all building types, except for backyard cottages and cottage courts. Regulate accessory structure height limits in the zoning chapters. 2.2.8 - Minimum Private Useable Open Space Integrating multiple dwelling units onto relatively small lots requires careful planning to integrate the buildings, access and parking, and usable open space in a way which works for the site residents and the neighborhood. The Design Standards in Chapter 20.127 POMC require usable open space for multifamily uses but not middle housing types. Coupled with Strategy 2.3.1 for relaxing minimum lot size standards, it is recommended to add requirements for minimum private usable open space for duplexes (multiple types), triplexes/fourplexes, townhouses, and shopfront houses. Specific recommend standards: Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 28 • Minimum private usable open space per unit: 300 square feet (50% of the required usable open space may be satisfied through a rooftop patio or balcony) • Minimum dimensions: 10 feet for each unit, except 6 feet for rooftop patio or balcony. • Spaces shared between two or three units are permitted, provided the shared open space dimension is 15 feet and the space is located adjacent to each unit. For townhouses with four or more units, shared open spaces must comply with 20.127.350(2)(b), On -site open space. • The front yard may be used as private usable open space, provided a low fence (between 16" and 48") demarcates the space • Private usable open space cannot be parked or driven on, except for emergency access 2.2.9 - Ground Floor Elevation Nearly all of the building types require a minimum ground floor elevation of two feet. This adds significant cost to construction by requiring a taller foundation and the addition of ramps for ADA wheelchair access on buildings with four or more units. The purpose behind this type of standard is usually to promote a transition between the public and private realms and improve security and privacy for ground -floor residents. This is already addressed by the block frontage standards under POMC 20.127.230, which requires a combination of setbacks and/or raised elevation for ground floor residential units, depending on the context. The block frontage standards apply to all building types except single-family and duplexes. Recommendation: Apply this standard only to detached houses and duplex types, and reduce the minimum elevation from two feet to 16 inches. 2.2.10 - Blank Walls Blank walls are regulated in the design standards in POMC 20.127.460, which applies to commercial uses and multifamily uses with five or more units. To reduce duplication or conflicts, the blank wall standards can be removed for at least the apartment, single -story shopfront, mixed use shopfront, and general building types. For the smaller building types where blank walls are regulated, consider applying a standard consistent with POMC 20.127.460. 2.2.11 - Transparenru POMC 20.139.025(3) provides transparency standards for detached houses, cottage courts, duplex types, and townhouses. The minimum transparency standard of 8% should be moved to the building types in Chapter 20.32 POMC for consistency, where other building types like fourplexes and apartments have transparency standards listed. The measurement method of transparency could be retained in Chapter 20.139. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 29 2.3 - Adjust Form & Intensity Standards Action: Adjust the form and intensity (dimensional) standards to improve the physical and economic feasibility of building small homes, multifamily housing, and affordable housing. Following public interest and an analysis of the situation by the consultant team, some changes to dimensional standards are proposed. /-.3. i - Adjust Minimum Lot Dimensions Consider relaxing the minimum lot size and width provisions for "middle" housing/building types to reduce barriers to those housing/building types. Such action should occur in concert with requiring a minimum amount of private usable open space (see Strategy 2.4.2). Specific recommendations: R2 zone: • Retain the current minimum lot dimensions for detached houses For cottage courts, see Strategy 2.2.1 for updated suggestions for minimum site area Exempt other "middle" building types from both minimum lot area and width standards. This includes duplexes (all types), attached houses, triplexes/fourplexes, and townhouses. R3 zone: • Retain the current minimum lot dimensions for detached houses • For cottage courts, see Strategy 2.2.1 for updated suggestions for minimum site area. • Exempt other "middle" building types from both minimum lot area and width standards. This includes backyard cottages, duplexes (both types), attached houses, fourplexes, and townhouses. • For apartments, reduce the current 10,000 square foot lot size minimum to 7,000 square feet, with the option for 5,000 square foot lots where alley access is available. Reduce minimum lot width from 80 feet to 70 feet, with the option for 50-foot wide lots where alley access is available. R4 zone: • Consider eliminating lot dimension standards entirely, particularly as detached houses are not allowed and there are enough other standards in place to help ensure that the form and intensity of development meets community objectives. R5 zone: If not eliminating this zone (see Strategy 2.1.6), consider eliminating lot dimension standards entirely for same reasons as in R4 zone noted above. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 30 R6 zone: Retain the current 4,000 square foot minimum lot size and 40-feet lot width for a detached house, but exempt other "middle" building types from both minimum lot area and width standards. This includes duplexes (both types), attached houses, triplexes/fourplexes, and townhouses. Commercial and mixed -use zones: Retain any existing minimum lot size and width provisions for detached house, but eliminate such standards for all other building types to maximize flexibility. This includes the McCormick Village Overlay District. Many standards are in place to help ensure that such building types are integrated in a compatible manner. 2.3.2 - Adjust Height Limits and Add Affordable Housing Bonus The City should consider building height limit increases to increase the economic feasibility of multifamily and mixed -use development. Constrained height regulations have a large negative impact on housing affordability, particularly in urbanizing areas with increasing land prices such as Port Orchard.22 Several of the zones where Port Orchard allows multifamily housing and mixed -use development have relatively low height limits in the 35-45 feet range, which creates feasibility challenges for light wood frame construction (the most common material for multifamily buildings in the Puget Sound region). Construction costs per square foot for wood buildings between three and seven stories are relatively constant, regardless of building height.21 Another key cost item is elevators, which cost at least $100,000 each and are required for buildings four stories and taller. Allowing more height enables developments to create additional dwelling units that help spread out of the cost of construction. The economic benefits of light wood frame construction are maximized with height limits in the 65-85 feet range; taller structures in this range are often a hybrid with the lower floors being built of concrete and include structured parking. Also note that many jurisdictions assume residential floor -to -floor heights are 10 feet, but 11-12 feet is oftentimes preferred by designers and builders for accommodating mechanical systems and energy code ventilation requirements, especially for taller buildings. Commercial ground floors are often desired to be 15-20 feet tall. The cost and risk of developing mixed -use structures and leasing ground -floor commercial space typically can be offset by a higher amount of residential floor area. Since the COVID-19 22 Eriksen, & Orlando, A. W. (2022). Returns to Scale in Residential Construction: The Marginal Impact of Building Height. Real Estate Economics, 50(2), 534-564. https://doi.org/l0.1111/1540-6229.12357 23 Ibid. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 31 pandemic, developers are indicating increased risk associated with commercial development due to continued uncertainty about the retail and particularly office markets. This further increases the attractiveness of developments with a higher share of residential floor area. Port Orchard allows height increases through the use of a transfer -of -development -rights (TDR) ordinance adopted in 2019 in partnership with Kitsap County (Chapter 20.41 POMC). TDR programs facilitate the exchange of zoned dwelling units from incorporated resource lands to eligible "receiving sites" in the city limits. TDR programs are complex and require savvy participants and willing rural landowners to participate. No project has yet used Port Orchard's TDR program, and other Washington jurisdictions have found it difficult to attract participants to TDR programs outside of the highest -priced markets like Seattle and King County. The proposed height changes below would decrease the attractiveness of Port Orchard's TDR program with the tradeoff of incentivizing affordable (subsidized) housing. However, TDR would continue to be the only way to achieve the tallest allowed buildings in certain locations (up to eight stories or 88 feet). Increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be mitigated by the broad set of multifamily and commercial design standards Port Orchard already has in place. These include standards to provide high -quality building massing, light and air access, useable open space, attractive materials, windows and entries, and other provisions. The table below shows recommend height increases to explore in Port Orchard's key multifamily and commercial zones. These include modest changes to base height limits (up to one floor). In addition, new bonus height limits allowing up to an additional two floors are proposed for developments participating in the City's multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, incentivizing greater production of multifamily housing in general and also affordable (subsidized) housing. The MFTE bonus should be limited to the Type 1,12-year affordability program, and it could be expanded to the 20-year affordability program if the City adopts one. See other recommendations for the MFTE program in Strategy 5.1.1. Zone R3 Current =ase Height Limit 35 rroposed: HE Height Limit 45 ProposedBonus Participation 55 R4 45 - 55 R5 (if zone is not deleted per strategy 2.1.1) 55 - 65 Commercial Corridor (CC) 35 45 65 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 40 55 75 Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) 35 45 55 Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) 40 55 - Ruby Creek Overlay District 55 - 65 Figure 12. Recommended height limits Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 32 2.3.3 — Minimum Residential Density Comprehensive Plan policies LU-11, HS-9, and HS-16 call for minimum residential densities at least in centers. In addition, any locations where a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) 12-year and 20-year program is available must allow at least 15 units per acre. Development at 15 units per acre is also the rough threshold where fixed -route transit service becomes more sustainable. Minimum density standards can help provide consistency with state law and a level of expectation to leverage public infrastructure investments and maximize the efficiency of land where compact and walkable development is desired. In order to reduce complications for small infill development and promote economies of scale, the minimum density requirement could apply only to new development on sites above a certain site size such as a 1/4 acre or 1/2 net acre; a "net acre" could use the same measurement as applied in the MFTE chapter, which is defined to exclude critical areas and buffer, and other land that is undevelopable such as shoreline buffers and tidelands. Another option is to apply the standard only to sites within designated centers, where the City is seeking to direct growth most intensely. Based on public feedback and where the MFTE program typically applies, a limited number of zones is proposed to have a minimum residential standard. .p. ed Minimum units/grossResidential Density dwe ne.jl&IL lling Apply only to sites above a certain size as a �i, or 312net acre R3 12 R4 15 R5 (if zone is not deleted per strategy 2.1.2) 15 cc 20 cMU 25 GMU 25 DMU 25 Figure 13. Recommended minimum density standards Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 33 2.3.4 - Religiously -Owned Land Density Bonus Under state law RCW 35A.63.300 (2019), upon request from a religious organization, cities planning under the GMA must allow an increased density bonus on such properties consistent with local needs for affordable housing development. The density bonus must be contingent upon the religious organization's land being used for housing occupied exclusively by low- income households for at least 50 years. The density bonus can be used for any type of housing, ranging from single-family to multifamily. Port Orchard is home to a number of churches. Most are on properties ranging from 0.5 to 5 acres and are located in residential or mixed -use neighborhoods. They are mostly zoned Civic and Institutional, which does not allow any types of residential uses. The state requirements could be implemented in several ways, such as an update to underlying zoning, creation of a new overlay zone, or development agreements. Development agreements are preferred option since use of this bonus could be relatively rare. Port Orchard should consider adding a religiously -owned affordable housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan that allows religious organizations to partner with the city to develop affordable housing through a development agreement. The policy could stipulate a minimum density, such as 30 dwelling units per net acre. Port Orchard can also begin proactively reaching out to religious organizations to see if they are interested in developing affordable housing on their properties (this could be a role of the Housing Coordinator staff position described in Strategy 3.3). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 34 2.4 - Adjust Other Standards Action: Adjust other development regulations to help reduce barriers to housing production. A miscellaneous set of other standards can be updated to streamline the development regulations and potentially reduce construction costs. 2.4.1 - Residential Design Standards Chapter 20.139 POMC provides some supplemental design standards to the building types including for driveways, architectural details and variety, roof design, and walls fences. Some minor adjustments are recommended to improve the function of these standards. • The building type standards (Chapter 20.32 POMC) should have additional cross- references to the residential design standards for ease of code use • The duplex garage configuration standards in section 20.139.015 will need to be consolidated consistent with Strategy 2.2.2. It is recommended to use the 40-feet lot width threshold for all configurations. • The transparency standards in subsection 20.139.025(3) for some building types should be placed in the building type standards for consistency (also see Strategy 2.2.11) • The minimum 4:12 roof pitch in subsection 20.139.045(2) for detached houses and duplexes prevents modern architectural styles with flat roofs and roof decks (particularly on small infill lots) and creates a de facto prohibition on typical manufactured homes. The first sentence of the standard could be deleted, and the roof elements standard could continue but remove the word "pitched." • Section 20.139.055 for duplexes has repetitive driveway standards and conflicting transparency standards from other sections in the chapter, which should be resolved. Further, the allowed porch projection standard in subsection (2) is duplicative of POMC 20.122.060 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 35 2.4.2 — Significant Tree Standards There is a long history of protecting significant trees in Port Orchard. Significant trees provide numerous benefits to the environment, climate resiliency, livability, and aesthetic qualities in Port Orchard but can also make the development of affordable housing more challenging_ The current standards of Chapter POMC 20.129 can reduce housing capacity on individual sites and can also result in unsafe situations where a lone remaining significant tree is exposed to wind and erosion subsequent to development. In addition, under House Bill 1110 middle housing cannot have stricter design and development standards than detached homes. Currently detached homes are exempt from the requirement to prepare a significant tree retention plan (but they must comply with other significant tree standards). An architect's analysis of similar proposed tree preservation standards in Seattle found that tree retention plans can add tens of thousands of dollars in soft costs and government staff costs.24 The City should a€xplore alternative approaches for tree standards which are easier to administer and have less impact on soft costs and housing capacity. One option is not focusing on individual trees and instead requiring a minimum tree canopy coverage at the time of tree species maturity (allowing both newly planted and existing trees to contribute). This is similar to the method Port Orchard applies to the McCormick Village Overlay District, where many trees are being removed to make way for new development, under POMC 20.38.280. Recommendation: The City should weigh the benefits and costs of its significant tree code. In the near -term, exempt middle housing developments or mixed housing developments containing a significant number of middle housing types (all types of duplexes, cottage housing, townhouses, and triplexes/fourplexes) from the requirement to prepare a significant tree retention plan. 2.4.3 - Family Definition Amend the definition of "family" under POMC 20.12.010 to be consistent with state law RCW 35A.21.314 (2021). Cities may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit. A simple approach is shown below. "Family" means any number of persons related by blood, marriage or legal adoption and including foster children and exchange students living together as a single housekeeping unit. "Family" alsc means the following when living together as a single, not -for -profit housekeeping unit: (1) A group of related and unrelated adults and their related minor children, -but not tc exceed a total of eight related and unrelated persons or 24 "Does Money Grow on Trees?" Neiman Taber Architects. April 2023. http://neimanarchitects.blogspot.com/2023/04/does-money_arows-on-trees.himI Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 36 2.4.4 - Elevator Penthouse As more multifamily and mixed -use housing is built in Port Orchard, details like elevator design are important factors for livability and functionality. Ten -feet tall elevator cabs are desirable for residents to move the largest pieces of furniture which cannot fit through stairwells. Also popular are elevator -accessible roof decks that help meet developments meet residential open space requirements. However, these two features are difficult to combine due to the limitations of POMC 20.40.050(2)(c)(i). This subsection limits structures screening elevators to 10 feet in height where the elevator is accessing a roof deck. Elevator technology is evolving. Over the past decade the "Machine Room -Less" elevator has become a cost-effective option for buildings over four stories tall and it avoids the environmental impacts of hydraulic piston designs which penetrate deep into the ground below the building (a technology which was previously typical for buildings up to eight stories). The Machine Room -Less design uses a hoistway and mounts mechanical equipment on top of the cab, which increases the overrun above the roof level beyond that assumed by the code. Recommendation: To achieve a 10-feet interior cab dimension and accounting for the assembly of the penthouse structure, it is recommended to increase the code allowance to 17 feet. 2.4.5 - Parking Lot Landscaping Under POMC 20.128.070(3), reduce and simplify minimum planting area widths to allow more efficient use of land. This is critical for smaller lots where infill multifamily and townhouse development may occur, but still meet the purpose of parking lot landscaping. Consider reducing the minimum width of landscaping along public streets to 7.5 feet regardless of the block frontage designation, and to five feet along internal lot lines. Also, consider making parking lot landscaping its own code section so it is easier to find in tables of contents and because it is frequently used. For example, convert subsection (3) to new 20.128.075. 2.4.6 - Service Areas and Mechanical Equipment Under POMC 20.127.360, some minor clarifications can be made about applicability to offer some more flexibility. Subsection (2) currently acts as a title but could be expanded with examples to replace the parenthetical in subsection (2)(a), to read: "(2). Location of ground related service areas and mechanical equipment. Ground -level building service areas and mechanical equipment includes loading docks, trash collection and compactors, dumpster areas, storage tanks, electrical panels, HVAC equipment, and other utility equipment. If any such elements are outside the building at ground level, the following location standards apply:" Under subsection (3)(a)(iv), say collection points must be located and configured "to the extent practical" to help moderate construction costs in certain situations. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 37 Under subsection (5)(b), consider removing the prohibition on perforated metal as a rooftop equipment screening material since it is cost effective and has a variety of design options. 2.4.7 - Single -Stair Buildings New state law in 2023 (under Senate Bill 5491) provides model code language for cities to adopt the Seattle version of stairway regulations through July 2026. Up to two buildings per property may feature single -stairway designs. There are several conditions for fire safety, such as requiring minimum one -hour fire ratings, automatic sprinkler systems, maximum walking distances to exits, and minimum water flow capacity availability at the site. Certain group residential uses cannot be located in single -staircase buildings. By July 2026, the State Building Council will provide statewide standards for single -staircase buildings which local jurisdictions can choose to adopt. Recommendation: Examine updating Port Orchard's locally -adopted version of the International Building Code (POMC 20.200.012) to allow single -stair multifamily buildings up to six stories where there are four or less units per floor. By default, the International Building Code limits this condition to three floors. Seattle has allowed it since 1977.21 This could be an opportunity to reduce construction costs and increase design flexibility for small apartment buildings on infill lots, especially in conjunction with height limits recommendations under Strategy 2.3.2. ".4.8 - Aoply the International Residertini r-nrla 4 -_ RA;A I-m Housinf Examine updating Port Orchard's locally -adopted version of the International Building Code (POMC 20.200.012) and the International Residential Code (POMC 20.200.014) to allow small residential structures with less than 5,000 square feet of floor area (e.g. triplexes, townhouses, and small multifamily buildings) to be designed and built under the less -strict provisions of the International Residential Code. Normally, structures with three or more units are considered commercial and fall under the International Building Code which requires fire sprinklers. In exchange, applicable structures would be required to have a higher 2-hour fire rating for wall and floor/ceiling assemblies. Since sprinklers can cost up to $15,000 per unit to install, this can help reduce the costs of attached middle housing while still ensuring fire safety. Other opportunities for streamlining include revisions to egress requirements in common spaces and allowing combined mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings.26 Demonstrated success in at least one community (Memphis, TN) suggests the topic may be worth further discussion.21 Making a change for only three- or four -unit buildings may still provide cost benefits. In 2023, House Bill 1167 would have advanced this change statewide; it did not pass but will be on the docket for the 2024 session of the Washington Legislature. Port Orchard could be a 21 "Second Egress: Building a Code Change". https://secondegress.ca/Seattle 26 "A Trailblazing Reform Supports Small -Scale Development in Memphis." Strong Towns. January 2022. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/l /26/a-trailblazing-reform-supports-small-scale-development-in- memphis 27 "Memphis, TN Amends Local Building Code to Allow up to Six Units Under Residential Building Code (IRC) to Enable Missing Middle Housing." Opticos Design. January 2022. https://opticosdesign.com/blog/memphis-tn-amends- local-building-code-to-allow-up-to-six-units-under-residential-building-code-irc-to-enable-missing-middle-housing/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 38 leader on this issue by working with legislators and coordinating with the design and development community on the best path forward, along with stakeholders such as building officials, the fire district, and others. 2.4.9 — Create Standards for Unit Lot Subdivisions Senate Bill 5258, adopted in 2023 and codified in RCW 58.17.060, now requires all local jurisdictions to provide unit lot subdivision procedures for short plats (up to 9 lots). It is recommended that Port iowed �omma Orchard comply with this statue and also make the option available for regular plats (10 or more lots). Unit lot subdivisions follow the procedures for the underlying plat type. �o�� -PER Unit lot subdivisions facilitate the Figure 14. Diagram of the unit lot subdivision concept development of homeownership options for middle housing like side -by -side duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage housing. Zoning regulations such as setbacks and lot coverage are applied to the overall "parent parcel" existing before the subdivision, allowing the individual "unit lots" upon which dwelling units are placed to be arranged and sized in almost any configuration. Remaining pieces of the parent lot are owned in common or managed by a homeowners' association. There is no template for unit lot subdivision provisions in Washington State, but many cities allow them. Examples of code language can be found in Anacortes. Everett. Port Angeles. and Wenatchee. 2.4.10 - "-ohibit Subdivision Covenants on Middle Housing New state law in 2023 under House Bill 1110 prohibits new restrictive covenants or deeds from prohibiting middle housing (defined as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing). In other words, private agreements are not allowed to exercise zoning -like powers that are the domain of City government. Existing restrictive covenants or deeds are unaffected. It is recommended that Port Orchard update Title 20, Article V POMC to implement this restriction. Other protections can also be added, such as not allowing restrictions on renter occupation. See similar recommendations for ADU's under Strategy 2.1.7. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 39 3 - Programmatic Strategies In addition to regulatory considerations, this section discusses strategies which Port Orchard can consider for increasing housing opportunities through programs addressing displacement, tenant protections, and strategies for reducing homelessness. 3.1- Anti -Displacement Strategies Action: Adopt local tenant protections and consider other regulatory and programmatic anti -displacement actions to improve the stability of renter households. As discussed above in Section 1.4, exclusionary zoning practices have led to numerous facets of housing inequity across the U.S. Additionally, redevelopment programs implemented in earlier decades resulted in both intentional and unintentional displacement of lower -income residents and people of color in many communities. Therefore, strategies to mitigate or prevent displacement have gained much attention in recent years, and a variety of approaches have emerged. Overall, the effectiveness of anti -displacement strategies is highly neighborhood- and community -specific, and recent academic research has found decidedly mixed results of many approaches.28 While most strategies have focused on minimizing displacement pressures, it should be noted that not all displacement is involuntary (there is always some movement in the housing market), and displacement can sometimes mean moving "up" to a higher opportunity neighborhood. Increasing housing production overall, including market -rate housing production, is an important tool to moderate price increases and therefore make housing more affordable to low and moderate income families and prevent displacement.29 This is particularly true in hot housing markets and if the new housing units are comprised of a variety of housing types. A study in California found that both market -rate and subsidized housing production reduced displacement rates in San Francisco, but subsidized housing production decreased displacement risk more significantly.30 The same study also found that the positive effects of production on displacement at a hyperlocal neighborhood scale may differ depending on the complex neighborhood context. One downside of increased production is the time it takes to build new housing, which can be lengthy not only for construction, but also design and permitting. The most comprehensive academic survey of anti -displacement strategies to date suggests that in addition to production, neighborhood stabilization and tenant protection policies have the most immediate impact on 28 Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. "White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness." Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, February 2021. 29 Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould and Katherine O'Regan. "Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability." New York University Furman Center, August 2018. 30 Zuk, Miriam and Karen Chapple. "Research Brief. Housing Production, Filtering, and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships." UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. May 2016. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 40 mitigating displacement.31 The following are suggestions for proactive policies that Port Orchard can adopt to further prevent displacement. A study from Common Good Labs analyzed data on thousands of U.S. neighborhoods over 15 years (2000 to 2015) to understand how poverty is reduced without community displacement.32 It found eight indicators that are associated with inclusion, increased prosperity, and decrease in poverty. Three of the indicators can be most directly affected by municipal policies, noted in the table below. . Increased housing density Zoning standards that directly regulate the density of residential development. Higher rates of Zoning and subdivision standards that allow and encourage a greater variety of small homeownership and attached housing types (e.g., small single-family, cottages, townhomes, flats, condos). A New York Times report finds that the production of entry/starter homes has never been lower than today (particularly homes smaller than 1,400 square feet).33 Presence of community Financial and/or staffing support for community organizations. organizations Zoning standards that provide low-cost commercial space and/or municipal facilities with space for community organizations to have offices, host events, run recreation and cultural programs, etc. Figure 15. Inclusion indicators 3.1.1 - Local Tenant Protections Washington State sets the baseline for the landlord -tenant relationship through the State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act, RCW 59.18. Washington State regularly amends the Act as summarized in the HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. According to the Attorney General's Office, there is no centralized enforcement mechanism for the RCW, and so it is incumbent upon landlords and tenants to either self -remedy violations, seek counseling or low-cost legal help from non-profit organizations, and/or resolve disputes through the courts. Local ordinances are enforced by the local jurisdiction. Cities are free to adopt additional or more stringent regulations than those provided by the state (with the exception of market -rate rent control), and numerous Washington communities have done so. Port Orchard has not enacted any local tenant protection ordinances. The King County Bar Association (KCBA) provides a model tenant protection ordinance within the framework of Washington State law. This is summarized in the table below. 31 Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris. 32 "Reducing poverty without community displacement: Indicators of inclusive prosperity in U.S. neighborhoods." Brookings. September 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reducing-poverty-without-community- displacement-indicators-of-inclusive-prosperity-in-u-s-neighborhoods/ 33 "Whatever Happened to the Starter Home?" The New York Times. September 2022. https://www.n)aimes.com/2022/09/25/upshot/starter-home-prices.htmi Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 41 Local Tenant Protection Option Other Rents and Payments Notice of monthly rent increases 90-180 The state law default is 60 days notice per RCW 59.18.140. Upon days before the effective date, with more receipt of notice, allow tenants to terminate tenancy early without notice required for larger increases further payment except pro rata rent. No increase in rent allowed if the property Poor conditions means the dwelling unit has defective conditions is in poor condition making it unlivable, a request for repairs has not been completed, or the property is otherwise in violation of RCW 59.18.060. Increases over 10% of monthly rent over a The tenant must be notified this is an option in every rent increase 12-month period requires landlord to pay notice regardless of the increase amount. The assistance can be relocation assistance for economically- valued in a number of ways — the KCBA model bases it on three displaced tenants. times the monthly rent amount. Optionally, this tool could require relocation assistance for physical displacement as well (due to property renovations or demolition). Move -in fees capped at one month's rent Allow up to a six month installment plan which commences upon and require offer of installment plans move -in. This helps lower income tenants manage move -in fees that can be many thousands of dollars. Caps on rent payment late fees The KCBA approach is a cap of $10 per month and the tenant is not responsible for any legal fees or other services. Leases must allow rent to be paid on This allows tenants to adjust the due date of rent payments if the different days of the month tenant has a fixed income source (e.g. a paycheck lag after the first of the month or a social security payment). A landlord shall not refuse to lease to tenants who request this. Evictions and Discrimination Require cause to evict as specified in the Only allow for evictions for: 1) failure to pay rent after receiving all lease agreement notices required; 2) substantial breach of a non -monetary term of the lease and all steps to resolve it have failed within the time required; or 3) the landlord seeks to remove the unit from the market with honest intent (with 120 days notice). Banning discriminatory, deceptive, and Prohibits inquiries or verification requirements based on immigration unfair practices in the rental market or citizenship status, using social security numbers as a method of proving financial eligibility, and representing that a unit is not available when it is in fact available. Also prohibits requiring that a lease be signed by children and deceptive omissions and practices like confusing lease terms or taking advantage of a lack of understanding by tenants. Administration Rental unit registration and inspection The purpose of such programs is to ensure rental housing meets programs standard living conditions. Registration includes property address, contact information, list of rental units, and condition of the housing units. Fees may be imposed and re -registration is required with new ownership. Figure 16. Tenant protection options No particular set of tenant protections is recommended as part of this HAP. The Port Orchard community and decision makers are encouraged to use this "menu" of options as a basis for Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 42 continued discussion. Port Orchard can look to other communities like Burien and Kenmore that have adopted some of these protections. 34, 35, 36 Longer rent increase notice time, move -in fee caps, and economic/physical relocation assistance are some of the strongest anti -displacement strategies available for low-income residents forced to move, giving them an opportunity to find new housing in the same community within a reasonable amount of time. Any new regulatory action would require some degree of effort, ranging from education and outreach to increased staffing and resources for monitoring and enforcement. Regulatory action could also be considered at the regional level to provide consistency for landlords and property management companies working across multiple Kitsap County jurisdictions. .3.1.2 - Other Anti -Displacement Strategies Strategic Acquisition of Existing Multifamily Housing To better retain affordable housing, the City of Port Orchard should work with Housing Kitsap, land trusts, and other non-profit providers to identify naturally occurring affordable housing and multifamily housing with income restrictions or covenants that are close to expiration. Funds should be identified to acquire as many such properties as possible to avoid displacement of low- or moderate -income residents. This practice preserves existing communities and retains long-term affordable housing stock at a lower cost than development of new affordable housing. Tenant Legal Services Eviction rates have been shown to drop when tenants facing eviction have access to legal representation. The Washington State Office of the Attorney General has a comprehensive list of resources for tenants facing legal issues, including free phone assistance from the Northwest Justice Project for low-income tenants statewide.37 Contacts and guidance could be provided alongside or in addition to the homeless services directory (see Section 3.2). Tenant Opportunity to Purchase A tenant opportunity to purchase program, such as the one instituted in Washington, D.C. in 1980, gives tenants the first right to purchase their unit if it is being converted into a condominium. In D.C., a study of the program showed this helped 58% of eligible tenants purchase their unit.38 The D.C. program has also resulted in the creation of many limited equity 34 "City of Burien, Washington, Ordinance No. 804." October 2022. https://burienwa.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/33975/?preview=76250 35 City of Kenmore, Washington, Ordinance No. 22-0545." March 2022. https://ken more.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/118191 /?preview=119244 36 "Five Seattle suburbs added new landlord -renter laws this year. Here's what they do." The Seattle Times. December 15, 2022. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/five-seattle-suburbs-added-new-landlord-renter- I aws-this-yea r-heres-what-they-do/ 37 "Residential Landlord -Tenant Resources." Washington State Office of the Attorney General. https://www.atg.wa.gov/residential-landlord-tenant-resources 38 Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. "White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness." Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, February 2021. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 43 cooperatives when tenants work together to purchase a building being converted to condominiums.39 Rental Assistance Programs Rental assistance programs help low-income tenants pay rent in moments of hardship. Such a program can be very helpful in preventing families and individuals from becoming homeless and help stave off eviction and displacement. However, rental assistance programs are also relatively expensive and may have limited reach in a city of Port Orchard's size. One option would be to investigate a temporary rental assistance fund for eligible low-income renters which can provide assistance for 1-3 months when a tenant is experiencing a financial crisis. Housing Rehabilitation Some low-income households are unable to afford ongoing maintenance on their homes, particularly older housing units. This can lead to displacement if the homes become uninhabitable or the home is sold at a low price. Many cities and counties in Washington, including Vancouver, Spokane, and Pierce County for example, provide no- or low -interest loans to qualifying low-income homeowners to help repair and rehabilitate their homes .40,41,42 Some programs do not require repayment of the loan until after the house is sold, and others defer payments if residents cannot afford them, or waive interest for disability modifications. These programs are funded by a variety of sources, including city or county affordable housing funds, CDBG block grants from HUD, or HOME Investment Partnership programs. Community Control of Land There are several models of cooperative or shared land ownership which have been used to remove land speculation and market pressures from ownership housing and provide affordable and stable ownership opportunities for lower- and moderate -income households. Such organizations have mostly taken the form of cooperatives and community land trusts (CLT), or a combination of both approaches. In a community land trust, the land is held in trust by a nonprofit or city and only the housing unit is bought and sold, usually with permanent affordability restrictions in the covenant. Although this can reduce the amount of equity which can be built by buying and selling a home in a CLT, it does create opportunity for households whose incomes would typically exclude them from homeownership. In a co-op model, residents own shares in the land or buildings (depending on the model) and pay affordable monthly payments with limited equity to residents. One Oregon model showed 39 "Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase." PolicyLink. https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/tools/all-in- cities/housing-anti-displacement/topa-coca 40 "Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program." City of Vancouver. https://www.cityofvancouver.us/eph/paae/housina- rehabi I itation-loan-prog ram 41 "Home Rehabilitation." City of Spokane. https://my.spokanecity.ora/housing/affordable/ 42 "Home Rehabilitation Loan Program." Pierce County. https://www.piercecountywa.aov/3093/Home-Rehabilitation- Loan-Program Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 44 that combining a CLT and co-op yielded opportunities for homeownership for households earning 30-60% of the AM1.43 Overall, the largest barrier to community land control models is lack of funding for ownership affordable housing to jumpstart these types of organizations.44 Foreclosure Assistance Foreclosure assistance can take the form of financial support to homeowners facing foreclosure, similar to the rental assistance programs described above. Additionally, foreclosure assistance can take the form of technical assistance and counseling to households at risk. A study conducted by the Urban Institute during the Great Recession found that households that received counseling were more likely to avoid default and modify their loans to be able to keep making payments.45 Such a program could be provided by the city or in partnership with another organization. Living Wage Ordinance In the Port Orchard area, the hourly wage needed to afford the average two -bedroom apartment is $32.69 an hour.46 The minimum wage in Port Orchard is the default Washington State minimum wage of $15.74 per hour. A living wage ordinance requires a higher minimum wage than that required by state law, which can help reduce housing cost burden. Local ordinances are not widespread in Washington; only the cities of Seattle, SeaTac, and Tukwila currently have minimum wages higher than the statewide minimum.47 Childcare and Early Education Subsidies Subsidizing early education is another way to help lower -income households who are unable to afford housing, as well as improving lifelong outcomes for children. Washington State provides financial assistance for child care for low-income families through the Working Connections Child Care subsidy. Other municipalities in Washington also provide childcare subsidy, such as Seattle's Child Care Assistance Program and the King/Pierce County Child Care Resources subsidy program for families experiencing homelessness. 43 "A Case for Public Investment in Shared -Equity Homeownership." SquareOne Villages. September 2020. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021 R1 /Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/20717 44 Gabobe, Nisma. "How Can Cities Move The Needle on Community Land Trusts?" Sightline Institute. August 2021. https://www.sightline.org/2021 /08/23/how-can-cities-move-the-needle-on-community-land-trusts/ 4e Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. "White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness." Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, February 2021. 46 National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Out of Reach: The High Cost of Housing." 2022. https://nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=98367 47 "Minimum Wage", Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. https://www.Ini.wa.gov/workers- rights/wages/minimum-wage/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 45 3.2 - Homelessness Strategies Action: Strengthen coordination between the City and local homelessness support services and adopt a Housing First approach. Homelessness is a government concern because it relates to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and the community at-large.48 This housing action plan addresses homelessness because the production and price of housing, which is affected by City policy, is directly correlated to the rate of homelessness.49 At the national level, every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a nine percent increase in the estimated homelessness population, even after accounting for demographic and economic characteristics.5o Kitsap County conducts a point -in -time count of people experiencing homelessness countywide each year, typically in January. In 2022, the count was conducted in February instead. The count encompasses both sheltered and unsheltered people and is conducted during one 24-hour period each year. Therefore, the number is generally considered to be an undercount of the true population experiencing homelessness. In February 2022, 563 individuals were experiencing homelessness countywide, of which 136 were in transitional housing, 244 in emergency shelters, and 183 unsheltered. Of the 183 unsheltered residents surveyed, 23 percent, or 42 people, were in Port Orchard. Countywide, 67 percent of those surveyed reported becoming homeless due to health or mental health issues, 58 percent due to job loss, 40 percent due to loss of housing, 35 percent due to family conflict, and 25 percent due to substance uses' Port Orchard staff should continue to monitor the annual point -in -time count and support the county as necessary to ensure consistent data collection on the extent and changes in the homeless population in the city. 3.2.1 - Coordination The City does not directly offer any homeless shelters or transitional housing. Continue working with Kitsap County and service providers to provide outreach and offers for service and shelter for homeless individuals. This could include creation of a standardized directory of support services with available times and contact information (such as food banks, shelters, counseling, public transit, etc.), and distribute it on the City website and in print with local service providers. Assign a City staff person to contact each service at least monthly to maintain and update the directory. 3.2.2 - Adopt a "Housing First" Approach Decades of research have found that helping homeless people move off the street and into a home of their own is the most effective way to reduce long-term (chronic) homelessness for the 48 "Homelessness — Common Questions & Answers." Washington State Department of Commerce. January 2019. https://www.skagitcounty.net/HumanServices/Documents/Housing/Homelessness`/`20FAQs`/*2001-2019.pdf 49 "Homelessness is a Housing Problem." Greg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ so "How COVID-19 Could Aggravate the Homelessness Crisis?" August 2020. United States Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/blog/how-covid-19-could-aggravate-homelessness-crisis 51 Kitsap County Point In Time Count. https://www.kitsapoov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.asix Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 46 most vulnerable people.52 This is because it is extremely difficult or impossible to address the personal, financial, mental, or physical problems that underlie homelessness while simply trying to stay alive. The "housing first" approach eliminates bureaucratic steps and places no criteria on sobriety, employment, criminal history, or completing a religious program before individuals are moved into a home. When someone is drowning, it doesn't help if a rescuer insists the victim learn to swim before bringing them to shore. They can address their issues once they are on solid ground with private space, a stable address, and the dignity of meeting basic needs like food, warmth, and bathing. This approach is less costly to taxpayers than the combined costs of roving service contacts, emergency room visits, jail and shelter stays, towed vehicles, and maintenance of public spaces. Success stories and lessons abound from places as varied as Houston, TX, Columbus, OH and Salt Lake City, UT. The provision of homes can be done indirectly through vouchers, in which public funding directly subsidizes the cost of a market -rate rental unit, or directly through publicly owned housing. The type of housing is oftentimes and preferably in the form of apartments which are the cheapest type of housing to build and operate per unit. Sometimes existing apartment or motels are purchased, or a warehouse can be renovated for residential use. "Tiny home villages", which are rapidly constructed on vacant sites or parking lots, may be appropriate but only on a temporary basis since they are not as durable, weather-proof, or livable as permanent structures. "Housing first" includes intensive wraparound social services and case management for the residents, either on -site or off -site. These services usually include support for people living with complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health conditions, addiction treatment, and employment assistance. Research has found that an overwhelming majority of permanent supportive housing residents eventually stabilize their lives and health enough to move to market -rate housing. The "housing first" policy has its limitations. It can only work if housing and service providers agree on the approach, if there is enough supply of housing available to work with at different income levels, and there is adequate long-term funding. All three requirements will require strategic planning and time to develop. To that end, this HAP recommends the following: • Convene a meeting of all relevant homelessness stakeholders to discuss the "housing first" approach • Adopt a "housing first" policy in the Comprehensive Plan • Regularly survey and monitor the scale of the homeless population • Provide or seek new funding for supportive housing such as rent vouchers or a City - owned supportive housing development • Study alternatives for providing supportive housing with City funding or grant funding 52 "Homelessness research: A guide for economists (and friends)." 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/Sl 051137718302109 DRAFT — MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 Inventory hotels/motels which could be candidates for purchase and conversion to permanent supportive housing • Explore programs and partnerships that could enable more social, health, and human care services to establish branch locations in Port Orchard. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 48 3.3 - Support Staffing Needs Action: Fund, recruit, and hire a housing coordinator to help implement this Housing Action Plan, connect and collaborate with housing stakeholders, and promote more market -rate and affordable housing development in Port Orchard. A housing coordinator would be a specialized position in the Community Development Department that promotes implementation of the Housing Action Plan and provides long-term policy support and relationship -building among Port Orchard's residents, landlords, developers, human service providers, and City staff. This could be a permanent position or, at a minimum, a two year position focused on implementing the Housing Action Plan. Key responsibilities for the position should include: • Implement the actions and strategies of the Housing Action Plan • Plan, organize, coordinate, and implement the work plan and policies related to the City's housing policies, projects, and programs. Study, evaluate, and recommend housing policies and procedures. • Serve as the City liaison to other departments and advisory boards on housing issues related to housing policy and provide citywide leadership and coordination on housing policy issues. • Apply for housing grants including from County sales tax housing set asides and Overseeand manage the Gity's housing funds including the housing sales taxand Community Development Block Grant funds and manage grant implementation. Monitor other state funding and grant opportunities and write applications for funding, including joint applications with partner agencies. • Administer and monitor the MFTE program and provide guidance for property owners • Monitor housing production, the number and location of affordable housing units, and the number of unhoused people in Port Orchard and support department reports on housing and demographic trends • Build relationships with community partners in the non-profit, public, and private sectors, including acting as liaison to Housing Kitsap, Habitat for Humanity, and others. • Market Port Orchard to the residential real estate industry and manage inquiries, with a focus on promoting the qualities of the town, economic development opportunities, the friendly regulatory environment, and any financial incentives available • Recruit human service providers and senior housing developers to locate and build facilities in Port Orchard • Connect businesses and prospective residents to housing listings and providers • Connect tenants and landlords to resources help resolve disputes Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 49 • Educate property owners and developers on development regulations and site -specific opportunities and share resources such as case studies, best practices, property maintenance standards, and property tax resources • Monitor changes to the Growth Management Act and related state laws on housing Qualifications for the position should include: Bachelor's degree in planning, real estate, public administration, finance, economics, business, or other fields where the knowledge and skills can translate to the responsibilities of the position. Considerable (3-5 years) experience in program management, affordable housing policy, community planning, public policy, real estate finance or development, business administration, or economic development. Proficiency with Microsoft Office and other software related to planning operations. The ideal candidate will: • Have a creative, open-minded, and pragmatic attitude. • Thrive in a fast -paced, team -based environment while also being able to work independently. • Clearly communicate ideas and concepts. • Have strong organizational and data analysis skills. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 50 4 - Citywide Planning Strategies These actions relate to the City's budget and updating the Comprehensive Plan. 4.1 - Housing Element Updates Action: In the next Comprehensive Plan update, update the Housing Element to support the actions of this Housing Action Plan and integrate new provisions required by state law. Recent updates to the Growth Management Act require some updates on data and goals/policies for the Comprehensive Plan's Housing element. Many of these required updates overlap with the data and objectives provided in this Housing Action Plan, though some additional work may be needed. In addition to statements of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, updated RCW 36.70A.070(2) (2021) now requires: • An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth including: o Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households o Emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing • Goals and policies for moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes • Identify sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to, government - assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and consideration of duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes • Makes adequate provisions for all economic segments of the community, including: o Low, very low, extremely low, and moderate -income households o Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations o Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment location o Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs • Identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, including: o Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect o Disinvestment o Infrastructure availability Identify and implement policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and actions Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 51 • Identify areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital investments; and • Establish anti -displacement policies, with consideration given to the preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low, very low, extremely low, and moderate -income housing; equitable development initiatives; inclusionary zoning; community planning requirements; tenant protections; land disposition policies; and consideration of land that may be used for affordable housing. In the annual amendment cycle or the next major update (due in 2024), the Housing Element could be updated with specific policies relating to the many strategies and actions of this Housing Action Plan. Relevant HAP actions to acknowledge at the comprehensive planning level may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Development regulation streamlining that provides more housing options • Guidance on homelessness reduction and prevention • Support for a multifamily tax exemption program, tax increment financing for infrastructure and affordable housing, and transit funding to support housing and economic development • Policies for the acquisition and disposition of surplus public land for affordable housing (see Strategy 4.4), especially City -owned land in downtown. • Support for new anti -displacement policies 4.2 - Land Use Element Updates The Comprehensive Plan Land Use element should be reviewed for potential updates on these issues. 4.1.1 - Corridor Zoning Action: In the next major Comprehensive Plan Update, review the balance between residential and commercial land capacity and adjust the future land use map. Some of Port Orchard's major transportation corridors are targeted for transit investments by Kitsap Transit. The Comprehensive Plan update should consider whether land use regulations and infrastructure plans are supportive of transit -oriented development, particularly in designated centers. The City's primary commercial corridor (also consisting of several designated centers), Bethel Road, is planned to have an upgraded roadway with roundabouts and bike and pedestrian infrastructure in the next few years. At the same time, Kitsap Transit plans a bus rapid transit route in the corridor (between Downtown and approximately Sedgwick Road)." However, there is room for improvement in land use and amenities in the transit walkshed (a quarter to half mile walking distance). The corridor has a patchwork of zoning with few clear patterns and low building height limits, including low -density residential zoning both inside and 53 "Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-2042." Kitsap Transit. December 2022. https://www.kitsaptransit.com/aaency- information/plannina/lap Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 52 outside the city limits. Existing development is largely not pedestrian -oriented, being characterized by large parking lots, low -scale commercial buildings, residential cul-de-sacs, and a discontinuous street grid. The Commercial Heavy zone does not allow general residential development, potentially locking in suburban -style strip malls and shopping centers on large parcels. There are no public parks, schools, community centers, or other civic amenities in the corridor that can help attract residential development and serve affordable housing residents. Opportunities for infill and mixed -use redevelopment, including affordable housing, should be explored in the Comprehensive Plan and a future Bethel subarea plan. The Mile Hill corridor has similar challenges but at a smaller scale. Incentives could be adjusted to support redevelopment of strategic sites like self -storage facilities and infilling underutilized parking lots. Explorations should consider the proximity to Downtown, South Kitsap High School, and Blackjack Creek. The Tremont, Pottery, and Sidney corridors are generally characterized by R2 or BPMU zoning and proximity to parks and schools. Kitsap Transit plans transit service enhancements in some of these areas. Upzones to allow at least moderate -scale multifamily development in more areas should be considered. The Lund and Jackson corridors in the unincorporated urban growth area could also be explored for near -term annexation and subsequent zoning that incentivizes infill middle housing and multifamily housing which helps pay for infrastructure and services. These areas are mostly developed with a mix of low -to -medium density housing and have an identity linked to Port Orchard. Proximity to South Kitsap Regional Park and several schools is an asset to be leveraged. 4.2.2 — Neighborhood Commercial Uses Action: Review the opportunity for allowing small neighborhood commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Residential zones are not permitted to have restaurants, cafes, convenience stores, or other types of small commercial uses. The City uses the NMU zone for this purpose, which allows the shopfront house building type (also see Strategy 2.2.6) but not single -purpose apartment buildings. Consider adding more nodes of NMU zoning in residential neighborhoods, particularly on corner lots. Forest Park Grocery and Deli near the intersection of West Avenue and South Street is a good example of the types of development that may occur with this zoning over time, providing more neighborhood services within walking distance of housing. Review other NMU zoning standards to ensure commercial uses are well -integrated into residential neighborhoods. This could include limitations on the size of commercial uses (e.g. 1,000 to 2,500 square feet, with clarity on gross or net), reduced or eliminated off-street parking requirements for businesses, and prohibiting incompatible activities such as outdoor storage. DRAFT - MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 0 1 Page 53 4.2.3 — Park -Oriented Development Action: Consider increasing zoning capacity around Port Orchard's major parks. Port Orchard's parks are major assets of the community, and access to outdoor recreation is important for public health and well-being. Allowing more housing near major parks and recreation uses (such as within a quarter -mile) can have several benefits, including allowing more people to walk and bike to parks for healthy recreation and encouraging a long-term increase in park users and community ownership of parks. Park access is particularly important for families with children. Notable rezoning opportunities are in the areas around Givens Playfield (which is also adjacent to a community center), McCormick Village Park, and Clayton Park. Most parks are also near transit stops. Part of the area north of Givens Playfield is also near the Kitsap County campus and zoned BPMU. This area consists mostly of detached homes and some vacant lots. The zoning encourages a transition to commercial uses over time, though little such activity has occurred. Rezoning this area for park -oriented development could also have the dual benefits of increasing the feasibility of mixed -use development with commercial space and multifamily housing. A? r_-f r'�-f _%I 0400w-.- Figure 17. The vicinity of Givens Playfield (Google Maps) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Another large park which Port Orchard residents utilize is South Kitsap Regional Park. This is currently outside the city limits but contained in the urban growth area. When this area is annexed the City should consider park -oriented zoning that allows for a wider range of housing types near the park. Recently adopted development regulations for the area near the planned west entrance to McCormick Village Park allow middle housing development and a proposed mixed housing neighborhood is in permitting review. However, there are other unentitled properties near McCormick Village Park and the golf course clubhouse that may be candidates for multifamily and middle housing uses. These changes would ensure that all areas of the city provide opportunities for people of different economic means with the opportunity to live and work (see further discussion in the introduction to Strategy 2.1). Figure 18. A concept for a mix of housing including middle housing from the recently adopted McCormick Village Subarea Plan in a location adjacent to McCormick Village Park. Figure 19. Examples of parcels highlighted in green that could be zoned for multifamily or middle housing due to their proximity to parks and recreation amenities. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 55 4.2.4- Parking Action: In the next major Comprehensive Plan Update, review the need for minimum parking requirements citywide and review national case studies for best practices. Parking is an issue that should be revisited in the next Comprehensive Plan update. Consider policy support for removing minimum requirements entirely, as is increasingly being done in cities and states across the country and called for by professional planning and engineering organizations.sa, ss A related option is to add maximum parking requirements, especially for the most intense uses such as retail." Removing parking requirements does not have any immediate effect on housing supply or prices or neighborhood design. Related requirements such as parking lot landscaping and stormwater treatment for impervious surfaces would remain. Over time, it gives the power of parking design back to property owners and businesses to decide how much parking they need to attract tenants and customers.51 New development will still include parking spaces, but the number of spaces will be decided based on what owners need based on their experience and budget rather than government rules." Removing the minimum requirement can also ease the renovation of older vacant buildings and allow new small businesses to open in commercial spaces where they couldn't before. Removing parking requirements significantly reduces the red tape and studies that are required to justify modifications, reductions, or cooperative parking agreements, the costs of which may exceed the budgets of local property owners or small investors. Starter homes like townhomes and condos may become easier to build and improve homeownership opportunities. Removing parking standards would complement increased transit service, as discussed in Strategy 5.6. At the minimum, new state law adopted in 2023 (House Bill 1110) sets maximum limits on the minimum parking spaces for middle housing (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing). This preemption must be codified within six months of the major Comprehensive Plan update being adopted. Up to one parking space per unit may be required on lots smaller than 6,000 SF (before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits) and up to two 2 spaces per unit may be required on larger lots. 54 "Parking Reform Network." https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map/ 55 "Rethinking Parking Minimums." Institute of Transportation Engineers. February 2019. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1 becvgm8ebznwj2/ITE°/o20journal.pdf?dl=0 56 "Parking Maximums." Sustainable Development Code. https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/parking-maximums-7/ 57 "End Parking Mandates & Subsidies." Strong Towns. https://www.strongtowns.org/parking 58 "Save Anchorage from Parking Mandates." Sightline. September 2022. https://www.sightline.org/2022/09/30/save-anchorage-from-parking-mandates/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 56 4.3 - Public Land for Affordable Housing Actions: Consider rezonings, environmental assessments, pre -development activities, and partnerships to promote use of surplus public land for affordable housing. The City has a modest amount of surplus publicly -owned land. Some of it is well -located or positioned to merit consideration for housing development. Considerations for key properties and strategies are described in this section. Other public lands (such as those owned by Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and other agencies) could be reviewed in the future. 4.3.1 - Disposition Policy Formally adopt a surplus land disposition policy that gives the right -of -first -refusal to affordable housing developers or other community -determined uses, consistent with the allowances of RCW 39.33.015 (note that some modifications to the affordability provisions of the statue were made in 2023 under House Bill 1695). The policy could be adopted by City Council resolution and embedded within the Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element (also see Strategy 4.2). 4.3.2 - Land Acquisition The cost of land can be a major cost for any housing development, and providing a discounted land lease or sale can help some projects become economically viable. Since the City does not have much surplus land, the City can identify and purchase underutilized or vacant properties that can be developed as affordable housing. Land assembly can be a powerful tool for putting together larger sites that can be redeveloped at a more economically feasible scale. This strategy could be focused on close -in locations (e.g. Downtown and the Bethel Avenue and Mile Hill Drive corridors) where land ownership is fragmented. Port Orchard may also focus on vacant, abandoned, or tax -delinquent properties. These sites usually have negative impacts on surrounding properties and the City's role would include resolving ownership issues and/or addressing tax liens or land encumbrances that otherwise deter developers from pursuing these properties.59 Once acquired and assembled, Port Orchard would lease or sell the land for affordable housing. See the related need for a land disposition policy in Strategy 4.4.1 4.3.3 - Tremont/Pottery Roundabout Property (Parcel 342401-4-016-2001 & 342401- 4-015-2002) This is a one -acre vacant site within the Tremont Center and zoned Commercial Mixed Use. The site could be viable for townhomes or multifamily development with a small commercial component, potentially leveraging new single stair provisions (see Strategy 2.4.7). It is eligible for the Type 1 and Type 3 MFTE programs, which could improve the feasibility of affordable housing on the site. While Tremont Street is newly rebuilt with pedestrian and bike infrastructure, the general area is not walkable to services besides gas stations, medical offices, and schools. This and parking 59 "Support the Reuse of Abandoned, Vacant, & Delinquent Properties." Family Housing Fund. https://www.fhfund.org/report/reuse-of-abandoned-properties/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 57 requirements will require a significant portion of the site be dedicated to surface parking, limiting the housing capacity of the site. Some amount of structured parking might be economically feasible with the savings from a discounted land transfer, though the site's irregular shape could make efficient parking layouts a challenge. Parking could potentially be shared with the healthcare facility directly behind the site to the north. Development could fully or partially vacate Alder Lane, which is City right-of-way and does not serve any other properties (any utilities may need to be relocated). The site could also potentially expand by acquiring part of the adjacent healthcare facility site if there is underutilized parking there; that site is zoned as Public Facilities which does not allow any residential land uses. Figure 20. City owned property at the Tremont and Pottery Roundabout 4.3.4 - Mitchell Avenue Pronerty (Parcel 252401-3-045-2009) This is a 1.7 acre forested site within the Lower Mile Hill Center and it is zoned R4, which allows up to four-story buildings. The site boundary has a small cutout of R3 zoning where there is a cell phone tower. The site could be viable for townhomes or multifamily development. The site is across the street from South Kitsap High School and could be an ideal location for family housing (units with two or more bedrooms). It is eligible for the Type 1 MFTE program, which could improve the feasibility of affordable housing on the site. The site is moderately sloped, with a 70 feet elevation difference between the top and bottom of the property (a horizontal distance of 240 feet). Significant tree standards and topography may add construction costs and reduce housing capacity, but the economic feasibility may also be DRAFT — MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 0 1 Page 58 improved with the savings from a discounted land transfer. A recent study by Portland State University suggested an increase of 40-50% in development costs for affordable housing built on sites of 20% slope or more.60 The site could potentially be configured with two separate clusters of buildings at the top and bottom of the hill. The site is bordered to the west and north by strips of undeveloped City right-of-way, which could be vacated to expand the site and/or provide access solutions. The site could also potentially expand by acquiring one or more of the adjacent parcels, particularly off Bethel Avenue, to increase circulation options and improve economies of scale. The adjacent commercial properties are either vacant or have low -value improvements, they are zoned Gateway Mixed Use, and they are within the Downtown Height Overlay District 5 which allows up to five -story buildings. 0 1 � Figure 21. City owned property off of Mitchell Avenue 60"Impact of Slope on Housing Development Costs." Portland State University. 2010. https://www.pdx.edu/realestate/sites/g/files/znldhr3251 /files/2020- 10/01 _impact_of_slope_ on_development_SU20_p2.pdf Note: This study also has other useful data on the impact of slope on development costs for various building types Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 59 4.4 — McCormick East Future Neighborhood Planning Action: In the next Comprehensive Plan update, identify the McCormick East area as a future mixed housing and commercial area and/or local center. Develop a subarea plan to shape this area as a mixed housing and mixed income development. 4.4.1 - McCormick East Overview The McCormick East area is a large unentitled area located in the southwest area of Port Orchard near the intersection of Glenwood Road and McCormick Woods Drive. The area is currently zoned R2. Fiaere 22. Location of McCormick East. 4.4.2 - McCormick East Summary The McCormick East area was annexed by the City of Port Orchard during the Great Recession. Unlike other areas of west Port Orchard such as McCormick Woods, McCormick Trails, and McCormick Village, McCormick East remains unentitled. It is also identified as a future planning area in the City's utility plans. As described in Section 1.3 regarding_ geographic equity and the introduction to Strategy 2.1 for allowed uses, the City must be cognizant of the geographic inequities located in areas east and west of SR-16. The McCormick East area includes aooroximately 108 acres of recentiv loaaed undeveloped land with relatively few critical areas. The recent logging that took place means that there are few significant trees present and that the site is a blank slate for development. Under the current zoning, it is likely that this property would develop with detached homes. Some ADUs or duplexes would be possible in this area but are unlikely. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 60 Due to the previous entitlements and development agreements governing the development of most other areas in McCormick Woods, McCormick Trails, and McCormick Village, there are few Opportunities to increase the presence of affordable housing types west of SR-16. Kitsap Transit is planning a large park -and -ride facility in the nearby Ruby Creek Neighborhood. This transit investment along with planned transit routes makes McCormick East ripe for a new master plan. 4.4.3 - McCormick East Recommendations The City should work to develop a subarea plan to guide the development of the McCormick East area. This plan should seek to provide zoning to allow a mix of commercial development and middle housing. The area could be designated as a local or countywide center and should be designed to promote transit access. The timing of a McCormick East subarea plan is likely not feasible until after the City's 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 61 5 - Funding Strategies These actions relate to the financing and funding of affordable housing and related issues like taxes, fees, and state law. 5.1- Multifamily Tax Exemption Program Action: Update the MFTE program based on increased developer interest in multifamily and mixed -use projects to streamline requirements, balance affordability and foregone tax revenue, and take advantage of increased flexibility in statewide legislation. 5.1.1 - MFTE Overview A multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is authorized by a 1995 state law, RCW 84.14. Cities can grant an 8-year property tax exemption for any multifamily development or a 12-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 20 percent of units for low- and moderate -income households. The state made several changes to the MFTE program in 2021. The 12-year tax exemption and affordability covenants can now be renewed for 12 more years if the property owner continues to provide units affordable to low-income families. Cities may now also offer a 20-year tax exemption for ownership units if at least 25 percent of these condominium units are sold as permanently affordable ownership housing.61 A MFTE program can be used for new buildings or existing buildings that require major rehabilitation. For cities under 20,000 residents, both the 12-year and the 20-year programs require the development to be in a zone that allows at least 15 dwelling units per acre. Land, existing site improvements, and non-residential improvements are not exempt and are subject to normal property taxes. At the local government's discretion, the exemption's basis may be limited to the value of affordable units or other criteria. The local government has latitude in many aspects. It can require certain public benefits, change what types of development apply, and can map specific areas where the exemption is available. Cities can also set lower maximum rent prices than the statute allows and other lease stipulations such as requiring the participating units to be pet -friendly. The MFTE program can have complex fiscal implications due to Washington's "levy lid" restrictions which limit the rate of increase of total regular property tax revenue to 1 % per year for communities of 10,000 or more. In theory, the value of the tax exemption granted to developers would represent foregone revenue for the city. However, the reality is more complicated. Construction of MFTE projects often takes place over multiple years and county assessors are required to factor in the portion of new projects which are completed by July 31 each year. However, the tax exemption itself does not take effect until January 1 after the year in which the project is completed. Theoretically, the assessor should remove the value of the partially -constructed MFTE properties which were previously added at this point, however, in 61 "Overview of 2021 Changes to the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption Program." Washington State Department of Commerce. https://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkf05.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 62 reality this happens inconsistently. As a result, the value of the portion of the property which was completed in years prior to the final year of construction can result in a "tax shift" where taxes on that portion of the project's property value are shifted to the citywide tax base if that portion is not removed from the assessor's table of total taxable property value.62 This complex situation can obfuscate whether the tax exemption results in foregone revenue to the city or whether it merely shifts taxes to the citywide tax base. In most cases, both are occurring to some degree. The Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee's 2019 audit of the MFTE program found that they could not determine the amount of local tax savings which was shifted to other taxpayers as a result of the complex situation around the "levy lid."63 5.1.2 - Port Orchard MFTE Summary Port Orchard has had an MFTE program in place since 2016, which is codified under Chapter 3.48 POMC, and which provides three types of exemptions. The "Type 1" program is a 12-year exemption available to properties zoned for multifamily or mixed -use near transit or ferry and requires 20 percent of units to be rented at affordable rates based on HUDs fair market rent. The "Type 2" program is an 8-year exemption available to abandoned or underutilized properties within local centers of importance which are encouraged to redevelop. The "Type 3" program is an 8-year exemption available to properties within local centers of importance and zoned for multifamily or mixed -use with requirements for denser, "urban" style development: a minimum density of 50 units per acre and at least 50 percent structured parking, shopfronts equal to 40 percent of all building footprints, or additional height purchased through the city's transfer of development rights program. A total of four projects totaling 332 units (including 20 affordable units) have been built using Port Orchard's MFTE program, and four more projects totaling 427 more units (including 45 affordable units) are currently in progress. For a full summary of Port Orchard's MFTE program, see Section 5 of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report in the Appendix. Port Orchard's method of setting subsidized rents in MFTE projects at 10 percent below HUD fair market rents is unusual, as most jurisdictions in Washington rent subsidized MFTE units to families earning between 80 and 115 percent of HUD's MFI for their area, and cap the rent at 30 percent of the household's income, adjusted for household size. 64 However, Port Orchard's system meets legal state requirements and, based on a preliminary analysis, seems to result in rents which are lower than those based on the larger Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD MFI. 5.1.2 - Recommendations Port Orchard has seen an increase in proposed downtown residential -commercial mixed -use projects in recent years. Since these types of projects would be eligible for MFTE funding, it is important to revisit and potentially update some aspects of the program to balance the benefit 62 This concept is very complex and more information can be found in Commerce's "What is Tax Shift?" guidesheet here https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/9jg7p2ebm467ddpmb1 c5u3d4ei22cs1 n as well as starting on p. 37 of Commerce's MFTE guidebook here: https://deptofcommerce.a pp.box.com/s/i05o80ne5e1740mmh6u05grjk047g3cw 63 The JLARC audit's findings can be found at: https://leg.wa.gov/mlarc/taxReports/2019/MFTE/f_ii/default.html 64 Following HUD's definition of a "cost -burdened" household Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 63 and foregone tax revenue of affordable units to ensure the program's goals are being met and to address recent changes in the program allowed under state law.es Clarify map and zoning of areas of MFTE eligibility. MFTE projects must be in urban centers as defined by RCW 84.14.010, which describes compact districts with a variety of shops, a mix of uses, and public facilities. Port Orchard's municipal code contains maps of parcels eligible for MFTE funding, but they are difficult to read and are not updated with the latest parcel lines, as shown below in Error! Reference source not found.. An improved map which shows both the c ity's established "centers" and the outline of areas eligible for MFTE development at a larger scale would streamline the process for potential developers. Figure 23. Maps of parcels currently eligible for the Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 MFTE programs. Source: City of Port Orchard Municipal Code Correct definition of underutilized buildings. POMC 3.48.040(2)(a)(iii) states that underutilized buildings have an "assessed building value to land ratio of two -to -one or more." This appears to be backwards, as underutilized buildings are defined by a low building to land -value ratio. The code should be revised to state "building value to land ratio of two -to -one or less," or land value to building value ratio of two -to -one or more." Add minimum density in units per acre to multifamily and mixed -use zones. State law requires that 12-year and 20-year MFTE programs which contain affordable rental or homeownership units be located in areas zoned for a minimum average density of 15 units per acre in cities with populations under 20,000. Port Orchard does not currently define minimum unit densities in its code, although the allowed zoning in MFTE areas likely meets this threshold based on allowed height, setbacks, FAR, etc. However, to better comply with state law, considering quantifying minimum densities in the zoning code for mixed -use and multifamily zones. See Section 2.3.3 for considerations. Consider changes to the method of income calculations for affordable units and conduct an audit of the program. Port Orchard's program is unusual in that it uses HUD fair market rent to calculate rents for subsidized units. Although the system seems to be working and is allowed under state law, it may be more complex for developers or property managers who are accustomed to methods used in most other cities where MFTE programs are tied to the HUD median family income. If the City wishes to ensure a deeper level of affordability compared to the MFI, the program could be calibrated to a lower level (such as 60 percent rather than 80 es A comprehensive list of 2021 legislative changes to the MFTE program can be found here: https://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkf05.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 64 percent MFI). Regardless of the method used, the city should audit the MFTE program annually to ensure that the cumulative benefit to income -restricted residents is greater than the foregone revenue from the tax exemption. This audit should be conducted by the Community Development or Finance department and should result in an annual report presented to city council. Additionally, consider partnering with Housing Kitsap for MFTE administration and to reduce city staff's workload when verifying incomes of subsidized unit residents, since housing authorities have infrastructure and skills in place to conduct such income verifications. Consider removing transit proximity for affordable units. Port Orchard's Type 1 program currently requires projects to be within 'h mile of a transit stop or ferry terminal. Although this provides benefits to lower -income residents who do not own vehicles, the quality and availability of transit service in Port Orchard is low and is a recent study by WSDOT indicates that transit in the city is not at the level or frequency which encourages residents to own fewer vehicles." It is also not clear that transit proximity has any practical effect, since the maps for the Type 1 and Type 3 programs are nearly identical. Removing this requirement could expand eligible projects and the distribution of affordable units across the city. Consider a height bonus for MFTE developments. Currently Port Orchard allows a height bonus for Type 3 MFTE developments through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Such programs are rarely used. Numerous cities in Washington, including Port Angeles and Kirkland, allow height bonuses in exchange for the provision of affordable units in their MFTE programs. Consider adding such a bonus to the MFTE to improve development feasibility. Such a program could have separate height bonus allowances based on zoning and MFTE program type. See Strategy 2.3.2 for more details. Streamline requirements for Type 3 program. The Type 3 program currently has somewhat stringent requirements to create denser, urban -style buildings through various criteria. Although the intention to stimulate higher density development in centers is an important component of the program, recent projects suggest that the share of structured parking, density, and commercial square footage required may be disincentivizing use. Each of the three requirements could be streamlined to increase viability of participating in the program: The requirement for 50 percent structured parking combined with 50 units per acre of density may be redundant since the only way to achieve higher densities is by putting parking into structures. Eliminating the structured parking requirement but retaining a relatively high -density requirement (40-50 units per acre) would effectively require that the project either include structured parking or that surface parking ratios are relatively low. Reducing the requirement for 40 percent of all building footprints to contain commercial use or replacing this requirement with a required minimum percentage of the frontage being commercial would be appropriate given the exiting amount of 66 "Frequent Transit Service Study." Washington State Department of Transportation. https://enciacie.wsdot.wa.gov/frequent-transit-service-studV Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 65 commercial zoning in Port Orchard. The design requirements in the MFTE ordinance may also be superfluous given the existing block frontage standards in POMC 20.127. • Finally, an overall height bonus for MFTE developments as discussed above may be more effective than the TDR height bonus option currently in the Type 3 program. Reduce minimum number of units required for participation. Port Orchard's program currently requires a minimum of 10 units in a project to qualify for the MFTE program. State law only requires a minimum of four units. Updating the Port Orchard program to require a minimum of four units would bring the program in line with statewide standards as well as potentially providing added feasibility for smaller "missing middle" housing types. Consider adding a requirement for affordable units to be distributed within a development/building. This promotes principles of mixed -income communities and avoids real or perceived concentrations of pover Consider adding a 20-year MFTE program. Since 2021, cities under 20,000 residents such as Port Orchard can add a 20-year ownership MFTE program under RCW 84.14.021(1)(b) where at least 25 percent of units must be sold to a qualified nonprofit or local government partner that will ensure permanent affordable homeownership. Providing affordable homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate -income households can help build wealth for households which otherwise could not afford to own a home. Allow a 12-year extension for Type 1 participating property owners. Since 2021, cities are allowed to grant a 12-year extension to existing MFTE programs within 18 months of expiration. Multifamily housing approved for a 12-year extension must maintain 20% of units as affordable for low-income households (during the extension period moderate -income households are no longer included in the affordable unit counts). Tenant notice and relocation assistance are required in the 10t" and 11t" years of projects receiving a 12-year extension (see more detail below). Port Orchard should consider adding this provision to its MFTE program to ensure continued affordability of units created through this program. Require relocation assistance for low-income tenants whose rent subsidy is expiring. The 2021 changes to the MFTE program which allow the 12-year extension described above also require that landlords provide notice in the 10t" and 11t" years of the program that it will expire in the 1211 year and provide one month's rent as relocation assistance to qualified tenants in their final month of tenancy. Best practices in line with the anti -displacement strategies in Strategy 3.1 would also extend these tenant protections to any Type 1 property, regardless of whether it is an extension or not. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 66 5.2 - Development Fee Adjustments Action: Consider adjusting development fees for 2-4 unit buildings and some fee discounts for affordable housing while continuing to offer sewer and water exemptions for small ADUs. Some adjustments may be needed to impact fee structure to comply with 2023 state legislative changes. Port Orchard, like many municipalities, levies impact and development fees on new construction to fund improvements in infrastructure for schools, parks, and other services, as well as hookup and general facilities charges for water and sewer connections to new developments. Stakeholders interviewed by the HAP project team in 2022 indicated that Port Orchard's fees are considered to be high, particularly in relation to Kitsap County's fees and other nearby jurisdictions. A full breakdown of Port Orchard's impact fees can be found in the appendices of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. Water and sewer hookup fees and general facilities charges are difficult to compare due to different structures across municipalities, but Port Orchard's fees seem to be at the higher end of the Kitsap region, at $11,571 per water hookup and $12,788 per sewer hookup per ERU (defined in the code as one single-family dwelling unit of any type, attached or detached). By comparison, Bremerton charges $4,245 for water hookups and Poulsbo charges $5,065 for water hookups and $11,211 for sewer hookups per ERU. Port Orchard does prorate its impact fees by unit type. This is a best practice in encouraging a diversity of housing types and sizes. However, the margins of discount for 2-4 unit buildings could be increased to incentivize more "middle housing" development. Senate Bill 5258, adopted in 2023 and codified in RCW 82.02.060, now requires that impact fees for residential development have proportionally lower fees for smaller housing units. The method of calculating the proportional impact fees must be "based on the square footage, number of bedrooms, or trips generated" by the new housing unit. The new legislation takes the best practice of prorating impact fees by housing unit type and size, and makes it a requirement across the State. Port Orchard will need to study its impact fee structure and potentially make adjustments or demonstrate that the existing fees comply with this new legislation. In addition, some cities reduce impact fees for affordable housing units and are allowed to reduce such fees by up to 80% under RCW 82.02.060. Port Orchard could consider some reductions for affordable housing units to incentivize more development of subsidized units. House Bill 1326, passed in 2023, now also authorizes waivers for utility connection charges for nonprofits and housing authorities building affordable housing. Finally, Port Orchard currently exempts small ADUs from sewer and water hookup fees as discussed in Section 5.4, another best practice in encouraging infill housing. Any reduction in impact or hookup fees or GFCs would need to be rebalanced elsewhere for market -rate development. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 67 5.3 - Local Bank Funding Action: Encourage local banks to create a fund for affordable housing finance Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), banks are required to meet the credit needs of low- and moderate -income households in communities in which they operate. Many banks meet their CRA requirements by investing in Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), providing capital to nonprofit affordable housing providers who use the capital to build regulated affordable housing, usually for households earning under 60-80 percent of the AMI. Outside of LIHTC, some banks are also working with cities across the country to fund other types of affordable housing, including "workforce" housing for households earning between 80 and 120 percent AMI, through non -tax credit programs. 67 For example, the Charlotte Housing Opportunity Fund combines city bond money with private investment from banks to provide gap funding for affordable housing projects. The fund has doubled the city's affordable housing finance pool since 2019, creating or preserving 1,047 housing units in the city.68 The Washington Housing Initiative Impact Pool is a similar nonprofit -run fund which targets housing for low- and moderate -income African American residents of Washington D.C.69 Port Orchard could consider working with local banks to create a such housing fund which could be used for gap financing of affordable housing projects and which would encourage local banks to invest in the Port Orchard community. Outreach to and coordination with the local lending community could be part of the work of the housing coordinator position described in section 3.3. 5.4 - Tax Increment Financing Action: Explore the potential to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for identified sites and projects in the Downtown and Waterfront areas. In 2021, Washington State granted new powers of tax increment financing (TIF) to the state's cities, counties, and port districts.70 This funding mechanism allows municipalities to establish a geographic district (called the increment area) that is expected to benefit the most from a proposed new infrastructure investment. Typically, bonds are issued at the outset and the additional tax revenue resulting from the increased land and property values are then captured to pay for the new infrastructure and pay off the bonds. TIF is widely used in other states across the country, but Washington's new program has some specific guidelines which differ from other states. In Washington, the state school levy and some other local taxes used to repay general obligation bonds are exempt. Additionally, TIF financing can only be used for specific authorized public improvements which are expected to 67 Mattson-Teig, Beth. "Banks Focus CRA Dollars on Affordable Housing." Wealth Management.com, Jan 2, 2020. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/finance-lending/banks-focus-cra-dollars-affordable-housing 68 "Charlotte Housing Opportunity Investment Fund creates affordablew housing and model for the future." LISC Strategic Investments, June 14, 2022. https://www.liscstrategicinvestments.ora/post/choif-three-year-impact-report 69 "Washington Housing Initiative Impact Pool: 2021 Impact Report." JBG Smith. hitps://www.washingtonhousinginitiative.com/-files/ugd/36926a-1 82d6b3b6e814466a17bf33ec1616407. pdf 70 "Tax Increment Financing (TIF)". Municipal Research Service Center. https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore- Topics/Economic-Development/Financing-Economic-Development/Tax-Increment-Financi ng.aspxx Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 68 encourage private development and increased assessed valuation which would not otherwise happen without the improvements. These improvements may be located inside or outside the increment area and include streets, water and sewer systems, sidewalks, streetlights, parking facilities, parks and recreational areas, broadband service, or brownfield mitigation. TIF can also be used to pay for long-term affordable housing, childcare service, providing maintenance and security for public improvements, and acquiring property for historic preservation. Unlike in other states, TIF funding in Washington can only be used for the specified projects or improvements set forth in the initial application, and project lists cannot be modified later. Thus, TIF is only applicable to existing and well-defined projects with specific infrastructure needs. The TIF district must have a maximum sunset date of 25 years and not have an assessed valuation greater than $20 million, and each city may not have more than two districts.71 Explore the possibility of using TIF in Downtown to continue to catalyze redevelopment projects, street or active transportation investments. TIF could support infrastructure or utility investments to support denser mixed -use developments such as the proposed development at 640 Bay Street72 could help support increasing housing supply downtown. TIF funds could also be used for identified projects in the Downtown Subarea Plan such as a concept plan to "break down the scale of existing large scale sites to provide a more walkable land -use pattern", or for streetscape and pedestrian improvements to enhance livability of potential waterfront or downtown redevelopment sites, particularly if or when such sites have development proposals. 73 TIF funding could also be considered for the Bethel/Sedgewick Corridor, which was the subject of a corridor study in 2018 recommending changes to the road design which could be financed through this funding mechanism. 71 "Washington State's Expanded TIF Authority Creates Powerful Catalyst for Public -Private Partnerships." Denis Wright Tremaine. May 2022. https://www.dwt.com/insights/2021/05/washington-state-tax-increment-financing- law 72 Detailed in the "Project Spotlights: Downtown Mixed Use" section of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. 73 City of Port Orchard. "Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan." https://storage.000aleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2021 /07/FINAL-ADOPTED-Downtown-Subarea- Plan-and-Regs-reduced.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 69 5.5 - Funding for ADU Development Action: Explore the possibility of partially financing or streamlining ADU development and permitting processes, particularly for lower -income homeowners. Cities across the U.S. have adopted a variety of programs designed to reduce the cost of ADU development for homeowners, including minimizing design review, waiving permit or utility fees, providing technical assistance, and providing sources of financing.74 Port Orchard currently allows ADUs of less than 1,000 square feet to be served by the same water and sewer connections as the primary residence, a significant savings.75 In addition, Port Orchard amended its ADU standards with Ordinance 038-22 in October 2022 which removes owner occupancy and parking requirements for ADUs, two of the most common barriers to ADU construction and feasibility. Numerous municipalities including Boston, Los Angeles, Montpelier, VT, and Santa Cruz County, CA have established programs which incorporate equity and loan assistance as well as technical assistance and simplified permitting processes.76 Funding sources for these programs include Community Development Block Grants, cities, philanthropists, and partnerships with nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity. Many of these programs are targeted at lower -income renters, requiring either that the ADU be made available to households earning 80% AMI or lower, or to households using Housing Choice (Section 8) Vouchers. Onerous income reporting requirements can be a disincentive. In some cases, these programs have been targeted at lower -income homeowners as well, such as the Small Homes Northwest community ADU demonstration project implemented by Hacienda CDC in Portland and funded by the Oregon legislature, which helps income eligible homeowners develop ADUs in neighborhoods at risk of gentrification. 74 Chapple, Karen, Wegmann, Jake, Mashood Farzad, and Coleman, Rebecca. "Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units." Urban land Institute. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/pdfs/Jumpstarting_the_Market_--_U Ll.pdf 75 Port Orchard Municipal Code 13.04.030(1)(e)(i),13.04.040(1)(e)(i) 76 ADU Aid Programs Across the U.S." Villa. https://viIIahomes.com/blog/adu-aid-programs/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 70 5.6 - State Advocacy Action: Advocate for additional state investment in the Housing Trust Fund, condominium law reform, and Growth Management Act updates. Surveying done for this HAP found strong community support for "City advocacy for more county, state, or federal funding for affordable housing projects." Primarily, this should involve lobbying the Legislature for more funds in the state's Housing Trust Fund, which provides capital funding." The trust has helped build or preserve more than 50,000 affordable housing units statewide since 1986. The Legislature appropriates funding to the trust every biennium. More money in the trust would help smaller communities like Port Orchard (and the affordable housing providers who work in Port Orchard) have a greater chance of receiving funding. Port Orchard could also update its legislative agenda with condominium legislation reform. Condos are a highly in -demand type of ownership housing, especially for first-time homebuyers and seniors seeking to downgrade, but they are rarely built in Washington State due to the liabilities placed on developers under state law .71, 79 The main barriers are a requirement for a 10-year warranty against construction defects and additional building code and inspection requirements that do not apply to rental apartments. The City may comment on reform to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which can add significant delay and complications to approval of residential development. Advocacy might involve exempting all residential development from SEPA review if the development intensity is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City may comment on updates to state law that affect land use, housing, zoning, and transportation (as noted in Section 1.6). The City should provide input on proposals that affect the implementation of the Housing Action Plan, either independently or through its involvement in statewide organizations like the Association of Washington Cities. Continued coordination and involvement with regional partners (such as Kitsap County) and the federal government is also recommended to promote and fund affordable housing. 77 "Housing Trust Fund." Washington State Department of Commerce. hUps://www.commerce.wa.aov/building- infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-fund/ 78 "Washington state's condo law changes could ease restrictions." Spokane Journal of Business, November 2021. https://www.spokane*ournal.com/special-report/washington-states-condo-law-changes-could-ease-restrictions/ 79 "As Gen X and Boomers Age, They Confront Living Alone." The New York Times. November 2022. https://www.n)aimes.com/2022/11/27/us/living-alone-aaina.html Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 71 6 - Implementation The planning matrix below organizes the actions of this Housing Action Plan. The City Council and Mayor will be involved in most or all action implementation through ordinances, resolutions, budgeting, and partnerships with other agencies. This matrix should be used as a framework for regular progress reports on implementation and could be a live document on the City website. DepartmentLead # Description Priority .. Regulatory Strategies 2.1 Expand the allowed High Planning 0-6 $ Development uses Services months regulation ordinances 2.2 Streamline the building Medium Planning 0-6 $ Development type standards Services months regulation ordinances 2.3 Adjust form and High Planning 0-6 $ Development intensity standards Services months regulation ordinances 2.4 Adjust other standards Medium Planning 0-6 $ Development Services months regulation ordinances Programmatic Strategies 3.1 Anti -displacement Medium City Council Ongoing $$ Tenant Protection strategies Ordinance and future amendments as needed Other strategies: Further study, City budget, and future ordinances 3.2 Homelessness Medium City Council Ongoing $$ Intermediate actions strategies High Other actions: Further study and City Budget 3.3 Hire a housing Medium City Council 0-6 $$ City Budget coordinator months Citywide Planning Strategies 4.1 Housing Element Medium Planning 12-24 $$ Comprehensive Plan updates Services months annual amendment and major periodic update 4.2 Land Use Element High Planning 12-24 $$ Comprehensive Plan updates Services months annual amendment and major periodic update 4.3 Public land for Low City Council Ongoing $$$ Partnerships, City affordable housing (with Planning budget, policy in Services) resolution or Comprehensive Plan, Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 72 Lead Description Priority•. • •• and future ordinances 4.4 McCormick East Medium Plannina 12-24 SS Comprehensive Plan Future Neighborhood Services months major periodic Planning update Funding Strategies 5.1 Adjust the multifamily High Planning 0-6 $ MFTE ordinances tax exemption Services (with months program City Treasurer and City Council) 5.2 Development fee Low Planning 0-6 $ Fee schedule adjustments Services months updates 5.3 Local bank funding Low City Council Ongoing $ Partnerships (with Planning Services) 5.4 Tax increment Medium Planning 6-12 $ urther study and financing Services (with months future ordinance City Treasurer) 5.5 Funding for ADU Medium Planning 63 $$ City Budget development Services (with mon City Treasurer) 5.6 State advocacy Or Low City Council Ongoing $ Legislative agenda and engagement with American Planning I Association WA and Association of Washington Cities Figure 24. Implementation matrix 6.1 — High Priority Implementation Given the limited resources of government, it is important to set priorities. The following items are high priority for implementation within the next 12 months. • Adjust the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program • Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing element updates • Development regulation updates 6.2 — Monitoring The only way to know if housing actions are successful is to measure and report on outcomes. By developing a monitoring program, Port Orchard can track progress toward achieving housing goals and identify where more work or changes are needed. Interviews with housing developers one year after HAP adoption (or at other regular intervals) can also be helpful to get feedback on what HAP actions are working well and where there may still be barriers. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 73 Monitoring will be a key role of the new Housing Coordinator staff position. Even so, integrating monitoring into existing work and activities could help preserve limited staff time. Monitoring the HAP implementation could be merged into: • DCD's annual or monthly reports to the City Council • Monitoring of population growth and development permits • Comprehensive plan monitoring • Buildable lands reports Potential performance metrics based on the HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report are listed below. - Objective Greater housing diversity Number of duplex, triplex, fourplex, ADUs, 10-20% of new housing units are in with a greater variety of and small apartment units permitted projects with 2-20 units housing types accessible Number of mixed -use and urban style One development every two years to a greater variety of apartment with structured parking incomes, for both rental permitted and homeownership opportunities Slow down and stabilize Home price increases Annual median home price increases the rise in housing prices are lower than regional, state, or national increases Rental price increases Annual median rental price increases are lower than regional, state, or national increases Vacancy rate Rental unit vacancy rates reach 6-8% Refine regulatory Overall housing production Average annual production rate within standards to reduce ± 20% of that needed to meet the barriers to housing Comprehensive Plan 20-year target development Housing diversity 10-20% of new housing units are in projects with 2-20 units Adopt new financial tools Affordable housing production for cost- Average annual production rate within to support and promote burdened low-income households (80% ± 20% of that needed to meet the development of affordable AMI and below) Comprehensive Plan income -based 20- housing year targets MFTE program participation 25-50 new affordable units per year added from MFTE projects Figure 25. Monitoring matrix DRAFT - APRIL 25, 2023 Appendix A Downtown Height Limit Considerations There is a long history of protecting views in the Downtown area. However, Downtown is also one of the most favorable locations for affordable mixed -use and infill housing due to its transit connections and walkability. This creates a conflict between the objectives of view protection and Comprehensive Plan goals for expanded housing affordability and choice. The compromise currently in place is the Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD), which provides greater height limits than the underlying Downtown zoning (Downtown Mixed Use and Gateway Mixed Use). The DHOD is divided into three sub -zones, and there were slightly modified with adoption of the 2021 Downtown Subarea Plan.80 Zone Height Limits_ Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) 38 feet, three stories Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) 38 feet, three stories Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) DHOD 3: 48 feet, three stories DHOD 4: 58 feet, four stories DHOD 5: 68 feet, five stories Figure 26. Height limits in Downtown While Downtown would also be an ideal location for affordable (subsidized) housing under the MFTE program, no height limit changes or bonus incentive is proposed in Downtown zones to avoid conflict with the existing 10-feet bonus height available for a mixed -used development which includes a grocery store (PAC 20.38.640). Locating a grocery in Downtown has also been a longstanding objective; however, it is only likely to occur when the market demand for such a store is stimulated by a larger Downtown resident population, which can be enabled through more housing development. Further, the benefits of a height bonus would accrue to the developer, not the grocery tenant, which creates development risk of a grocer expecting a rent subsidy and the City not allowing any other tenants if the original grocer leaves. In any case, a grocery tenant is not likely to locate in Downtown until there is a strong enough market. These are additional tradeoffs to consider. The View Protection Overlay District (VPOD), which covers several blocks uphill from Bay Street, has current height limits of 15 and 27 feet. Uniquely, in the VPOD these height limits are measured from the uphill property line, so these relatively low limits could still allow relatively large multi -story buildings that are built into the hillside. Further modifications to the VPOD could consider that private view easements are an alternative mechanism for property owners to preserve views. 80 Downtown Subarea Plan, City of Port Orchard. https://portorchardwa.gov/downtown-subarea-plan/ Appendix B Existing Conditions Report & Housing Needs Analysis Port Orchard Housing Action Plan Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report April 14, 2023 Introduction The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. The process to develop the HAP included a review of Port Orchard's system of policies, programs, and regulations which shape opportunities for housing development. The purpose of this effort is to define strategies and actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. The HAP is intended to inform updates to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (most notably the Land Use and Housing elements) and to guide implementation strategies such as development regulations, housing programs, fee structures, and infrastructure spending priorities. Table of Contents Introduction Section 1 - Community Profile Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends Section 3 - Cost Trends .......................................... Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs ................ Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools Section 6 - Housing Policies .................................. 3 3 ......32 ......37 ......43 ......48 Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis.....................................................................................65 Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies M9 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 1 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 2 Abbreviations ACS. American Community Survey, an annual product of the U.S. Census Bureau. AMI. Area median income. BIPOC. Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color. CHAS. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a product of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. GIS. Geographic Information System. HAP. Housing Action Plan. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LEHD. Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. MFI. Medium family income. MFTE. Multifamily tax exemption program. MHI. Medium household income. MSA. Metropolitan Statistical Area. POMC. Port Orchard Municipal Code (city law). OFM. Washington State Office of Financial Management. RCW. Revised Code of Washington (state law). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 3 Section 1- Community Profile The Community Profile discusses Port Orchard's current and future population and the age, race, and ethnicity of residents. It also discusses the size, income, and characteristics of the City's households, as well as households with specific needs and risks such as cost -burdened households, older adults, and adults with disabilities. These demographic and household characteristics provide background and context for the types of housing required to better serve all of Port Orchard's residents. Population and Demographics Historic and Future Population Port Orchard's population in 2020 was 15,587 according to the U.S. Census. The Washington Office of Financial Management Postcensal 2022 population estimate for the city is 16,400. Figure 1 shows the city's population trends since 1960, average annual growth rates by decade, and the latest Port Orchard 2044 population target of 26,087 residents as detailed in the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update. Port Orchard is a fast-growing community that has historically grown more rapidly than national and statewide averages. The city grew at an average annual rate of about 2.8 percent since 1960, but growth accelerated around 2000. Since 2000 the city has grown on average 4.0 percent annually, an increase of 9,442 residents. By comparison, Kitsap County grew at a rate of 0.9 percent per year over the same period and national population growth was 0.7 percent in the 2000-2020 period. The 2020 census and 2044 population target represent an expected annual growth rate of 2.2 percent per year, though recent trends have suggested higher growth rates closer to 3 percent indicating that Port Orchard may exceed its planning target. 30,000 25,000 20,000 c 0 15,000 Q 0 a 10,000 5,000 � Population Annual Growth Rate ■ 1960 1970 1980 6% 5% �a 2% c 1% 0% 1990 2000 2010 2020 2044 Figure 1. Port Orchard Population, Historic Through 2020 and Projected Through 2044 with Annual Growth Rates. Sources: WA OFM (Historic Population), Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update 101412022 (Projections) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 4 The City of Port Orchard annexed a large amount of acreage between 2010 and 2012, which contributed to the comparatively rapid population growth in the 2010s. During this period, the City annexed 1,400 acres comprising 515 parcels. Together, the newly annexed areas make up 19.5% of Port Orchard's total acreage. Without granular population numbers at a parcel level, it is difficult to assess exactly how many new residents are represented by this area, but these annexations have certainly affected the rapid growth rates seen over the past 20 years. Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Language Figure 2 shows the racial and ethnic breakdown of the Port Orchard and Kitsap County populations. Port Orchard is about 67 percent White, compared with 76 percent in Kitsap County. The city has a higher share of Hispanic/Latino and mixed -race residents than the county and similar shares of Asian and Black/African-American residents. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County ■ Hispanic / Latino ■ Other / Two or More Races ■ Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander Asian American Indian / Alaska Native ■ Black / African American ■ White Figure 2. Racial and Ethnic Distribution in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 The Port Orchard population is somewhat younger than regional and statewide populations, as shown in Figure 3. Over half the population is under 35 years old, and 14 percent of residents are over 65, compared with 18 percent countywide. This younger population suggests a current need for smaller or more affordable housing units, and the potential for larger units as younger residents age and form households in coming decades. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 5 100% 90% 80% 11% 13% 14°i° 70% 11 % ■ 65 and older 12%12%60% 12% ■ 55 to 64 50% 12% 13% ■ 45 to 54 40% ° _ ■ 35 to 44 30% 220/, ■ 20 to 34 20°i° ■ 19 and younger 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington Figure 3. Age Distribution in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 The chart below shows the age distribution of Port Orchard residents by sex. Generally, there are more males in the 25 to 54 age group and more females in older age cohorts. 85 years and over 75 to 84 years 65 to 74 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 45 to 54 years 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years ■ Male Female -1,400 -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Figure 4. Age Distribution by Sex in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey, Table SO101 Most Port Orchard residents are citizens born in the United States. About a third of Port Orchard's residents were born in the state of Washington. About half were born in another state (including U.S. territories). Almost five percent were born in Asia, with small numbers born in other regions of the world, as seen in Figure 5. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 6 Place of Birth USA (same state) Percent 37.0% Total 5,292 USA (other state) 52.3% 7,480 Europe 0.6% 79 Asia 4.8% 685 Africa 0.0% 0 Oceania 0.1 % 20 Latin America 1.3% 188 Northern America 0.4% 59 Figure 5. Port Orchard Residents Place of Birth, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table CP02 Most Port Orchard households speak English as a first language. Almost six percent, or 815 households, speak an Asian or Pacific Island language, and about two percent, or 272 households, speak Spanish at home. Census data on English language proficiency is not available at the geographic scale of Port Orchard, but across all of Kitsap County, about 29 percent of Spanish speakers and 39 percent of Asian or Pacific Island language speakers do not speak English "very well." Limited English proficiency can have implications for housing security if materials are not translated or there is confusion over contracts, expectations, or tenant rights. Language English 91.8% 13,130 Spanish 1.9% 272 Indo-European languages 0.6% 86 Asian/ Pacific Island languages 5.7% 815 Other languages 0.1 % 14 Figure 6. Language Spoken at Home, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601 Household Characteristics Household Size, Type, and Tenure The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as "all the people who occupy a housing unit." Households can be comprised of any combination of related family members, unrelated people, or individuals.' The 2020 American Community Survey estimated about 5,517 total households in Port Orchard, up from about 4,316 households in 2010—an increase of about 28 percent, or 2.5 percent per year. Figure 7 shows total households, occupied households, and the vacancy rate over the past decade. The vacancy rate compares the total number of occupied versus unoccupied units. This accounts for all "natural vacancies" due to units on the market being available for sale or rent, second homes and seasonal homes, vacation rentals, and any other type of unoccupied housing. See Section 2 for more information on market -based vacancy rates. 1 U.S. Census Bureau: Subject Definitions. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 7 The vacancy rate has fluctuated from seven percent in 2010 to as high as 14 percent in 2015 but has decreased to 5.6 percent in 2020.This decreasing vacancy rate suggests increased demand for housing in the city. Vacancy Rate Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units 7,000 16% 6,000 14% 5,000 12% m 10% o 4,000 8% 73 3,000 M 0 6% � 2,000 4 � °i° 1,000 2% 0 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Figure 7. Vacancy Rates and Housing Unit Occupancy, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25002 The following table shows household composition in Port Orchard and Kitsap County. Overall, the shares of family and non -family households are very similar to county averages, with nearly 70 percent of households classified as family households, about half of which are married couples. Twenty-two percent of Port Orchard residents live alone, and about half of those residents are over 65 years old. Household composition data can provide insight into the various types and sizes of housing to best meet the needs of the city's residents. Household TyPercent pe otal Households Port Orchard Total 5,517 100% Total 105,758 Percent 100% Family households 3,819 69% 71,415 68% Married -couple family 2,995 54% 56,388 53% Other family 824 15% 15,027 14% Nonfamily households 1,698 31 % 34.343 32% Householder living alone 1,214 22% 25,787 24% Householder 65 years and over 601 11 % 11,396 11 % Figure B. Household Composition in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501 Figure 9 shows tenure in Port Orchard. About 60 percent of households are homeowners and 40 percent are renters. This is broadly similar to statewide averages though a higher share of renter households than in Kitsap County, likely owing to the large number of apartments in Port Orchard compared to the rest of the county. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 8 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% ■ Renter -occupied 40% ■ Owner -occupied 30% .•' 20% 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington Figure 9. Tenure in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501 Renters can face increased housing instability due to evictions and rent increases not faced by homeowners. In addition, renters are more likely to be BIPOC and lower -income households, compounding the effects of these housing challenges. As shown below in Figure 10, about 86 percent of ownership households in Port Orchard have a householder who identifies as White, compared with 64 percent of renter households. Nationally, Black households had the highest renter rate in 2022 at 55 percent, and Hispanic households were at 51 percent, compared to 26 percent for white households.2 Additionally, as discussed below under "Income" and shown in Figure 14, renters in Port Orchard earn less than homeowners, with a median household income for renter households of $46,209 in 2020 compared to $97,504 for ownership households. Race of Householder One Race Ownership Households Renter Households White 89.4% 71.5% Black or African -American 2.2% 4.5% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3% 0.0% Asian 3.0% 4.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.8% 8.8% Some Other Race 0.5% 3.2% Two or More Races 3.8% 7.8% Hispanic or Latino Origin 6.2% 12.9% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 86.4% 64.4% All Households 60.1 % 39.9% Figure 10. Tenure by Race in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 2 Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, "The State of the Nation's Housing 2022" Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 9 Figure 11 shows the breakdown of Port Orchard's households by tenure and household size. About 34 percent of households are two -person households, and 27 percent have four or more members. Renters make up a slightly larger share of smaller households, although 11 percent of four -or -more -person households are also renters. 4-or-more-person household 3-person household 2-person household 1-person household 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 ■ Ownership Households ■ Renter Households Figure 11. Port Orchard Tenure by Household Size, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501 The average household size in Port Orchard is 2.4 people per household3. There is a mismatch between housing size and household size in Port Orchard. Fifty-six percent of households are made up of one or two people, whereas only 37 percent of housing units are studio, one- or two -bedroom units, as shown below in Figure 11. Although smaller households may prefer to live in larger units, this type of mismatch can cause housing affordability issues if smaller households are forced to rent more expensive larger units due to supply constraints. 3 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 10 Household Size 3-person household 16°i° 2-person household 34% Housing Unit Size 3 bedrooms 41% Studio / 1 bedroom 10% bedrooms Figure 12. Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04 When analyzed by tenure, there are more significant disparities in household size and housing unit size for homeowners, as shown below in Figure 12. Only 2 percent of ownership housing units are studio or one -bedroom units, whereas 53 percent of ownership households are one- or two -person households. The rental housing stock is more closely matched with renters' household sizes in the city. This shows that residents in smaller households seeking to purchase housing may face difficulties and higher costs due to lack of availability of small ownership units. Household Size ■ 1 person HH ■ 2 person HH 3 person HH ■ 4+ person HH 100% 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% � 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Owners Renters Housing Unit Size ■ 0-1 bedroom ■ 2-3 bedrooms ■ 4+ bedrooms Owners Renters Figure 13. Household Size and Housing Unit Size by Tenure in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, S2504 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 11 Income The median household income (MHI) in Port Orchard was $71,719 in 2020, $7,250 less than the Kitsap County MHI and $5,287 less than the statewide average. The Port Orchard MFI increasec 21 percent since 2010, when adjusted for inflation. This is significantly higher than the 12 percent increase in Kitsap County and 14 percent increase across Washington during the same timeframe, as shown in Figure 13. $97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020 $75,600 $78,969 $77,006 $71,719 $70,268 $67,548 $59,325 $44,074 $46,209 Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington (All Households) (Ownership Households)(Renter Households) Figure 14. Inflation -Adjusted Median Household Income in Port Orchard and Region, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index Renters in Port Orchard earn considerably less than homeowners. In 2020, the MHI for ownership households was $97,524, compared to only $46,209 for renter households. In addition, renters in Port Orchard have seen only a five percent increase in incomes between 2010 and 2020, compared to a 29 percent increase in incomes of ownership households, when adjusted for inflation. Rental households' lower incomes and slower income growth compared with ownership households raises concerns over the ability of renters to keep up with rising housing costs or to move into homeownership, particularly given that wealthier ownership households may be able to pay more for housing. For the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the 2022 median family income (MFI) is $102,500 and the 2020 MFI was $91,700. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 12 When broken down across income levels, the largest share of Port Orchard households earn between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, as shown in Figure 14. Port Orchard has smaller shares of high -income earners making over $150,000 per year than Kitsap County, and a much larger share of the lowest -income households earning less than $10,000 per year than countywide averages. This shows a high level of need for subsidized affordable housing, discussed further in Section 2 under "Affordable Housing." 20% 18% 16% ■Port Orchard 14% OKitsap County 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% O O O C) C) CD Ln CD Ln O N ODCD b4 Y M CD b4 b4 to b4 (V O b4 tH b4 11 4 O V IN O O O O O O Y N M Ln QO ul O Ln O b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 I� O N l2 b4 to b4 b4 Figure 15. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table 819001 Figure 16 below is from HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data' for 2019 and shows a breakdown of Port Orchard's households by income level and tenure. Almost half of Port Orchard residents (46 percent) earn less than 80 percent of the AMI, a common threshold for subsidized housing eligibility. About 69 percent of renter -occupied households earn less than 80 percent AMI, while 30 percent of owner - occupied households earn less than 80 percent AMI. Additionally, over a quarter (28 percent) of renters earn under 30 percent of the AMI, or $27,500 for a family of four, demonstrating the need for more subsidized affordable housing in Port Orchard, which is typically the only type of housing that can meet these deep affordability levels. Stakeholders described over 1,000 people are on the waiting list for housing vouchers at the Kitsap Housing Authority, which manages vouchers in both Bremerton and Port Orchard. 4 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a HUD dataset based on calculations from the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates that provides a series of tables demonstrating housing problems and needs. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 13 100%+AMI 80-100% AM I 50-80% AMI 30-50% AMI ■ Owner ■ Renter < 30% AMI 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Figure 16. Port Orchard Households by Income Level and Tenure. Source: 2015-2019 HUD CHAS data Vehicle Ownership Figure 16 shows number of vehicles available to Port Orchard households by the tenure of unit. Owner -occupied units are more likely to have two or three vehicles, while renter -occupied units are more likely to have one to two vehicles. Also of note,14 percent of renter households have no access to a vehicle. These vehicle ownership ratios are similar to statewide averages, although ownership households are slightly more likely to have two vehicles in Port Orchard than statewide. 60% ■ Owner ■ Renter 50% � 40% 30% � 20% 10% 0% � No vehicle 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 or more vehicles available available available available available Figure 17. Vehicle Ownership by Tenure of Unit, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25044 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 14 Employment Trends Understanding workforce and employment trends is essential for housing planning. A growing, shrinking, or shifting economy can affect residents' ability to afford housing and limit or expand their housing choices. Strong economies in nearby communities can also affect commuting and residential patterns. Figure 18 shows changes in Port Orchard's top employment sectors from 2009 to 2019, the year of the most recent Census employment data. Retail jobs have increased significantly, and health care and food service jobs have also seen growth since the 2008 recession. The large number of public administration jobs reflect county offices within Port Orchard, the county seat. 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 f� 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 & 00 RR 00 OHO 01 00 O°' .�O NN ,�`L Nrb NIX '�h NO NA NO Nq �O �O �O If, If, If, �O rf, rO If, If, I_fI rf, rf, 1O If, If, rf, Retail Trade Public Administration Health Care / Social Assistance Accommodation / Food Construction Professional Services Figure 18. Job Trends by Top Sectors in Port Orchard, 2009-2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND) via Census OnTheMap Figure 19 shows the top job sectors in the city and the top job sectors worked by Port Orchard residents. Many of the employees in the top sectors, particularly retail and public administration, are not Port Orchard residents. On the other hand, there are larger shares of residents who work in professional services, education, and manufacturing than jobs in the city. This reflects a variety of scenarios, including technology/knowledge workers employed in Seattle, regional educators at schools in nearby cities, and industrial employees in surrounding areas, potentially connected to the Naval shipyard in Bremerton. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 15 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 lilliddom 0 mijoi aae `°� aye &``A `°" G°5 `°" Goe ��` ae - o� "J a�G'oK Q GPaca 1 o°a\ G �y\oa Pam or \�� r°tee a Ge\ lac QJ•Q\` � ■ Jobs in Port Orchard ■ Jobs Worked by Port Orchard Residents Figure 19. Top Job Sectors in Port Orchard and Jobs Worked by Port Orchard Residents, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) via Census OnTheMap The map below shows commuting patterns of Port Orchard workers as of 2019, the year of the most recent Census commuter data. About 585 workers, or 11.7 percent of Port Orchard employees, both lived and worked in the city. 6,540 workers lived outside of the city and commute in for work, and 4,396 workers lived in the city but commuted to work elsewhere. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 16 Employed and Live in Selection Area Employed in Selection Area, Live Outside Live in Selection Area, Employed Outside -. Bremerton Navy Yard City 304 T Parkwood Port Orchard Soreast �ea9Wij Figure 20. Port Orchard Commuting Inflow and Outflow, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD (Longitudial Employer -Household Dynamics) via Census OnTheMap tool. As shown below in Figure 21, a similar amount of Port Orchard residents were working in Seattle, Port Orchard, and Bremerton in 2019. Smaller shares of residents were working in other nearby locales, including unincorporated East Port Orchard. This data is not yet available for more recent years but monitoring these commuting trends will be important due to the changes in workplace dynamics and remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. Work Location Seattle city, WA Percent 12.3% Port Orchard city, WA 11.7% Bremerton city, WA 10.8% Silverdale CDP, WA 5.0% East Port Orchard CDP, WA 4.7% Tacoma city, WA 4.3% Gig Harbor city, WA 4.0% Bellevue city, WA 2.2% Kent city, WA 1.7% Poulsbo city, WA 1.5% All Other Locations 41.6% Figure 21. Port Orchard Commuting Locations, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD (Longitudial Employer -Household Dynamics) via Census OnTheMap tool. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 17 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton is part of Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), a large military installation across multiple sites in Kitsap County. The military is a significant contributor to the economy of the region. As of 2017, NBK contributed $4 billion to the regional economy, including $1.1 billion in payroll, $792 million in operations and contracts, $14 million in visitor spending, and $2.1 billion in direct military and civilian payroll to residents residing in Kitsap, Jefferson, and Mason counties The installation as a whole has 45,532 employees, including 31,585 military and civilian personnel residing in the same counties.s Average salaries of enlisted personnel were $33,400, plus an annual housing allowance of $12,000 - $25,000, and average salaries of civilian employees were $74,000 as of 2014.E Data provided by the Navy for all civilian employees across Kitsap County shows a total workforce of 19,184, an average age of 42, and a median income of $84,181. Nearly half of civilian employees have an educational attainment of high school level or below, and about 30 percent have a Bachelors' degree or higher. Note that this data does not include military personnel or contractors, whose numbers fluctuate significantly. This fluctuating employment base can reflect the need for short- or medium -term housing heard during stakeholder interviews for this planning process. However, this data does provide a picture of the average civilian employee of the larger Naval Base Kitsap operation. This data demonstrates the overall importance of the military to the economy of the Kitsap Peninsula. Port Orchard's proximity to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard results in housing demand in the city from shipyard employees. Detailed demographics of shipyard employees were not available for this study, but interviews with stakeholders, city council, and community members in Port Orchard suggest that Navy employees contribute significantly to housing demand in the city, particularly for smaller units and shorter -term housing options due to the nature of military operations. The Kitsap Economic Development Alliance notes that the shipyard is anticipated to see significant investment through the Navy's 21-year, $20 billion Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP), suggesting continued economic and housing impacts in the region.' 5 Naval Base Kitsap. "Naval Base Kitsap Operations and Economic Contributions." http://www2.economicgateway.com/media/userfiles/subsite_197/files/nbk-economic-impact-factsheets.pdf 6 Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Magazine Indian Island Joint Land Use Study, September 2015. http://compplan.kitsapaov.com/Documents/KIIJLUS_Full.pdf. Note that More recent wage and Bremerton -specific employee data from the Navy was not available as of February 2023. 7 Kitsap Economic Development Alliance. "Kitsap is a Leader in the States and Nation's Defense Industry." htips://www.kitsapeda.org/key-industries/defense Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 18 Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends This section discusses the type and age of Port Orchard's existing housing stock and current and future housing production. It also identifies special housing types in Port Orchard such as subsidized affordable units and senior housing. An inventory of existing housing creates a baseline for future housing planning and identifies market trends. Total Housing Units Port Orchard's 5,577 housing units account for approximately five percent of Kitsap County's housing units. The breakdown of unit types is shown below in Figure 22. Sixty-three percent of units are single-family detached units, somewhat less than the county. Port Orchard has a noticeably higher share of buildings with 5-19 units than the county, and an overall higher share of multifamily units. 100°i° 3% 5% 90% 6% 80% 7% 5% 70% 3% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Port Orchard 3% Kitsap County Mobile home ■ 20 or more units ■ 10 to 19 units ■ 5 to 9 units ■ 3 or 4 units ■ 2 units ■ 1-unit, attached ■ 1-unit, detached Figure 22. Housing Unit Type in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 19 Housing Age and Production Figure 23 shows the age of housing stock in Port Orchard as of 2020. The city has a considerably younger housing stock than Kitsap County overall, with 57 percent of housing built since 1990, compared with 40 percent countywide. However, Port Orchard also contains a slightly larger share of older buildings constructed before 1950 than the county, at 23 percent. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12% 5% 7% Port Orchard 5% 14% 18% 7% 4% Kitsap County ■ 2010 or later ■ 2000-2009 ■ 1990-1999 ■ 1980-1989 ■ 1970-1979 ■ 1960-1969 ■ 1950-1959 ■ 1940-1949 ■ 1939 or earlier Figure 23. Age of Housing in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. Building permit issuance data shown below in Figure 20 corroberates this data on housing age. A significant number of multifamily housing permits were issued in the 1990s, and multifamily permitting has accelerated in the past decade, as have single-family housing permits. This data shows issued permits, not completions, so much of the housing shown in the past several years has not yet been occupied but is in the pipeline. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 20 600 500 Single -Family Duplex Triplex / 4-Plex ■ 5+ Unit Multifamily 400 300 200 ' 100 ' 0 1§0 %101 O O1` � 00 00 Oc0 l, C51X 0 qOff' O 00 O� � Figure 24. Port Orchard Building Permits Issued by Unit Type, 1980-2022 (to date). Source: HUD State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) Figure 25 shows expected dates when certificates of occupancy will be granted for permitted housing in the pipeline. In total, 5,198 units are permitted and expected to be completed in Port Orchard in the coming years, and 2,482 of those units are planned to be completed between 2022 and 2024, of which 45 percent will be multifamily units. This high rate of housing production will nearly double the city's housing inventory within the next several years. 3000 2500 2000 ■Mixed -Use Development 1500 ■ 5+ Unit Apartment 4-Plex 1000 Townhouse Single Family & Townhouse 500 Single Family 0 2022 2023 2024 Permitting Initiated, Timeline Uncertain Figure 25. Number of Units Permitted with Certificates of Occupancy Expected 2022 and Later by Unit Type. Source: City of Port Orchard. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 21 Interviews with developers and stakeholders conducted by the project team in summer 2022 confirmed a large amount of single-family and apartment construction both underway and planned. In particular, the McCormick Woods development, a large master planned community in the western part of the city, has been in development since the 1980s and will significantly increase the city's housing stock, as well as representing a portion of the newly annexed land previously discussed. City permitting data indicates 2,729 units at McCormick Woods either permitted or currently in the permitting process. The multifamily developments built in Port Orchard to date have been walk-up apartments. Some developers indicated that there may be a market for denser podium -style development in the 10-20 year time horizon, and at least one such project has recently been proposed (see the project spotlights later in this section). Vacancy Rates Port Orchard's vacancy rates for rental and ownership properties are shown in Figure 26. In 2020, the Census -reported rental vacancy rate was 5.8 percent and the ownership vacancy rate was 1.4 percent. Both vacancy rates have decreased over the past decade as shown below, and the 5.8 percent rental vacancy rate reflects the large amount of rental apartment construction which has taken place in Port Orchard in recent years. Note that this vacancy rate is based only on dwelling units that are available on the market for sale or rent. It is different from the total number of unoccupied units discussed in Section 1. 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ownership Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate Figure 26. Vacancy Rates in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04 In contrast with the relatively high census -reported rental vacancy rates shown above, CoStar, a commercial real estate database, estimates vacancy rates for multifamily apartments in Port orchard at about 3.5 percent as of mid-2022, as shown below in Figure 27, which shows the stabilized (accounting for new development coming onto the market) vacancy rates in the city over the past decade. This lower vacancy rate reported by the real estate industry may be more representative of the strong demand for apartments in the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 22 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 27. Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate in Port Orchard, 2012-2022. Source: Costar Vacation Housing Census data shows there are zero seasonal and recreational housing units in Port Orchard. Short -Term Rentals Short-term rentals, also known as vacation rentals, are considered stays of 30 days or less in a residential dwelling. Looking at listings on Airbnb, VRBO, and Vacasa for the December to January 2022/2023 holiday season, there are 15 short-term rentals in Port Orchard. Most of the short-term rentals are in the downtown area, with proximity to the water and Bay Street. Rentals range from a private room up to five bedrooms. The average cost per night for a private room or one bedroom is $114, $194 per night for two- and three -bedroom listings, and $292 per night for four- and five -bedroom listings. City staff report that many short-term rentals are not paying the required lodging tax. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 23 Affordable Housing Affordable housing is housing reserved for people earning below a certain income and who cannot afford market -rate costs (other interrelated terms include low-income housing, subsidized housing, public housing, or rent -restricted housing). Affordable housing properties may be reserved for people meeting other criteria such as families with children, seniors, people with physical or intellectual disabilities, or people with substance abuse disorders. Affordable housing is important to support community members who face barriers in the private housing market, especially those who are on the edge of or transitioning out of homelessness. This type housing is subsidized and mostly operated by government or non- profit organizations. The main affordable housing provider in Port Orchard is Housing Kitsap, a government agency that provides housing assistance for families who need affordable alternatives to the private market. Housing Kitsap operates countywide. In and near Port Orchard, Housing Kitsap's portfolio includes 375 units across six properties and 109 "Section 8" vouchers (which pays rents for voucher recipients). In addition, Housing Kitsap has a Mutual Self -Help Housing program where homeowners put in sweat equity to build their home and purchase it at an affordable price point. Housing Kitsap also has a Home Rehabilitation Program that assists with home repairs. According to Housing Kitsap staff, approximately 500 homes in Port Orchard have benefited from the two programs since the 1970's. Under Port Orchard's multifamily tax exemption program, 20 privately -owned units are being rented at affordable rates. See more information under Section 5. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 24 Property Housing Kitsap Rental Housing Heritage Apartments R3 56 Multifamily Section 8; families or people with disabilities Orchard Bluff R2 89 Mobile Home Park Low income & head of household 55 or older Port Orchard Vista R4 42 Multifamily (senior) Low income & 62 or older Conifer Woods Apartments (outside city limits) UGA 72 Multifamily Low income Viewmont East Apartments (outside city limits) UGA 76 Multifamily Section 8; families or people with disabilities Madrona Manor (outside city limits) UGA 40 Multifamily (senior) Low income & head of household 55 or older Housing Kitsap Homeownership Mutual Self -Help Housing Sherman Ridge R2 27 Single-family 80% AMI or less Riverstone R3 & R2 39 Single-family 80% AMI or less Multifamily Tax Exemption Sites (Private Rental Housing) The Overlook R3 8 affordable (39 total) Multifamily MFTE Type 1 (12 year affordability) Plisko Apartments CMU 12 affordable (58 total) Multifamily MFTE Type I (12 year affordability) Figure 28. Port Orchard affordable housing inventory (Housing Kitsap and City of Port Orchard) Figure 29. Affordable housing sites in Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 25 Public Land Surplus public land is sometimes used for affordable housing. State law enacted in 2018 (RCW 39.33.015) allows local governments to transfer, lease, or dispose of surplus property at low or no cost to developers for affordable housing projects. Port Orchard has a large number of City - owned lands, and most are actively used for utility purposes or other public works, parks, and administrative functions. Some lands are also in greenbelts, wetlands, or ravines which are undevelopable. Discussion with City staff yielded the following sites to consider in the Housing Action Plan. Other public lands (such as those owned by Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and other agencies) could be reviewed in the future. Map Key 1 Parcel # 342401-4-016-2001 & Zoning CMU Area 1.0 acres Considerations Surplus property from the construction of the 342401-4-015-2002 roundabout at Tremont/Pottery. Considerable size and has appropriate zoning for affordable housing. 2 252401-3-045-2009 R4 1.7 acres Sloped site near the high school on Mitchell Avenue. Considerable size, ideally located, and has appropriate zoning for affordable housing. 3 4062-003-005-0006 R1 0.86 Vacant parcel owned by the water utility; it would need to be purchased from the enterprise fund. Considerable size and good location. Would likely need to be rezoned. 4 4650-009-006-0208 DMU 0.25 acres 640 Bay Street (see Project Spotlights). This site is planned for a housing project by a private developer. 5 4538-009-007-0007 UGA 0.21 acres Vacant property just outside city limits in the Annapolis neighborhood. 6 4537-014-001-0004 UGA 0.15 acres Vacant property just outside city limits in the Annapolis neighborhood. Figure 30. Table of surplus or vacant public land to consider for housing opportunities. Source: City of Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 26 Figure 31. Map of surplus or vacant public land to consider for housing opportunities. Source: City of Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 27 Project Spotlights This section provides detailed case studies of recent and ongoing housing developments in Port Orchard. It includes a cross-section of housing types. The spotlights are intended to provide insights on housing cost and design trends. Valley Quadplex This a recently completed fourplex development at the corner of Mitchell Avenue and Dwight Street. " The site is zoned R3 and is within the Downtown Countywide Center. The site is on a block with single-family homes, to the south is a small multifamily complex, and to the east is South Kitsap High School. Each of the four units is 3 bed/2.5 bath with about 1,450 square feet of living area. The lot is 8,276 square feet lot (0.19 acres), so the density is 21 units per acre. The building is three -stories and steps down a slope, with one -car garages located in a daylight basement in the rear of each unit. The site incorporates a rear shared access drive connected to a private alley. Residential open space is provided on the east and south sides of the building. Staff report the development fits the neighborhood well i ;T and it is a good example of infill. The developer tr4 suggested more friendly paperwork and inspection scheduling (the City just recently launched online- DW6GHT Ayr scheduling and permitting). The fourplex was as intimidating and laborious to permit as an apartment building, possibly due to the required environmental review and the use of the commercial building code (as opposed to the residential building code). The developer was interested in but unable to participate in the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program due to the local minimum threshold of 10 dwelling units (under updated state law a four -unit development is the minimum). The land cost was about $93,000 and the total construction cost (before sales tax) was about $200 per square foot. The units are each renting for $2,300 to $2,500 per month. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 28 Haven Apartments This is a nearly complete garden apartment development in southern Port Orchard located off Pottery Avenue and within the Ruby Creek subarea. The site is zoned Commercial Mixed Use and is within the Ruby Creek Overlay District. This is a semi -rural area quickly transitioning into a low -density neighborhood center. Adjacent to the site to the south is Ruby Creek and a single-family property, to the west is additional vacant land where the Haven Townhome project is planned by the same developer, to the north is a church and car dealership, and to the east is a wooded wetland. Only about half of the 18-acre parcel is developable due to the wetland and stream buffers; after subtracting those, the development's net density is about 24 units per acre. The development has 216 total units spread across 10 three-story buildings. About 36% of units are 1-bedrooms, 52% are 2-bedrooms, and 11 % are 3- bedrooms. An average of 1.65 parking spaces per unit are provided. This development offers more amenities than typical multifamily projects in Port Orchard. With units renting slightly above $2.00 per square foot (e.g. at least $2,100/month for a two -bedroom unit), the project will serve the mid -high end of the Port Orchard rental market. This is partly due to the developer's intentional positioning and the site amenities, including a 6,000 square feet clubhouse with a swimming pool. Higher rents are also partly due to the high construction costs that need to be recouped. Hard construction costs, not including land, were about $170 per square foot. Impact fees totaled about $28,000 per unit ($6 million total). Through a development agreement, the developer is receiving sewer general facility fee credits to help offset the cost of a new $2.5 million sewer lift station constructed at the developer's expense. The developer is also receiving transportation and park impact fee credits for constructed improvements constructed and land dedication. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 29 McCormick Village This is a planned mixed -use subdivision that is a small part of the large master planned McCormick Woods area, which has been under development since the 1980's and was annexed to Port Orchard in 2009. This particular site is about 23 acres and located on the north side of Clifton Road. The area is currently forested vacant land, with a large church to the southwest of the site, single-family subdivisions planned or under construction in the vicinity, and new public schools planned just west of the site. The site has a mix of zoning: Residential 3, Neighborhood Mixed Use, and Commercial Mixed Use. It also has a special McCormick Village Overlay (MVOD) with subtle changes to the residential lot standards. The City developed the MVOD regulations to implement the McCormick Village Subarea Plan and worked closely with the landowner. The overlay provides some nuances such as additional allowed building types, revised minimum/maximum setbacks, and a prohibition on parking in the front of lots. The residential preliminary plat shows up to 153 lots and all lots having alley access. A variety of housing types are illustrated, with the majority being 30-feet wide lots with detached homes and above -garage accessory dwelling units (uniquely, all such units will start as rentals). One version of the plat also shows paseo houses (similar to cottage housing, but with less common open space) and two-story forecourt apartment buildings (with 6-8 units per site). The total unit count is not yet known, but based on one drawing provided to the City, the site could have up to 320 units (including ADU's). The gross density (including ADU's and excluding the commercial area) would be about 20 units per acre. The separately permitted commercial village is at the northeast corner of the site. This would be Port Orchard's first retail development west of State Route 16. Preliminary plans show pads for about 10 small commercial buildings served by surface parking and woonerf-style drive aisles. .ena ! - I Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 30 The Ramsey This is an ongoing mixed -use development in southern Port Orchard located at the northeast corner of Sedgwick Road and Ramsey Road. It is zoned Commercial Mixed Use, located within the Sedgwick-Bethel SR-16 center, and within the soon -to -be master planned Bethel Sedgwick Countywide Center. This is a semi -developed suburban area characterized by a mixture of small and large auto -oriented commercial uses. This site is located uphill from the area's major intersection. Adjacent to the site to the east is a gas station, to the south are single-family homes and a home -based auto detailing shop, to the west is a fitness center, and to the north is vacant forested land. The development is occurring on a relatively compact and sloping 2.5-acre site. It consists of three buildings, one of which is small drive -through coffee stand. The other two buildings are three stories and, combined, contain commercial space and 99 apartments on the upper floors. The gross density is about 40 units per acre. The development is one of the few participating in the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program since the program was started in 2016. The developer is currently applying for a "Type 3" 8-year property tax exemption in exchange for incorporating structured parking and a shopfront design (commercial retail space). This is the first large private development in Port Orchard to incorporate structured parking. The project is located far from Downtown Port Orchard, and yet the land value and market economics appear to be enabling this unconventional hybrid between suburban and urban land use intensity. While it is was assisted by the MFTE program, this project may be representative of an early transition in the Port Orchard real estate market where more dense, mixed -use development is becoming economically viable. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 31 Downtown Mixed Use Projects Several residential -commercial mixed -use projects have been proposed in Downtown Port Orchard in recent years. None have broken ground as of this writing, though one is now permitted. Conceptual designs show urban features like structured parking, storefronts, rooftop open space, and being at least four stories in height. This swell may be signaling a shift in the local real estate economy where compact infill and redevelopment is on the verge of being more feasible due to a combination of land values and market rents. Project Description Bay Street Apartments (429 Bay Street) This project has been permitted on the site of the old Lighthouse Restaurant and will develop 39 units and 500 square feet of commercial on four levels. It is located on a 1.35 acre waterfront site. The project will have a single level of structured parking on the ground floor. The I developer requested a reduction of 66 parking spaces to 41 spaces. The residential density is 29 units per acre. Heronsview (100 Bethel Avenue) The conceptual plans have a total of 106 units on four - levels; 55% of units are studios, 23% are 1-bedrooms, 15% are 2-bedrooms, and 7% are live/work units. Proposed on - a 1.08 acre site, the development's residential density would be 98 units per acre. About 6,000 square feet of commercial space are shown in conceptual drawings. At least 143 parking spaces would be required if no on - street parking is available. Parking would be provided in a two -level garage, with the roof used as a residential open space. 1626-1636 Bay Street This concept includes 71 units on five levels, including two levels of structured parking. Proposed on a 0.51 acre site, the residential density would be 139 units per acre. The site and development concept is currently for sale for about $6 million. q 640 Bay Street This a City -owned property that was intended to be sold f to a private developer, though the project has been on u _ hold for at least four years. This early concept proposed r --� to include 44 units on five levels and about 12,000 square feet of commercial space. Parking is proposed off -site. It FI �a 8 would include a rooftop garden and a vacation of Fredrick IL Street which would be developed as a landscaped public space and hill climb. The potential residential density is 159 units per acre. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 32 Section 3 - Cost Trends Housing Cost Trends Housing costs in Port Orchard have been increasing steadily over the last decade, for both renters and homeowners, as shown in Figure 32 below. As of mid-2022, Zillow reports an average home value of $511,600 and an average rent of $1,638 per unit in the city, a yearly increase of five percent for ownership units and nine percent for rentals over the past decade. Notably, both ownership and rental housing costs have increased more rapidly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a pattern seen across the greater Puget Sound region, and particularly in smaller and moderate -sized jurisdictions when compared with larger cities such as Seattle. $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 a) co $300,000 0 $200,000 $100,000 Average Home Value Average Multifamilv Rent Per Unit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 32. Housing Costs in Port Orchard, 2012-2022. Source: Zillow, Costar. $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 }, .E $1,200 a� o_ $1,000 of $800 co $600 $400 75 $200 $0 Figure 33 shows the change in Port Orchard's housing prices compared with the change in incomes from 2010-2020. After a drop in home prices between 2010 and 2012, incomes and housing prices increased similarly between 2012 and 2015, after which home prices began to increase significantly faster than incomes. Rental prices, which had been stable from 2013- 2017, also began a steep increase in 2017, also outpacing incomes. The gap has continued to worsen over the past few years, with a 28 percent increase in rents and 56 percent increase in home values from 2015-2020, compared to only a 15 percent increase in incomes over the same period. This shows that housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident in recent years, a trend also seen across the country. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 33 70% 60% 50% 40°i° ✓ 30% 20% 10% 0% —� -10% -20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Median Gross Rent Zillow Home Value Index Median Household Income Figure 33. Change in Home Prices, Rents, and Incomes in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: Zillow, American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, DP04, Leland Consulting Group Figure 34 shows the relationship between what the typical Port Orchard household earns in a year and the amount they would need to earn to afford the typical home in the city, based on 2020 census and home price data. The income needed to afford the median home in the city is about $50,585 more than the median household currently earns, or to put it another way, the typical Port Orchard household could afford a home worth about $303,012, but the typical home in the city in 2020 was worth 1.5 times as much, $468,702. $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $468,702 $303,012 $122,304 $71,719 M 0 1 1 Median Household Income Needed To Median Sales Price Maximum Home Price Income Afford Median Home Affordable to Median Household Figure 34. Ownership Housing Affordability in Port Orchard. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 34 A housing affordability chart illustrating home prices which would be affordable to a variety of income levels is shown below in Figure 35. Port Orchard's median incomes and sales prices are both shown. This data illustrates the degree to which ownership housing has become out of reach for many Port Orchard residents, even those earning more than the city's median household income. $900 ■ Household Income ($1,000s) ■ House Price ($1,000s) $800 $700 $600 Median Sales Price ( 468) $500 $400 $300 Median Household $200 Income ($71) $192 $100 $96 ' $_ A household earning $100,000 could not afford the median Port Orchard sales price of $468,000 even though they are earning nearly $30,000 more than the median household income. $383 $287 $150 J$75 $100 , ■ $575 $766 Figure 35. Housing Prices Affordable to Various Incomes with Port Orchard Median Income and Sales Price, 2021. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Construction Costs The cost of construction for all housing types has been increasing for decades, although the past few years have seen unprecedented increases. These costs have a major impact on development feasibility. Higher development costs ultimately drive up the sales price of finished housing and can lead to reduced housing production when the market cannot support those higher housing prices. The following chart provides construction price indexes' for multifamily housing units under construction, single-family houses sold, and for single-family houses under construction. Recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows construction costs went up by 17.5% year -over -year from 2020 to 2021, the largest spike in this data from year to year since 1970. Costs in 2021 were also more than 23% higher than pre -pandemic 2019. Preliminary data for 2022 indicates an even greater jump in construction costs, largely due to supply chain issues, inflation, and labor shortages. 8 The houses sold index incorporates the value of the land and is available quarterly at the national level and annually by region. The indexes for houses under construction are available monthly at the national level. The indexes are based on data from the Survey of Construction (SOC). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 35 reo, MFR 180 SFR Under Construction SFR Sold (West) 160 140 120 100 - 80 LO % 00 ON O N co LO % 00 ON O N O O O O O - - - - - - N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure 36. Construction Price Indexes. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Construction Price Indexes Developers interviewed by the project team in summer 2022 indicated concerns over construction costs in the region. They described as many as ten material cost adjustments per year, compared to one to two price changes per year in the past. Developers generally agreed that lumber prices were likely to begin decreasing and stabilize in the coming years, though they expressed less optimism about short-term decreases in other material costs. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 36 Impact Fees Impact fees are a one-time fee required by local governments for new development to help pay for a portion of the expected costs of providing increased public services. The topic arose in stakeholder interviews and so an analysis compared Port Orchard's impact fees to other Kitsap County jurisdictions. Determining impact fee by building type (housing type) also provides information about how the fees are affecting the variety of housing being built. The table below a table shows total impact fees (combining fees for roads, parks, and schools) by housing type. Roads impact fee schedules typically have the most detailed housing types and thus was used as the basis for housing type comparison. The breakdown of impact fees by type of impact fee can be seen in Appendix A. Port Orchard has a fee for all three categories, which is not the case for some of the other jurisdictions. Bremerton currently does not collect impact fees but may start collecting them in the near future. The comparison finds that Port Orchard does have some of the highest impact fees in Kitsap County, but these fees may be closer to the median when making wider regional comparisons. For example, Sammamish impact fees total at least $14,000 per unit (as of 2019). Judging by the large volume of permitted developments in Port Orchard, the fees are having little negative effect on total development. However, the fees may be a minor factor for the variety of housing products being produced. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and ADU's have notably high fees for the lower resource impacts and land area they require compared to single-family homes. This may partially be because the school and park impact fees do not provide a high level of distinction among building types due to those fees being based more on persons per household. Family Duplex Triplex & Fourplex Townhouse Multifamily floorsSingle- 1-2 Multifamily floors Multifamily ADU Port $10,856.52 $9,156.34 $6,835.28 — $9,156.34 — $6,820.28 $6,189.29 $5,768.63 $4,677.97 - Orchard $9 096.34 10,347.34 $6,150.28 Kitsap $6,428.60 $3,496.75 $3,496.75 $3,766.74 $3,496.75 $2,956.77 $2,821.78 $3,766.74 County Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $7,969.18 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $5,102.97 $5,102.97 $5,323.48 Bainbridge $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 Island Gig Harbor $11,350.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $11,715.00 Fiaure 37. Impact Fees per Unit by Housina Tvae. Source: Kitsaa Countv and Municipalities of Kitsaa County Some cities exempt ADU's from impact fees since they are not a primary unit and because the fees can be insurmountable for low- and moderate -income homeowners. Also, under RCW 82.02.060, cities may reduce impact fees by up 80% for affordable housing. Under POW 20.182, the City has not adopted any impact fee exemptions or reductions, though the idea is supported by Comprehensive Plan policy HS-6. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 37 Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs This section offers information about the needs for households in the City of Port Orchard. Market Rate Housing The chart below shows projected demand for new housing units through 2044 by income in Port Orchard based on the Kitsap County target of 5,291 new housing units in Port Orchard by 2044.9 The allocation of housing units by income is shown using three projection methodologies. The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) has recently released a draft calculator which uses two methodologies to calculate future housing needs by income by county, city, and UGA. Method "A" shown below allocates future housing needs by projected household income (as a share of AMI) evenly across all municipalities in Kitsap County. This shows a particularly high 2044 need of over 1,400 units affordable to the lowest - income households earning less than 30% AMI - which would need to be provided by subsidized affordable units. Commerce Method "B" allocates housing across all jurisdictions in the County after taking into account their existing housing unit breakdown by income level. Because Port Orchard already provides some subsidized units (and a larger share than some other Kitsap County municipalities), this method shows a need for fewer units for households earning under 30 percent AMI and between 30 and 50 percent AMI, but allocates more units for higher -income households earning more than 120 percent AMI. The third methodology shown is Leland Consulting Group's model which allocates future housing units based on Port Orchard's current income breakdown. This methodology shows a strong housing need for the lowest -income residents of the City but also reflects the need for "workforce" housing for the significant share of Port Orchard's population earning between 50 and 100 percent of the AMI. Overall, these three methodologies show that the largest housing needs by income in Port Orchard in the next two decades will be for the lowest -income households, which can only be met through regulated affordable (i.e. subsidized) housing, to a lesser degree for "workforce" housing for residents earning less than 100% AMI, which can be provided through a variety of channels including subsidized units, vouchers, other incentive programs such as MFTE, and filtering of existing units as new housing stock is built. Finally, there will remain a demand for between 1,200 and 1,800 market rate housing units targeting households earning more than 120 percent AMI over the next 20 years. Although the Commerce methodologies are still in draft form, all three sets of results are presented here to demonstrate the various calculations and considerations underlying future housing needs and targets regionally. The Kitsap County Regional Coordinating Council will decide on a final target number of new units by income level for all jurisdictions in the County in 2023, and that final target breakdown will be integrated into the 2024-2044 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. 9 This housing unit target and the Kitsap County population target for Port Orchard (10,500 new residents by 2044) would yield an average household size of 1.98 people per household. This is significantly less than the current Port Orchard household size of 2.44 people per household. This discrepancy may need to be addressed by Commerce. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 38 2,000 1,800 1,600 It 0 1,400 N T 1,200 0 1,000 Z 800 600 z 400 200 IN d 0-30 30-50 50-80 80-100 % AMI ■ Commerce Method A ■ Commerce Method B 100-120 LCG Method 120+ Figure 38. Housing Demand Projections for Port Orchard, 2022-2044 Source: Washington Department of Commerce Draft Projected Housing Needs Methodologies, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 39 Low -Income and Cost -Burdened Households HUD sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted housing programs.10 The 2022 Area Median Income (AMI) for the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is $102,500. The following table outlines the 2022 Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD income limits for low, very low, and extremely low-income households making 80 percent, 50 percent, and 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), respectively. Household Extremely Low (30%) 21,600 24,700 27,800 1 30,850 33,350 37,190 41,910 46,630 Very Low Income (50%) 36,050 41,200 46,350 51,450 55,600 59,700 63,800 67,950 Low Income (80%) 57,650 65,850 74,100 82,300 88,900 95,500 102,100 108,650 Figure 39. HUD FY20221ncome Limits ($), Bremerton -Silverdale, WA MSA. Source: HUD In addition to income, HUD uses a measurement of "cost burden" to further determine which subset of a community's residents are most in need of housing support or most at risk of displacement or housing hardship. Figure 40 shows a breakdown of Port Orchard's households by tenure and cost burden status. Overall, about 35 percent of Port Orchard's households are considered cost -burdened. Half of all renter -occupied households are considered cost -burdened, while one quarter of owner -occupied households are considered cost -burdened. As is the case nationwide, renters are significantly more at risk of economic hardship and displacement than homeowners. With rental rates increasing dramatically in recent years and income growth failing to keep up, it appears that renters are suffering the consequences in terms of cost burden. There is a clear need for more rental housing that is affordable to all income levels. 10 Including the Public Housing, Section 8 project -based, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 202 housing for the elderly, and Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities programs HUD develops income limits based on median family income estimates and fair market rent area definitions. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 40 All Households 65% Renter occupied 50% Owner Occupied 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■ Severely Cost Burdened ■ Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened Figure 40. Household Tenure by Cost Burden in the City of Port Orchard, 2020. Source: HUD CHAS 2015- 2019. The following chart shows cost burden status by household income level for households earning less than the area median income (AMI). The lowest -income households earning 30 percent AMI or less have by far the highest cost burden, with 615 of the 715 households in this income bracket spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and 495 households, or 70 percent of households in the income bracket, spending more than half their income on housing costs. Similarly, 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of the AMI also spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. However, there are still a substantial number of households earning between 30 and 80 percent AMI which are also housing cost -burdened, as well as a quarter of households earning between 80 and 100 percent AMI. This data shows a need for subsidized affordable housing at various income levels, but particularly for households earning less than 50 percent AMI. 80-100% AM I 1 160 465 0 50-80% AMI 465 520 30-50% AMI < 30% AMI 130 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 ■ Severely Cost Burdened ■ Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened Figure 41. Cost Burden Status by Household Income Level in Port Orchard. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 41 Special Needs Housing Figure 42 shows the number of households in Port Orchard with a disabled resident by disability status and income. Most households with a disabled resident earn more than 80 percent of AMI, though particularly for residents with an ambulatory limitation (generally meaning they are unable to walk), there is a significant number of households earning less than 30 percent AMI. In addition to ambulatory limitations, hearing or vision impairments are the most common disability reported in Port Orchard households. Figure 42. Households by Disability Status and Income in Port Orchard. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019 People Facing Homelessness Kitsap County conducts a Point in Time Count of people experiencing homelessness countywide each year, typically in January. In 2022, the count was conducted in February instead. The count encompasses both sheltered and unsheltered people and is conducted during one 24-hour period each year. Therefore, the number is generally considered to be an undercount of the true population experiencing homelessness. In February 2022, 563 individuals were experiencing homelessness countywide, of which 136 were in transitional housing, 244 in emergency shelters, and 183 unsheltered. This was an 8 percent decrease from 202011 though a 7 percent increase from the previous four-year average. Of the 183 unsheltered residents surveyed, 23 percent, or 42 people, were in Port Orchard. Countywide, 67 percent of those surveyed reported becoming homeless due to health or mental health issues, 58 percent due to job loss, 40 percent due to loss of housing, 35 percent due to family conflict, and 25 percent due to substance use.12 A 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office finds that every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a nine percent increase in the estimated homelessness population, even after accounting for demographic and economic characteristics. This formula is considered at a national level but may be helpful context for the current trend in local rent increases. 11 The count of unsheltered individuals was not completed in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 12 Kitsap County Point In Time Count. https://www.kitsapgov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.asp_x Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 42 Transit Under definitions of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Port Orchard mostly has Level 4 transit service.13 Higher levels of service (Levels 1-3) are considered to be more attractive to the general population (e.g. choice riders), more conducive to reducing solo driving, and more able justify reduced parking (and therefore reduced housing costs) at residential developments. The lack of regular bus service on Sundays and between Port Orchard and Bremerton is particularly notable. Kitsap Transit operates public bus and passenger ferry service in Port Orchard. Two ferry docks have service to the Bremerton ferry terminal where riders can catch auto ferries or fast passenger ferries to Seattle. There are six fixed -route bus lines operating within the central and eastern part of the city, generally running at frequencies of 30 to 60 minutes. Buses stop operating in the early evening. On Saturdays, buses run between 10am and 5pm. Western Port Orchard area is a served by an on -demand, weekday -only service called SK Ride which connects residents to some regular bus routes. Other services include worker/driver buses for Navy facility commuters, door-to-door Access buses for seniors and people with disabilities (runs 8am to 4pm on weekdays and Sundays), and vanpools/carpools. Figure 43. Kitsap Transit fixed -route bus lines in the Port Orchard area. 13 "Frequent Transit Service Study." December 2022. Washington State Department of Transportation. https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/frequent-transit-service-study/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 43 Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools Existing Funding Port Orchard does not have currently any funding streams directly funding affordable housing development or preservation. In January 2022, Kitsap County imposed a 0.1 % affordable housing sales tax as allowed under RCW 82.14.530. The revenue must be used for constructing or maintaining affordable housing. It is expected to generate about $5 million per year.14 This sales tax option would have been available to Port Orchard (generating about $850,000 per year per .1 %, based on 2021 revenue), but state law stipulates that after a county adopts the tax cities in the county may no longer implement their own tax.15 Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island implemented affordable housing sales taxes before the county did and so their taxes remain effective in addition the county's. Other Funding Options The Municipal Research Service Center provides a list of other funding sources for Washington cities and affordable housing developers. These include: • Property tax levy of up to $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation for up to 10 years to fund very low-income housing (RCW 84.52.105) • Real estate excise tax of up to 0.25% to fund affordable housing through 2026 (RCW 82.46.035) • Mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements that require residential developments to either provide affordable housing on -site or to pay into a housing fund for city governments to fund housing elsewhere (generally this tool must be paired with large upzones to avoid regulatory takings claims) • Lodging taxes, which may be used to fund a variety of government programs (as noted under the short-term rental discussion, Port Orchard already has a lodging tax) • Loans and grants from the Washington State Housing Trust Fund (administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce) • State law under RCW 43.185C.080 allows cities to receive grants from the Washington homeless housing account. A prerequisite is adoption of a local homeless housing plan or adopting by reference a county homeless housing plan that has a specific strategy for the city. Grant value is tied to the real estate document recording fees generated within the local jurisdiction. • Low-income housing tax credits which investors in housing projects can apply to (administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission) 14 "Commissioners vote to impose 1 /10th of 1 % sales tax for affordable housing." January 2022. Kitsap Daily News. https://www.kitsapdailynews.com/news/commissioners-vote-to-impose-1-10th-of-1-sales-tax-for-affordable- housin is Funding Local Affordable Housing Efforts. August 2022. Municipal Research Service Center. https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2022/Options-for-Funding-Local-Affordable-Housing- Efforasox Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 44 Multifamily Tax Exemption Overview The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) is a program authorized by the state, starting in 1995 (RCW 84.14). Cities can grant one or more of the following programs for new buildings or existing buildings: • 8-year exemption for any type of multifamily development • 12-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 20 percent of units for low- and moderate -income households • A 20-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 25 percent of units for sale as permanently affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less, and the development must be sponsored by a non-profit or governmental entity (this option was added by the Legislature in 202116). Port Orchard meets the threshold of 15,000 population to unlock this option. Land, existing site improvements, and non-residential improvements are not exempt and are subject to normal property taxes. At the local government's discretion, the exemption's basis may be limited to the value of affordable units or other criteria. The local government has latitude in many other aspects. It can require certain public benefits, change what types of development apply, and can map specific areas where the exemption is available. Cities can also set lower maximum rent prices than the statute allows. MFTE programs require ongoing monitoring, especially for any buildings with affordable units, to ensure that rental rates and resident incomes are meeting the criteria. A 2019 statewide audit found that local MFTE programs are frequently used to improve the financial performance of private developments but it is unclear if they result in a net increase in housing production. For 2018 the audit found average annual local and state property tax savings of $10,651 per affordable unit and $2,096 per market -rate unit, with wide variations depending on the location, land value, and local property tax rates. Seattle has the most MFTE units in the state and likely skews the average tax savings high. Participating properties in Bremerton see average annual property tax savings of $6,123 per affordable unit $1,413 per market -rate unit (data was not available for Port Orchard). Port Orchard MFTE Review Port Orchard has had an MFTE program in place since 2016, which is codified under Chapter 3.48 POMC. It goes beyond the basic framework of state law and provides three types of exemptions. The "Type 1" program is a 12-year tax exemption available to properties zoned for multifamily or mixed -use development within one-half mile of a transit route or ferry terminal. At least 20 percent of units must be rented at least 10 percent below fair market rent to tenants with the following incomes: 16 "Overview of 2021 Changes to the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption Program." Washington State Department of Commerce. htttps://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882abtzafwzlofkf05.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 45 • At or below 40 percent of median family income, for housing units in congregate residences or small efficiency dwelling units • At or below 65 percent of median family income for one -bedroom units • At or below 75 percent of median family income for two -bedroom units • At or below 80 percent of median family income for three -bedroom and larger units. IIE n Will WQ - _nuwnmm —'I �7 - L. — FT d T LPL J p._ y Y Type I Tax Exemption Multifamily -zoned Parcels in Designated Centers and Other Properties City Limits Applicable Properties Figure 44. Parcels eligible for the Type 1 MFTE program The "Type 2" program is an 8-year tax exemption available to properties within local centers of importance (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) and which are encouraged to redevelop and may require rezoning. Properties must meet at least one of these criteria: • Have abandoned buildings (vacant or unused for more than two years) • Underutilized buildings (50 percent or more vacancy for more than two years) • An assessed building value to land ratio of two -to -one or more. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 46 7� Type 2 Tax Exemption Redevelopment i J a �h f- Li .i lfoi Uocuma b 11. t„S:Itcr I.tt ALalaruriP. YW! acm.,'A /.L2LJe3mntl F' 4 ` r Figure 5. Parcels cels eligible for the Type 2 MFTE program The "Type 3" program is an 8-year exemption available to properties within local centers of importance (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) and zoned for multifamily or mixed -use development. Developments must meet one of these standards: 1. At least 50 percent of required parking must be structured and achieve at least 50 units per net developable acre 2. Construct mixed -use shopfront building(s) containing non-residential square footage equal to at least 40 percent of all building footprints 3. Purchase one additional story of building height for one or more buildings through the city's transfer of development rights program d Ltd r T•4T4 -T �I rI) r Fr I i Type 3 Tax Exemption Multifamily -Zoned Properties in Centers 1771 City Limits Uoc-t- U:tGISK, nmtair TYW3T.Pba .,e Map72=..d Figure 46. Parcels eligible for the Type 3 MFTE program Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 47 The following table shows how many developments and dwelling units are utilizing Port Orchard's MFTE program since inception. Numbers in parenthesis are MFTE applications currently in progress (as of December 2022). Figure 47. MFTE program statistics. Source: City of Port Orchard Observations: • Port Orchard's MFTE program is structured differently than most Washington cities, with two versions of the 8-year program • In the Type 3 program, options for combining required features could be clarified, as was done with the one participating project which used less structured parking and shopfront design than required individually but combined use of both features to qualify. • In the Type 1 program, the minimum development size of 10 units reduces the number of small projects that can participate. State law sets the minimum development size at four units. • In the Type 1 program, residents have their incomes verified only in order to determine what size of unit they can occupy. In other words, individualized rent caps are set for physical units and not customized for each household's size and characteristics. This is a different approach than most cities, but appears to fit within the state law framework. • In the Type 1 program, the depth of affordability (10% below market rate) may be imbalanced with the property tax savings. • Updates to RCW 84.14 allow median family income to now be based on the city or metropolitan statistical area of the project (rather than just the county). As noted in Section 3, the past few years have seen unprecedented increases in construction costs which have a major impact on development feasibility. There is interest among City officials and stakeholders to revisit the MFTE program and make adjustments to improve economic feasibility and administration. The City has the legal option to seek help with monitoring the MFTE program and freeing up staff resources. Housing Kitsap, for example, already has systems in place to administer income -based housing. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 48 Section 6 - Housing Policies Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies This section focuses on a handful of key policies in the Housing Element. Full comments are available in Appendix B. Policy HS-2 Support the development of a variety of housing The City has a good foundation of supportive types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed- zoning standards to support a variety of housing use (residential and other uses) and live -work types, though as noted in Section 6 some development, small -lot and zero lot line single- improvements could be made or more incentives family homes, and manufactured homes, as well added. The MVOD zone is an example of as traditional single-family homes, through innovative planning. Financial assistance largely is innovative planning, efficient and effective implemented through the MFTE program, though administration of land and building codes, and, other options may need to be explored to support where available, applicable financial assistance. the low-income population. HS-6 Consider reducing permitting fees for No waivers/reductions for impact fees and general development which provide affordable housing as facilities charges are in place. defined by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) section 200-120- 020. HS-9 Implement minimum residential density The City does not have minimum density requirements in centers of local importance in standards in any zone. order to increase land and infrastructure efficiency. HS-14 Implement zoning and development regulations This type of development does not appear to be which encourage infill housing on empty and happening in large numbers, with most housing redevelopable parcels. being built on greenfields on the edge of the city. More incentives for infill and redevelopment in local centers should be explored in the HAP. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 49 Development Regulations Port Orchard's zoning standards are codified under Title 20 POMC and primarily exist in Chapters 20.30 through 20.58. The key standards reviewed here are the permitted land uses and dimensional standards. Other standards provide supplemental residential use and design standards for most housing types. Multifamily design standards are located under Chapter 20.127 POMC. In most cities, this consists of a simple list or table organized by zone. In Port Orchard, understanding the permitted uses is complex because there are two permission standards: One code section describes "building types", and the other describes "residential uses", and these are located in separate chapters. The key development regulations on housing are summarized in the tables below. Following the tables is a set of observations. Residential Zones: Allowed Residential Development In the first table, P means permitted and a blank cell means the building type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. -�IMF- Detached House P P P P Backyard Cottage P P P P Cottage Court P P P P Duplex: Side -by -Side P P P Duplex: Back -to -Back P P P Attached House P P Fourplex P P P Townhouse P P P P Apartment P P P Live -Work Manufactured or Mobile Home Park Accessory Building P P P P P P Figure 48. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.32.015 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 50 In the second table are selected permitted uses in residential zones. These are reorganized from the actual code and have subheadings added. P means permitted, C means conditionally permitted (subject to extra review and public comment), and a blank cell means the housing type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. Use Types (POMC Residential Zones General Single-family detached (including new manufactured homes) P P P P Two-family P P P Single-family attached (2 units) P P P Single-family attached (3 or 4 units) P P P P P Single-family attached (5 or 6 units) P P P P Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units) P P P Multifamily dwellings (5 or more units) P P P Manufactured or Mobile Homes Designated manufactured home, manufactured or mobile home (except for new designated manufactured home) P New designated manufactured home P P P P Manufactured or mobile home park Supportive Housing Indoor emergency housing Indoor emergency shelter Permanent supportive housing C C C C C C Transitional housing C C C C C C Group Lodgings Boarding house C C Congregate living facilities C C C C Lodging house C C C Group home (up to 8 residents), except as follows: P P P P P P Adult family home P P P P All group living (9 or more residents) C C Figure 49. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.39.040 Observations: There are several user -friendliness challenges with these standards of Chapter 20.32 and 20.39, particularly as they relate to middle housing: • The R2 zone, the largest by land area, allows a good mix of housing types, though might consider adding "Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units)" • Residential development allowances are regulated in at least three code sections, which creates some opportunity for confusion. Residential development allowed by zone are regulated in Chapter 20.32 (Building Types), Chapter 20.34 and 20.35 (Residential Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 51 Districts & Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts, respectively), and Chapter 20.39 (Use Provisions). • Code users must know to look in all applicable locations. For example: o Permissions for "Detached House" building type and "Single-family detached" land use, which have similar meanings to most people, are found in both Chapters 20.32 and 20.39. o Chapter 20.32 describes a "Townhouse" as a single building type but it appears to be buildable under at least six different land uses in Chapter 20.39. This is an effort to limit townhouse complexes to four connected units in lower density zones, but to allow larger six unit townhome clusters in higher density zones. o Chapter 20.32 describes a Fourplex as being either three or four units. Triplex is the term for a three -unit building and should be added, or the term renamed to Triplex/Fourplex. o Chapter 20.32 describes a Cottage Court but it is unclear which type of residential land use that falls under in Chapter 20.39, especially since there are mismatches in which zones the different types of single-family uses are allowed. • The terms "Two-family" and "Single-family attached (2 units)" in Chapter 20.39 should simply be "Duplex" which is a more commonly used term. It is also unnecessary to describe two different types of duplexes in Chapter 20.32 when they are both allowed in the same zones. The building type "Attached House" is another instance of the same use being duplicated. • A single-family triplex/fourplex is intended for potential homeownership with each unit on its own lot, and a multifamily triplex/fourplex is most likely intended for rentals. However, it is unknown why they have different permissions by zone. The same goes for fiveplex and sixplex developments. Ownership and rental housing that has the same land use and appearance should be treated similarly. • The City has no path to permit manufactured housing (also known as factory -built housing). Factory -built housing should be treated the same as site -built housing if it conforms to all applicable zoning and design standards. Residential Zones: Dimensional Standards A blank cell means the standard is not applicable. Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. StandardsDimensional •• Residential Zones Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Detached House (street vehicle 2,800 access) 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 Detached House (alley vehicle access) 51000 3,000 2,400 Cottage Court 1,200 1,200 1,200 Duplex: Side -by -Side 5,000 5,000 5,000 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 52 StandardsDimensional •• i Residential Zones Duplex: Back -to -Back 5,000 5,000 5,000 Attached House 2,500 2,000 2,500 Fourplex 7,000 7,000 7,000 Townhouse 2,000 800 800 1,000 Apartment 10,000 10,000 10,000 Minimum Site Size (square feet) (POMC 20.32) Cottage Court 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Townhouse 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Minimum lot width (feet) Detached House 50 50 36 40 (street vehicle access) Detached House (alley vehicle access) 50 30 26 40 Cottage Court 20 20 20 20 Duplex: Side -by -Side (street vehicle access) 60 60 60 Duplex: Side -by -Side (alley vehicle access) 40 40 40 Duplex: Back -to -Back 40 40 40 Attached House (street vehicle access) 30 30 30 Attached House (alley vehicle access) 20 20 20 Fourplex 60 60 60 Townhouse (street vehicle access) 30 30 30 30 Townhouse (alley vehicle access) 20 16 16 16 Apartment 80 80 80 Other Lot Standards Maximum hard surface 50% 70 /0 80 /0 80 /0 80 /a ° 75 /o coverage Building Height (feet/stories) Height, maximum 35 35 35 45 55 35 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 4 stories 5 stories 3 stories Height, Accessory Structure (feet) 24 24 24 24 Density Minimum density (units per acre) Maximum density (units per acre) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 53 StandardsDimensional •• i Residential Zones Setbacks (Feet) Primary street setback, 10 10 10 10 10 10 minimum Side street setback, minimum 10 10 10 10 10 10 Side interior setback, minimum 5 5 5 5 5 5 Rear setback, minimum 10 10 10 4-10 10 10 Figure 50. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.34 Observations: • Chapter 20.34 has complex lists of lot area and width standards that differ by zone and by building type, which is summarized in the table above. This is one of the more complicated arrangements of dimensional standards among Washington cities. • However, the actual minimum lot widths, lot sizes, and setbacks and maximum hard surface coverage standards are generally reasonable. Some of the minimum lot widths greater than 50 feet may be worth revisiting for infill opportunities. • There are no minimum density requirements, which disincentives most new development (especially subdivisions) from building anything other than single-family homes. This does not fulfill Comprehensive Plan policies LU-11, HS-9, and HS-16, which call for minimum densities at least in local centers. • The lot size and setback standards are highly specific, providing no flexibility for developers and site planners. One building type must be chosen and stuck with throughout the design process, otherwise choosing or adding a different type seems to require restarting land area needs and design assumptions from scratch. This disincentivizes developing a mix building types in large subdivisions or any type of infill "missing middle" housing. • The minimum "site size" provided only for cottages and townhouses discourages those middle types by providing a layer of complication and limiting the sites that are eligible for middle housing development. • Each building type is listed in Chapter 20.32, where there are lists of dimensional standards (lot width, setback, etc.) that says "set by district" for nearly every standard. However, it does not say where to find this information. Code users must know to navigate to the relevant Chapter 20.34, for example, for Residential Districts. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 54 Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones: Allowed Residential Development In the first table, P means permitted and a blank cell means the building type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The RMU zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. es (POMC 20.32.015) Commercial Building Type ff"�F-BPMU CMU _00------ Detached • -Backyard and Mixed Use Zones DMU GMU CC CH IF Cottage Cottage • 000------ Duplex: Back -to -Back Attached • - -00------ • • - 0000-0--- - • 0000000-0 Shopfront House 0000-00-0 Mixed Use ShopfrontManufactured --000-0-0 or Mobile Home Park Accessory Building 000000000 Figure 51. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.32.015 In the second table is selected permitted uses in residential zones. These are reorganized from the actual code and have subheadings added. P means permitted, C means conditionally permitted (subject to extra review and public comment), and a blank cell means the housing type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The RMU zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. (POMC Mixed Commercial and -Use Z64111111ff General Single-family detached (including P P new manufactured homes) Two-family P P P Single-family attached (2 units) P P P Single-family attached (3 or 4 units) P P P P P P P P Single-family attached (5 or 6 units) P P P P P P P P Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units) P P P P P P P P Multifamily dwellings (5 or more units) P P P P P P P P Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 55 Manufactured or Mobile Homes Designated manufactured home, manufactured or mobile home (except for new designated manufactured home) New designated manufactured home P P P Manufactured or mobile home park Supportive Housing Indoor emergency housing C C C C C Indoor emergency shelter C C C C C Permanent supportive housing C C C C C C C C Transitional housing C C C C C C C C Group Lodgings Boarding house C C P Congregate living facilities C C P Lodging house C C P Group home (up to 8 residents), except as follows: P P Adult family home P P All group living (9 or more residents) P C P P C P Figure 52. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.39.040 Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones: Dimensional Standards A blank cell means the standard is not applicable. Dimensional Standards (POMC 20.35) Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones Measure RMU I NMU BPMU CMU I DMU GMU CC CH IF Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Detached House (street vehicle Detached House (alley vehicle �� Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 56 StandardsDimensional •O Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones Shopfront House 6,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 None 5,000 5,000 Mixed Use Shopfront 10,000 5,000 None None 5,000 None Minimum Site Size (square feet) (POMC 20.32) Cottage Court Townhouse Minimum lot width (feet) Detached House (street vehicle 60 60 access) Detached House (alley vehicle 60 60 access) Cottage Court Duplex: Side -by - Side (street 60 60 vehicle access) Duplex: Side -by - Side (alley 60 60 vehicle access) Duplex: Back -to- 60 60 Back Attached House (street vehicle 30 access) Attached House (alley vehicle 30 access) Fourplex 60 Townhouse (street vehicle 30 30 16 access) Townhouse (alley vehicle 16 16 16 access) Apartment 50 Shopfront House 60 65 60 50 None 50 50 Mixed Use Shopfront 80 50 None None 50 50 Other Lot Standards Maximum hard surface coverage 90% 70% 75% 80% 100% 90% 70% 70% 70% Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 57 StandardsDimensional •• Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones Building Height (feet) Height, 35 35 40 40 38 38 35 35 maximum Density Minimum density (units per acre) Maximum density (units per acre) Setbacks (Feet) Primary street 0 10 10 0 15 setback, (10 (30 (30 (10 (0 Max) (50 20 5 minimum Max) Max) Max) Max) Max) Side street 0 10 10 0 15 15 setback, (70 (30 (30 (70 (0 Max) (50 (50 5 minimum Max) Max) Max) Max) Max) Max) Side interior setback, 0-5 5 5 0 (0 Max) 10 10 minimum Rear setback, 10 10 10 20 (0 Max) 10 10 minimum Figure 53. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.35 Observations: • Apartment and townhouse building types are not allowed in the Commercial Corridor (CC) zone, but single-family attached and multifamily land use is allowed. This appears to limit this type of development to the live -work building type, which has struggled to achieve market feasibility in most of the region. • Apartment and townhouse building types are allowed in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zone, which is often adjacent to the CC zone along arterial corridors and appears to serve a similar purpose. • No residential development is allowed in the Commercial Heavy (CH) zone, which prevents any possible mixed -use redevelopment of aging shopping centers or underutilized commercial properties in the Bethel and Sedgwick corridors. • The maximum impervious surface standards provide sufficient flexibility for residential development • Note that while the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) base height limit 38 feet, the Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) that overlaps almost all of these two zones provides increased height limits of 48-68 feet, which increases the feasibility of mixed -use development. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 58 The 40 feet height limit in the CMU and BPMU zones (perhaps the other most promising zones for mixed -use development given their coverage of the city) is limiting, allowing for only about three stories of development by -right. Mixed -use development is generally more feasible the taller the building is, since the cost of construction on a per -square - foot basis remains relatively constant for 3-6 story buildings. Options for height increases and bonus provisions (outside of the transfer of development rights program) may be evaluated in the HAP. Some cities provide height bonuses as part of MFTE participation. As a point of reference, the Ruby Creek Overlay District provides a base 55-feet height limit for the CMU, CC, and CH zones in the southern area of the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 59 ADU Standards Port Orchard regulates accessory dwelling units (ADU) in two locations: Chapter 20.68 POW for basic procedures and design requirements, and POW 20.32.030 for the "Backyard cottage" dwelling type. Attached ADUs are allowed in all residential zones on lots with a single detached dwelling unit and limited to 40 percent the size of the primary unit or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Detached ADUs (backyard cottages) are allowed in the R1, R2, R3, R6, NMU, RMU, BPMU, and GB zones and limited to 40 percent the size of the primary unit or 1,000 square feet, whichever is rg eater. Port Orchard explicitly permits ADUs to be used as a short-term rental and for occupation by home businesses and occupations. Port Orchard amended its ADU standards in October 2022 with Ordinance 038-22. The ordinance removes requirements to register an ADU with an affidavit and ending the need for an "ADU agreement" to be recorded with the county auditor. As part of this, the owner occupancy requirement and parking requirements for ADUs have been removed; these are two of the most common and significant barriers to ADUs, so these changes will improve feasibility of ADU development. Other Development Regulations POW 20.129 provides standards for the protection and replacement of significant trees. City staff have observed that the requirement for a tree retention plan, which applies to all development except detached houses and backyard cottages, adds a considerable and repetitive cost for development applications. Alternative approaches are available, such as requiring a minimum tree canopy coverage (which can use existing or new trees) that still achieves the same goals but avoids the risk of lone significant trees being damaged subsequent to development. Design Standards Port Orchard has several residential design standards. • POW 20.32: Building types • POW 20.139: Residential design standards for residential building types like detached houses, backyard cottages, cottages, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory buildings • POW 20.127: Commercial and multifamily development block frontages, site planning, and building design At least two stakeholders said the cottage housing standards discourage their development, particularly the minimum site size standards and the minimum open space: • The minimum site area is 22,500 SF regardless of number of units, and an additional 4,500 SF site area is required per unit when there are six or more cottages even though the minimum unit lot size is 1,200 SF. • The minimum courtyard area is 3,000 SF (minimum width 40 feet) and extra 600 SF per unit is required when there are six or more cottages. • Compare these other typical cottage standards, such as in Anacortes, which do not regulate lot size and have smaller open space requirements. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 60 Zoning Map The City's current zoning map is copied below. JIM- CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Building Code The City of Port Orchard has adopted standard building and trades under Chapter 20.200 POW with local amendments. Adopted codes include the International Building Code (applies to commercial and mixed -use development, and residential development with three or more units), the International Residential Code (applies to single-family, duplex, and townhouse development), and international codes for mechanical systems, plumbing, energy conservation, fire safety, and property maintenance. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 61 Landlord —Tenant Regulations People who rent homes are significantly more likely to be cost -burdened, face eviction, and be at risk of homelessness. Recognizing this, the State of Washington sets the baseline for the landlord -tenant relationship through the State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act, RCW 59.18. According to the Attorney General's Office, there is no centralized enforcement mechanism for the RCW, and so it is incumbent upon landlords and tenants to either self -remedy violations, seek counseling or low-cost legal help from non-profit organizations, and/or resolve disputes through the courts. Over the past few years, the Washington State Legislature has adopted new tenant protections as follows. Year RCW Topic 2018 59.18.255 Prohibition on source Prohibits source of income discrimination against a of income tenant who uses a benefit or subsidy to pay rent discrimination 2019 59.18.200 Notice of demolition Tenants must be provided a 120-day notice to tenants of demolition or substantial rehabilitation of premises 2019 59.18.140 Notice of rent Tenants must be provided a 60-day notice of a rent increase increase, and increases may not take effect until the completion of the term of the current rental agreement 2020 59.18.610 Initial deposits and Tenants may request paying initial deposits, fees nonrefundable fees, and last month's rent in installments (may be spread over 2-3 months, depending on lease length) 2021 59.18.650 Just cause evictions Landlords must specify a reason for refusing to continue a residential tenancy, subject to certain limited exceptions Figure 54. Recent state landlord -tenant regulations Notably, rent control by local jurisdictions was banned at the state level in 1981 (RCW 35.21.830). Otherwise, local jurisdictions are free to adopt additional or more stringent regulations than those provided by the state, and numerous cities and counties have done so. The City of Port Orchard has not adopted any local landlord -tenant regulations. The King County Bar Association provides a model tenant protection ordinance within the framework of Washington State law which could be informative for future discussions and recommendations. Several Washington cities have recently adopted at least portions of the model ordinance. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 62 State Land Use Law In recent years the Washington State Legislature has enacted preemption laws requiring local jurisdictions to ease regulations on certain types of residential land uses. In the 2022 legislative session, several additional bills were proposed with major preemptions regarding missing middle housing, accessory dwelling units, and minimum building heights (respectively, HB 1782, HB 2020, and HB 1660). These recent bills did not pass but can likely be expected to come up again in 2023 and beyond as Washington continues to confront statewide housing challenges. A non -exhaustive list of recent state preemptions follows. RCW TopicYear 2018 36.70A.450 Home -based family Cities may not prohibit the use of a residential dwelling, day care located in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, as a family day-care provider's facility serving twelve or fewer children 2019 35.21.684 Tiny homes Cities may not adopt ordinances that prevent tiny homes with wheels used as a primary residence in a manufactured/mobile home community, with the exception that ordinances may require that tiny houses with wheels contain sanitary plumbing fixtures. 2019 35A.63.300 Religious Upon request, cities must allow an increased density organization density bonus for development of single-family or multifamily bonus residences affordable to low-income households on property owned by religious organizations. 2019 36.70A.600 Safe harbor from The adoption of ordinances and other nonproject appeals under the actions taken by a city to ease regulations on housing State Environmental development are not subject to administrative or Policy Act judicial appeal under RCW 43.21 C. Similar protection is made for housing elements and implementing regulations that increase housing capacity under RCW 36.70A.070. 2020 36.70A.698 Parking for accessory Cities may not require the provision of off-street dwelling units parking for accessory dwelling units within one -quarter mile of a major transit stop (likely does not apply to Port Orchard due to low transit service today). 2020 36.70A.620 Parking for Cities may not require more than a certain ratio of multifamily housing parking spaces per unit within one -quarter mile of a frequent transit stop. There are different limits for market -rate units, designated senior and disability homes, and low-income units (likely does not apply to Port Orchard due to low transit service today). 2021 35A.21.430 Permanent Cities may not prohibit permanent supportive housing supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed. This supersedes a similar law passed in 2019, RCW 35A.21.305. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 63 RCW TopicYear 2021 35A.21.430 Transitional housing Cities may not prohibit transitional housing in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed. 2021 35A.21.430 Indoor emergency Cities may not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and shelters and indoor indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels emergency housing are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed. 2021 35A.21.314 "Family' definition Except for limits on occupant load per square foot or and number of general health and safety provisions, cities may not unrelated household regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that occupants may occupy a household or dwelling unit. 2021 36.70A.070 Requirements for Requires planning and analysis of housing needs for Comprehensive Plan moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income Housing Elements households; a variety of housing types; zoning that may have a discriminatory effect; and other related issues. This will apply to the next major update of Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan due in 2024. Figure 55. Recent state zoning preemptions Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 64 Federal Incentives Created in 2017, Opportunity Zones are intended to assist economically distressed communities with preferential tax treatment for those investing eligible capital gains. Port Orchard has been designated with two federal Opportunity Zones located contiguously with Census Tracts #53035092200 and #53035092300. This covers the much of the city east of State Route 16. Generally, this tool has seen little interest from large residential developers, but it may be appealing to local or long-term hold developers. The program expires in 2026. 71 Rd W C e may` g•W' U g1iS�'� C P CiIFiL+n lid S�n1 Q��7rN 0 5� - Fbrt -i OR hard Induunal' , Peek Soulh Kitmp High A Figure 56. Location of the federal Opportunity Zones in Port Orchard Fbh Pa "101lb? Port Orchard shares many of its housing challenges with other communities nationwide, and the country's affordable housing problem has caught the attention of the White House. In May 2022, President Biden released a statement saying, in part: "One of the most significant issues constraining housing supply and production is the lack of available and affordable land, which is in large part driven by state and local zoning and land use laws and regulations that limit housing density. Exclusionary land use and zoning policies constrain land use, artificially inflate prices, perpetuate historical patterns of segregation, keep workers in lower productivity regions, and limit economic growth. Reducing regulatory barriers to housing production has been a bipartisan cause in a number of states throughout the country. It's time for the same to be true in Congress, as well as in more states and local jurisdictions throughout the country." The President has directed his administration to leverage existing transportation and economic development funding streams to reward jurisdictions that promote density, main street revitalization, and transit -oriented development. For the near future, the President has also proposed billions of dollars for HUD grant programs to support local jurisdictions in eliminating barriers to affordable housing production, supporting manufactured housing, scaling up ADU production, and other measures. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 65 Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis A land capacity analysis is a core element of a housing needs analysis, as required by the Washington Department of Commerce. Kitsap County completed a Buildable Lands Report in November 2021 which contains a comprehensive analysis of vacant and redevelopable land in Port Orchard as well as required land to meet expected population growth. As shown in Figure 54, Port Orchard has surplus land to accommodate 5,750 more residents than expected by 2036. According to the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the County is currently updating its zoning to remove barriers to housing in UGAs. The target population growth in Port Orchard's UGA is based on forthcoming County zoning code revisions incentivizing urban housing development in the UGA consistent with its designation as a High -Capacity Transit Corridor in PSRC's VISION 2050 framework. Together, the city and UGA have available land for a surplus of 5,750 residents. Figure 57. Port Orchard 2021 Residential Buildable Lands Analysis Summary. Source: 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Analysis, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, City of Port Orchard Figure 58 shows a breakdown of unit and population capacity by zone and type of unit. As shown, the majority of the new unit capacity is on vacant or redevelopable land in the R2 and R3 zones, as well as to a lesser degree in the CMU zone. The largest amount of multifamily unit capacity is found in the R3 zone. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 66 Zoning Greenbelt (GB) Net Acres 71.74 Family Unit Capacity...Capacity 36 Multifamily Unit PopulationSingle- 96 Residential 1 (R1) 35.15 255 685 Residential 2 (R2) 147.06 1,495 4,022 Residential 3 (R3) 31.87 1,540 1,350 7,049 Residential 4 (R4) 21.56 456 954 Residential 6 (R6) 18.11 421 1,134 Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) 0.54 5 11 Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) 5.59 19 39 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) 0.24 2 4 Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) 0.31 39 82 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 49.76 961 2,009 Commercial Corridor (CC) 18.62 79 166 Figure 58. Port Orchard 2021 Buildable Lands by Zone. Source: 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Analysis. Port Orchard's land capacity is likely higher than the numbers listed in the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report as a result of new zoning changes adopted in 2019 but not used in the analysis. For example, the Buildable Lands Report assumed that the R2 zone would see only single-family development even though although multifamily development is allowed in the zone and multifamily development would result in a larger number of units than shown in the table above. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 67 Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison Single- Duplex Triplex & Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily ADU Family . ..floors Road Impact Fees Port Orchard $5,205.69 $5,205.69 $2,944.63 - $5,205.69 $5,205.69 $2,944.63 $2,313.64 $1,892.98 $1,472.32 - $2,944.63 $2,564.90 Kitsap $4,229.84 $2,294.91 $2,294.91 $2,564.90 $2,294.91 $1,754.93 $1,619.94 County Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $5,318.52 $4,128.48 $4,128.48 $4,128.48 $4,128.48 $3,068.16 $3,068.16 $4,128.48 Bainbridge Island $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 Gig Harbor $5,720.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 Parks Impact Fees Port Orchard $4,280.00 $3,089.00 $3,029.00 $3,089.00 - $4,280.00 $3,014.00 $3,014.00 $3,014.00 $2,344.00 Kitsap County $743.10 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 Bainbridge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Island Gig Harbor $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1j500.00 $1j500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 School Impact Fees Port Orchard $1,370.83 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 Kitsap $1,455.66 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 County Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $1,455.66 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $0.00 Bainbridge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Island Gig Harbor $4,130.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 �$2,179.00 $4,130.00 Total Impact Fees Port $10,856.52 $9,156.34 $6,835.28 - $9,156.34 - $6,820.28 $6,189.29 $5,768.63 $4,677.97 - Orchard $9 096.34 10,347.34 $6,150.28 Kitsap County $6,428.60 $3,496.75 $3,496.75 $3,766.74 $3,496.75 $2,956.77 $2,821.78 $3,766.74 Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $7,969.18 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $5,102.97 $5,102.97 $5,323.48 Bainbridge Island $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 68 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 69 Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies The consultant team's comments on select housing policies are listed below. Housing Element Goal/ Policy HS-1 Identify a sufficient amount of land for housing, The Land Capacity Analysis in Section 7 of this including but not limited to government -assisted report finds the City has surplus capacity for 5,750 housing, housing for low-income families, residents beyond 2044 growth targets. Land manufactured housing, multifamily housing, capacity will be reviewed in more detail with the group homes, and foster care facilities. update to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan due in 2024. HS-2 Support the development of a variety of housing The City has a good foundation of supportive types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed- zoning standards to support a variety of housing use (residential and other uses) and live -work types, though as noted in Section 6 some development, small -lot and zero lot line single- improvements could be made or more incentives family homes, and manufactured homes, as well added. The MVOD zone is an example of as traditional single-family homes, through innovative planning. Financial assistance largely is innovative planning, efficient and effective implemented through the MFTE program, though administration of land and building codes, and, other options may need to be explored to support where available, applicable financial assistance. the low-income population. See also HS-20. HS-3 Monitor official and estimated population and The HAP is partially fulfilling this policy. Some housing data to ensure zoning and development gaps have been found in this report. regulations reflect market demands HS-4 Adopt zoning and development regulations that According to City staff, this policy is generally will have the effect of minimizing housing costs being met, but stakeholders report other factors and maximizing housing options. outside the City's control are also contributing to increasing the costs of building housing. HS-5 Support the development of housing and related Port Orchard does not have any emergency services that are provided by regional housing housing or emergency shelter for homeless programs and agencies for special needs individuals. Supportive and group housing for populations, especially the homeless, children, people with mental or physical disabilities also the elderly, and people with mental or physical appears limited, though there is a considerable disabilities. share of senior housing and assisted living facilities concentrated on the Pottery Avenue corridor. HS-6 Consider reducing permitting fees for No waivers/reductions for impact fees, general development which provide affordable housing facilities charges, or other permitting fees appear as defined by the Washington Administrative to be in place. Code (WAC) section 200-120- 020. HS-7 Consider the creation of zoning and other land This has been met through the MFTE program. use incentives for the private construction of affordable and special needs housing as a percentage of units in multi -family development. HS-8 Consider adopting incentives for development of This has been met through the MFTE program. affordable multi -family homes through property tax abatement in accordance with 84.14 RCW, focusing on designated mixed -use local centers with identified needs for residential infill and redevelopment. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 70 Goal/ Policy Text MAKERS Comments HS-9 Implement minimum residential density The City does not have any minimum density requirements in centers of local importance in standards in any zone. order to increase land and infrastructure efficiency. HS-10 Encourage the development of vertical multi- The MFTE Type III program and supportive zoning family housing above ground floor commercial helps encourage this type of housing, and there uses within centers of local importance. are a variety of private projects proposed in local centers. HS-11 Encourage the development of a mix of housing A more thorough review of the future land use types within walking and bicycling distance of map will be needed in the Comprehensive Plan public schools, parks, transit service, and update. This is a good policy to continue forward. commercial centers. HS-12 Require that new housing developments occur This is primarily met through impact fees. concurrently with necessary infrastructure investments. HS-14 Implement zoning and development regulations This type of development does not appear to be which encourage infill housing on empty and happening in large numbers, with most housing redevelopable parcels. being built on greenfields on the edge of the city. More incentives for infill and redevelopment in local centers should be explored in the HAP. HS-15 Allow the development of residential accessory Allow in all residential areas. Consider policy to dwelling units (ADUs) and detached accessory allow ADU's to be built with all single-family, dwelling units (DADUs) in appropriate residential duplex, and triplex developments. areas with sufficient public facilities to adequately serve additional residents. HS-16 Consider increasing maximum housing densities Similar to policy HS-9. Minimum densities will be and implementing minimum housing densities in explored in the HAP. The City has no maximum appropriate areas. density limits in residential zones. HS-18 Consider programs to preserve or rehabilitate One project has utilized the MFTE Type II program neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs intended for abandoned properties. The City could of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or consider other maintenance support, such as use abandonment. of Community Development Block Grants to help low-income homeowners with rehabilitation. HS-19 Consider commercial building design standards Commercial design standards have been adopted. that establish and protect neighborhood character. HS-20 Seek federal, state, and other funding for the Staff report no work has been done on grant renovation and maintenance of existing housing applications to renovate/maintain existing stock. housing stock. HS-22 Streamlining the permitting process for Stakeholders noted that permit processing time development by implementing policies and and unexpected hurdles are a continuing problem, procedures that reduce the length of time though the City has recently moved to an involved in plan approval. electronic system. HS-24 Consider developing and implementing flexible The City has recently updated its critical areas development standards for housing being standards and has no maximum density limits in proposed in the vicinity of critical areas to meet residential zones. both the goals of housing targets and environmental protection. HS-27 If the City's growth rate falls below 2.1 % annual In individual years the growth rate has sometimes growth, the rate at which the City would need to been lower than 2.1 % (e.g. 2.7% from 2017 to grow at in order to hit its 2036 growth target, the 2018), and from 2015 to 2022 the average annual Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 71 city should consider adopting reasonable growth rate was 2.6%. It is unclear which measures such as reducing adopted timeframe should be used to evaluate whether transportation levels of service, impact fees, or "reasonable measures" are needed. accelerating growth related projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. HS-28 If the City's growth rate increases from the 2.5% In individual years the growth rate has sometimes growth rate experienced from 2013-2015, the been higher than 2.5% (e.g. 2.8% from 2021 to City should consider adopting reasonable 2022), and from 2015 to 2022 the average annual measures including increasing transportation growth rate was 2.6%. It is unclear which level of service standards, impact fees, or timeframe should be used to evaluate whether delaying projects within the City's Capital "reasonable measures" are needed. Improvement Program. Land Use Element Goal/ Policy LU-1 Ensure that land use and zoning regulations Some variety of housing types are being seen in maintain and enhance existing single-family recent years, but not enough to meet all market residential neighborhoods, while encouraging needs. Revisiting this policy in the context of that new development provides a mixed range of single-family neighborhoods may be warranted in housing types. the Comprehensive Plan update. LU-11 Within centers of local importance, set minimum The housing policy review in Section 6 finds that building densities that enable lively and active none of these ideas have been implemented, with streets and commercial destinations. Such limits the exception of maximum street setbacks in may take the form of: minimum floors or building limited commercial areas. height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. LU-17 Incentivize infill development to preserve and This type of development does not appear to be protect open space, critical areas, and natural happening in large numbers, with most housing resources. being built on greenfields on the edge of the city. More incentives for infill and redevelopment in local centers should be explored in the HAP. Transportation Element Goal/ Policy Goal 7 Work with Kitsap Transit to provide increased Level of service standards for transit frequency is transit service to the City as development not mentioned anywhere in the Transportation occurs. Element. TR-38 Require new development and redevelopment to The future land use map and zoning map should provide safe neighborhood walking and biking be evaluated to determine what housing capacity routes to schools. and potential for new development exists near schools. New infrastructure is most easily paid for by new development, and schools should be nodes of residential density to facilitate short walks and bike rides for students from home. TR-86 Consider reduction of parking requirements if a Noted. development provides alternatives for multi- Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 72 Appendix C Public Engagement Report Port Orchard Housing Action Plan Public Engagement Report March 29, 2023 1.0 - Introduction In the course of preparing a housing action plan (HAP) Port Orchard engaged community members to gain a deeper understanding of local housing needs and affordability issues, find shared values and common ground, and identify divergent viewpoints. Public engagement occurred primarily in three ways: • Stakeholder interviews (see section 2.0) • A communitywide housing survey (see section 3.0) Table of Contents 1.0 — Introduction............................................................ 2.0 — Stakeholder Interview Summary ............................ 3.0 — Housing Survey Summary ..................................... Appendix A — Written Comments for "Other" Answers.. Appendix B — Housing Stories ........................................ Appendix C — Housing Construction Comments............ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report 1 1 ..................................................... 2 ..................................................... 6 ................................................... 31 ................................................... 33 ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Page Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 2 2.0 - Stakeholder Interview Summary MAKERS and Leland Consulting Group interviewed 14 individual Port Orchard stakeholders. They included or represented city residents, elected officials, affordable housing agencies, developers and homebuilders, and other community leaders. This range of people provided a variety of perspectives on housing challenges and opportunities in Port Orchard. This section summarizes their comments, observations, and priorities. Organizations interviewed: • Port Orchard City Council and Mayor • Kitsap Housing Authority • Disney & Associates • Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce • Tarragon • Contour Construction • McCormick Communities Overall, stakeholders confirmed that there is a lack of housing options in Port Orchard, even with recent changes by the city. Low -moderate income workers and fixed -income retirees are struggling to afford housing in Port Orchard and long-time residents are seeing their adult children unable to afford buying a home in the city. There is concern that essential service and retail workers are leaving the community, limiting the social and economic diversity of the city, and hurting businesses in the city. All cost inputs for new housing are going in the wrong direction amid rising prices for materials, labor, and land. There may be some regulatory opportunities to improve the cost efficiency of construction and create partnerships for affordable housing. Regulatory tweaks to the code and design standards, policy updates to the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, and friendlier development processes for housing providers is the collection of solutions stakeholders feel could help better achieve city housing goals. 2.1 — Housing Challenges Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • There is a lot of housing being developed, but there lacks diversity of housing options with current and planned housing being developed. Most new housing is either a single-family detached home or garden apartments. Diversity of housing options is a challenge in Port Orchard. • Quote (paraphrased): "After a life changing event, I didn't want to deal with another long-term mortgage or upkeep of a large house. I wanted something where I could help take care of my mom, somewhere we could live in the same building but have our own spaces. What I was looking for didn't really exist in Port Orchard." Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 3 • Rents and upfront fees/deposits have increased significantly over the past several years, compounding the difficulties for entry-level and moderate -income workers. • Quote (paraphrased): "I am worried about economic diversity and being a place that is inclusive for people starting out. I am also worried about racial diversity and being unable to attract people from all walks of life." • Several stories were shared by people who have lived in town decades and their children cannot afford to purchase a home in town. • Lots of interest was shared by people interested in mixed -use and residential development in downtown Port Orchard, while admitting understanding or frustration that the area doesn't seem quite ready for that type of development. • There seems to be little price difference in the cost of purchasing a single-family home versus a townhome, even though they have differences in amenities and size. • Some housing providers felt cottage housing is currently tough with design standards and current allowed density. One housing provider referenced the possible trade-off with open space but thought cottage housing could be more viable if more density was allowed on the lot. • The local affordable housing authority is recently reorganizing and updating their systems, meaning they're currently behind on processing. The current waitlist has over a 1000 people and are at least a year away from developing any new housing. 2.2 — Housing Production and Code Considerations Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Several stakeholders said they appreciate working with Port Orchard staff, giving credit to their responsiveness, and that they generally liked the recent zoning code updates. However, they've also noticed with the increase of projects in Port Orchard, the permitting process has slowed down and is taken longer than it has in the past. • While admitting it did provide good looking products. Some housing providers felt navigating the design standards was more cumbersome than it needed to be (specifically mentioned were single-family homes and 2-4 unit-plexes). • Some housing providers found the lack of consistent processes for key parts of projects (sewer capacity, water line hookups, and building code) made it feel like staff were working against them, even if that wasn't the intention. • Quote (paraphrased): "So often if feels like permitters and inspectors are working against me, I'm not trying to slip something by, I want to be more collaborative during the construction process." • One housing provider felt the permitting process for a fourplex was equally as laborious as permitting an apartment. Suggested getting permitting processes for the 2-4 door range closer to the single-family permitting process. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 4 • One housing provider felt having to do so much of the process only during the City's business hours and having to do a phone call to schedule every inspection, is hard on smaller housing providers. Suggests an online permit portal. • Land costs and construction material costs have increased, while there is a short supply of labor to do the work. This is a nationwide problem. • Most stakeholders understand the reason and need for Port Orchard to raise impact fees in recent years to help pay for needed infrastructure. Many stakeholders are satisfied with where impact fees are at. Housing providers understand why fees increased, but also note that increased fees impact affordability and could impact future development. Additionally, the intensity of concern of increasing impact fees was stronger from smaller housing providers and those who mainly provide rental properties. • Quote (paraphrased): "I believe new construction should pay for itself and I don't think impact fees are too cumbersome to development in the city. However, $15,000 in total fees to approve an ADU is disproportionate." • Quote (paraphrased): "45% of all my housing is tied up in fees and permitting, taxes, impact fees, and other governmental oversight... Price increases are passed on to residents." 2.3 — Homelessness and Social Services Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Understand homelessness is a regional and statewide problem that is hard to get a handle on. Stakeholders understand affordable housing and mental health services are needed to address the problem, but know the city is lacking the resources to provide more. • A couple of stakeholders would like to see more shelters, transitional housing, single room occupancy apartments (SROs), and congregate housing in the city as housing best positioned to support the homeless population. Suggested the code be friendly to these types if not already. • A challenge identified by one stakeholder, was that available parking at new housing for the formerly homeless is still a big issue. 2.4 — Employment and Businesses • The nearby military workforce brings a consistent level of demand for housing every year. • Expansion of telecommunicating or work from home and commuting on the Kitsap fast ferry, has allowed more people from higher cost areas like Seattle to move to Port Orchard. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 5 A couple of stakeholders discussed how housing affordability is a constraint on business success in the city. Lack of workforce is hurting businesses. • Several stakeholders mentioned the need for a grocery store and consistent retail options in the downtown area. One stakeholder explained the challenge as "The demographics don't support high -end grocers and retail. On the other hand, the town needs to be upgraded to attract businesses." • Land values are not at the point for big box retailers like Safeway to consider mixed -use redevelopment and structured parking, but more housing nearby is important to support the customer base. .rrnncnnrtrntinr Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Stakeholders like the fast ferry and foot ferry transit access to Bremerton and now Seattle. However, all expressed better service is needed for the public bus transit. • Kitsap Transit has money to add lines and increase service, but operator labor shortages are keeping that from happening. This is a nationwide problem. • Biking in general and e-bikes in particular are growing in popularity as a way to get around town, do shopping, commute, etc. Seems like an opportunity for people to reduce their cost of living by driving less. 2.6 — Opportunities Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Most stakeholders expressed interest and support for increased housing options. Stakeholders are looking for housing options like missing middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), townhomes, SROs, congregate housing, and apartments that are not garden apartments. • Several stakeholders are interested in updating the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program in Port Orchard to get more affordability on MFTE units. • Several housing providers shared that they there will be a market for rentable single- family homes, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. • Kitsap Housing says affordable senior housing does well in Port Orchard and because of this, more affordable senior housing could be developed in the future. • One housing provider expressed a lot of satisfaction with Port Orchard's updated R3 zone and felt that the impacts of the updated zone will be coming in the future. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -Public Engagement Report Page 6 3.0 - Housing Survey Summary 3.1 - Target Audience and Response Rate The target audience for the survey was people living and/or working in Port Orchard city limits. The majority of respondents self -reported meeting these criteria. The project team set an informal goal of receiving at least 150 responses. The total input was 140 responses combined, and after removing non -valid response there are 128 responses available for analysis. The breakdown is provided below and details on outreach methods are provided in section 3.10. * 12 people (-9 percent) reported both living outside Port Orchard and not working in Port Orchard, and the majority are retired. While it is likely that most of these respondents have some connection to Port Orchard, they are not currently local constituents. Housing Information Question 1 Where do you live? Respondents All respondents (128) Most respondents live within Port Orchard city limits. About 13% of respondents live outside the city and have a job based in Port Orchard. 1% ■ 1 live within Port Orchard city limits, west of State Route 16 I live within Port Orchard city limits, east of State Route 16 ■ I live outside Port Orchard, elsewhere in Kitsap County I live outside of Kitsap County Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 7 Question 2 Which of these best describe your living situation? Respondents All respondents (128) Most respondents are homeowners, at 82%. Approximately 15% of respondents are renters. The rest reported being in some other situation or being homeless (the online survey was filled out by two homeless people). The survey was disproportionately answered by owners, whose households make up about 61 % of the housing units in Port Orchard. About 39% of Port Orchard housing units are renter households. NOTE: Some of the questions in the remainder of the survey compare answers between owners and renters, noted in the question summary boxes. The 4 respondents who report neither owning nor renting represent a small percentage of responses and are excluded from those comparison analyses for brevity, but are included in other analyses and any written comments. 100% 80% 82.0% 60% 40% 20% 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1 % 0% jK_ Own Rent Don't pay for Homeless None of these — housing different situation Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 8 Question 3 Regarding employment and commuting, please select the answer that most accurately describes your situation. Respondents All respondents (124), owners (105) and renters (19) Most respondents are employed and working. About 25% of respondents are retired with about 94% of the retired respondents being homeowners. As a percentage of responses, both homeowners and renters that live in Port Orchard but have employment outside the city have similar rates of commuting to job and working remotely. The employment and commuting patterns for those that are working do not differentiate too significantly between owner and renter respondents. Renters 26.2 Owners 20.0% 31.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% My employment is based in Port Orchard city limits, and I commute to my job My employment is based in Port Orchard city limits, and I usually work remotely My employment is based outside Port Orchard, and I commute to my job ■ My employment is based outside Port Orchard, and I usually work remotely I am not working right now but I plan to in the future ■ I am retired Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 9 Question 4 What is your household's total annual income? It's okay to guess. Your household includes yourself, partner/spouse or family members living with you, and roommates. Respondents All respondents (124), owners (105) and renters (19) Respondents reported a wide range of annual household incomes. Owner respondents generally have higher incomes than renter respondents. For reference, the 2020 Median Household Income in Port Orchard reported by the ACS was $71,719. About 61 % of owner respondents report their households have an income of at least $80,000 per year. About 63% of renters report their households earn less than $80,000 per year. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 -'g -'c N tD 00 O LLO O O N r V N It � O O O V> <? V> </? 00 O Ln A ■ Owners 0 N N N 00 O LO O O V O O O r r N v V> 00 <a V>00 O OLO n N Renters Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 10 Question 5 Approximately what percent of total/gross annual income does your household pay for your home? It's okay to guess. This includes rent or mortgage payments, HOA fees, property taxes, and utilities (water, sewer, etc.). Respondents All respondents (123), owners (104) and renters (19) "Cost burden" is a measure of how many households pay more than 30% of their annual income on housing. Over 60% of renters report being cost burdened by housing, with nearly a third being extremely cost burdened (paying more than half their household income on housing). About 28% of owners report being cost burdened. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 20% or less Cost Burdened 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% or more Cost of Housing Compared to Household Income ■ Owners Renters Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 11 Housing Stability Question 6 T If you experience a major unexpected financial event like a job loss, large medical bill, or a partner passing away, would you be worried about being able to stay in your current home? Respondents All respondents (119), Owners (101) and renters (18) Both owners and renters report being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected financial event at significantly high levels. A little over 60% of renters and almost 50% of owners report being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected event. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No ■ Owners Renters Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 12 Question 7 Do you or any of your closest family or friends share any of the following concerns about these costs of living and service issues in Port Orchard? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (97) Housing relates to other economic, service, medical, and transportation issues. The top concern by a significant margin is the availability of medical care in town, which 49% of respondents were concerned about. Also, having some distinction from other choices, was almost 40% of respondents being concerned about expensive or unavailable day care. The remaining concerns clustered closely together as respondents third highest concern, with these concerns all being chosen by around 30% of respondents: • Limited availability of shelter and services for homeless people • Businesses struggling to recruit employees • Expensive or unavailable assisted living options around • Limited public transit service 0% 20% 40% 60% Some types of needed medical care are unavailable in town Day care is either expensive or unavailable in town Public transit service is very limited or unreliable Businesses are struggling to recruit employees who can afford to live here P Assisted living is either expensive or unavailable in town Shelter and services for homeless people are limited Other (please specify) About 22 people selected the "other" option for this question to provide written answers. Full comments are available in Appendix A.1. These are summarized as follows. • Limited dining and shopping options in the area • Property taxes are high and keep increasing, which affects everyone • High housing costs are taking away from the ability to afford other basics Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 13 Limited safe bike routes Some concerns about crime Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 14 Housing Stories Question 8 Do you have a housing story to tell? Respondents All respondents (63) Dozens of housing stories were submitted. A full listing is available in Appendix B. Overview The stories range from recounting of why people moved to Port Orchard, the impacts housing costs are having on their family and friends, and the acknowledgment of how difficult it is for young and new residents to get started in the City. Many homeowners shared how the increasing housing costs are making life hard or pushing out their kids, elderly parents, and friends from Port Orchard. Renters are discouraged about opportunities for homeownership, but also expressed dissatisfaction with the housing options available in the City to rent or buy. Overall, there is an understanding and a frustration from respondents that rising housing costs is negatively impacting other areas of quality of life. Renter Stories Many renters are feeling the pinch of increasing rent prices and are feeling pressure to move out of town for more affordable housing. Renters expressed the lack of options to rent in the area, as well as the lack of options to buy in the area. The renter stories include respondents who have grown up in Port Orchard, who have been in Port Orchard for a while, and relatively new renters in the City. An anonymous renter said: "1 grew up here and my parents live here. My husband and 1 struggled to find a home to buy that was the right mix of size, location, neighborhood, future appreciation, and development risk. We continued to rent with an exceptionally good set up, but we watched the home prices skyrocket the past few years and I began to have serious concerns about being priced out of the area. This year we purchased multifamily real estate in port orchard to preserve the option to stay in the area and secure our future housing needs." A renter named Vanessa said: "Moved out to WA Jan 2022 with husband and son. We wanted to buy a home as first time buyers but find the process a bit difficult. Renting a home is getting to be expensive with rent being $2700 for two bedroom duplexes." An anonymous renter said: "We moved here from Alaska & didn't intend to stay in our current apartment for more than one year. Due to rent and other cost increases and poor well -paying job opportunities we've been essentially trapped here for 5 years, and the situation is leading me to look elsewhere for our future. 1 was really excited to live in this beautiful area, and I've been sorely disappointed trying to enjoy living here." Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 15 Homeowner Stories Homeowners frequently said they feel lucky, fortunate, or grateful to have purchased a home when they did, acknowledging that they could not afford current prices. One person named Cate said, "I was lucky and got into my home 16 years ago; 1 have refinanced once. If I were to try to find a place to live right now without the equity of my home, 1 would have to find a roommate or two to alleviate the financial strain." A homeowner named Kris said: "We moved to port orchard a few years ago. Even with our two middle class jobs, we find it exceptionally expensive to afford our modest home. If something were to happen and we'd need repairs to our house, such as old water pipes bursting, we'd be struggling a lot to pay the mortgage." Family and Friends Many people said their adult children are either living with them because they can't afford to buy or rent in the area, or their children are moving away to find housing they can afford elsewhere. Also, it's not just children being impacted in people's families. Respondents shared stories of siblings and elderly parents who are impacted by housing cost in the area. Many people also shared that housing costs are impacting friends and colleagues. A homeowner named Matt said: "I was born and raised in South Kitsap and two of my children still live here.... with us, they can't afford to buy." An anonymous homeowner said: "My kids can't afford to stay and live in Port Orchard so they moved away. My dad moved to another town to find more affordable senior housing. The rental market is not sustainable for young adults to start and build their families and future homes here. It used to be when 1 moved here 22 years ago which Is why 1 chooses to raise my kids here." A homeowner named Christopher said: "I've had friends who live farther away for lower apartment rent, yet they work here in Port Orchard. I've also heard of people getting pushed out of Port Orchard to find better home rental and home buying prices. Port Orchard used to be the better value -for -your - money place when most get pushed out of the Silverdale and Bremerton areas." A homeowner named Season said: "1 grew up here and have watched my parents slowly start to be priced out of the area since 2007 (they have always rented). My mom was a homemaker and my dad worked in carpet/flooring as an independent contractor. 1 was lucky enough to have bought a home in 2011 for $736K when there was a surplus of foreclosed homes scattered throughout Port Orchard. My spouse's mother is also in the same situation as my parents (she will actually be moving in with us in February because as a para-educator and a service industry worker, she cannot afford to rent a one bedroom apartment in Port Orchard) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 16 1 am disappointed to see that new apartments are showing up (which is a good thing), but that the price does not fit the incomes of many people in our town. Ideally, 1 would like to see renting as a valid option for folks who have found themselves downsizing or are approaching retirement age who might not have access or time to pay a home loan, but can still live independently and with dignity. " 3.5 — Housing Types For these two housing type questions, the answer choices were the same but the questions were different. The questions asked: • What type of home do you currently live in? • In the future, what types of homes would you consider or see yourself living in, assuming it met your price range and the needs of your family or household? The following graphic was provided to illustrate examples of some of the less common home types. The answer choices also had some parenthetical details to further explain each type, which are removed from the charts for brevity. These were: • Detached house on a large lot with a big yard • Detached house on a small lot with a modest yard (the lot size is smaller than 5,000 square feet) • Accessory dwelling unit (often designed as a mother-in-law suite, basement apartment, or backyard cottage) • Cottage housing (small single-family homes clustered around a shared yard) • Duplex or triplex (two or three attached homes) • Townhouse (attached homes, usually with multiple floors) • Apartment or condominium with 1 or 2 bedrooms • Apartment or condominium with 3 or more bedrooms • Supportive living residence (such as a group home, assisted living, or nursing home) D�uple� or tri�le�x Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 17 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 18 Question 9 What type of home do you currently live in? Respondents All respondents (108), owners (100), and renters (18) Of the owner survey takers, 96% live in a single-family home. Renters live in a larger variety of housing: 28% live in single-family homes, 17% live in an apartment or condo building, 5% live in ADU's, 39% live in a duplex or triplex, and 11 % live in a townhouse. 6 0 % -T-- 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 111 Owners Renters ■ Detached house on a large lot with a big yard ■ Detached house on a small lot with a modest yard Accessory dwelling unit Cottage court housing Duplex or triplex ■ Townhouse Apartment or condominium with 1 or 2 bedrooms Apartment or condominium with 3 or more bedrooms ■ Supportive living residence ■ Other (please specify) The survey had an "other" option which was filled out by 2 people. One of these other answers was also "single family house" with various qualities and lot size description, the other was described as a duplex style townhome, and so they are added to the overall counts in the chart. No survey takers report living in a supportive living residence (nursing home, assisted living facility, etc.). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 19 Question 10 In the future, what types of homes would you consider or see yourself living in, assuming it met your price range and the needs of your family or household? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (119) This question was intended to understand the demand for different housing types. This will be compared to the actual housing available and being built in Port Orchard. 1 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 14.3%0 11.8% 10.10/01M 10.9% R a0/ ■ Detached house on a large lot with a big yard ■ Detached house on a small lot with a modest yard Accessory dwelling unit ■ Cottage court housing Duplex or triplex Townhouse ■ Apartment or condominium with 1 or 2 bedrooms ■ Apartment or condominium with 3 or more bedrooms ■ Supportive living residence Both renters and homeowners have a strong interest in living in single-family houses, with the large lot detached home still being the overwhelming favorite for both groups. A variety of other homes are desired. Combined results of all survey takers: 11 % would consider living in an ADU • 12% would consider living in a duplex or triplex • 19% would consider living in cottage housing • 10% would consider living in a townhouse • 22% would consider living in an apartment or condominium (with a stronger preference for 1-2 bedroom units) • 11 % would consider supportive living residences A total of 8 people selected the "other" option. Full comments are available in Appendix A.2. Most answers are similar to the basic housing types listed above. There were additional Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 20 mentions of moving out of Kitsap County altogether and a comment about having lots of land or acreage in addition to a nice size house. %menities and Feature For this set of questions, respondents filled out matrices of housing features using a weighted 1 to 5 scale. Answers of "not sure" were weighted zero. The data here uses all respondents, rather than comparing owners and renters. There was little difference in the overall results between the two groups. The answer tables are shaded for quick reference as follows: q,.. , > 4.25 3.5 to 4.25 2.75 to 3.5 < 2.75 Question 11 How important are these amenity features for you when searching for housing? Please rate on a scale of 1-5. A 5 means the feature is very important, and 1 means the feature is not at all important. Respondents All respondents (1 18) This question was intended to determine how important key housing features are for people when searching for housing. The features listed are those commonly listed on real estate listings and the basic physical aspects of a home. The most important item was finding housing in the respondents' price range. The second most important was having a home with air conditioning and heating. The home being large enough for the family or household rated a close third. In -unit appliances like laundry and dishwasher also rated fairly high. The least important amenity feature was common space for residents. This is more likely to be located in townhouse or multifamily developments than the single-family developments that many survey takers said they are interested in with previous questions. !4.2 In my price range 91 % Air conditioning and heating 83% Large enough for my family or household (number of bedrooms and bathrooms) 82% 4.26 In -unit appliances like laundry and dishwasher 82% 4.16 Private yard space 63% 3.88 Storage space 51 % 3.62 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 21 The building allows pets 60% 3.45 Other private space, such as a balcony, deck, or rooftop 52% 3.35 No stairs — the unit is either on the ground level or accessed by elevator 47% 3.19 Common space for residents, like a courtyard, roof deck, or recreation room 27% 2.34 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 22 Question 12 How important are these location and transportation features for you when searching for housing? Please rate on a scale of 1-5. A 5 means the feature is very important, and 1 means the feature is not at all important. Respondents All respondents (118) In this category, the top answer is housing located in a neighborhood that feels safe for active transportation (walking, rolling, and bicycling). Survey takers were also strongly interested in finding housing that has enough off-street parking. Moderately important location and transportation features were the distance from the home to shopping, parks, and schools. The other location and transportation features fall into the less important grouping: housing that is located a short distance to work; and having a secure place to park bikes at home. The least important feature is having equipment to charge an electric vehicle at home. Transportation'Location and . The neighborhood feels safe for walking, rolling, and bicycling 172%. 4.62 Enough off-street parking 4.09 Short distance to grocery stores and other services 62% 3.69 Short distance to public parks and schools 47% 3.21 Short distance to work 33% 2.83 Secure place to park bikes 35% 2.72 Equipment for electric vehicle charging 25% 2.22 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 23 Question 13 After housing, transportation is often the second largest share of household costs. If the following transportation options were practical and available to you, how likely would you use them to spend less on transportation? Please rate on a scale of 1-5. A 5 means you would definitely use the option, and a 1 means you would never use the option. Respondents All respondents (1 17) In this question, the top answer was "More safe sidewalks connecting my neighborhood to the rest of town." Far behind, the second top answer was working from home/telecommuting. There is moderate interest in transportation options like more safe bicycling routes, more bus and transit service, and driving electric cars. There was relatively low but still noticeable interest (with at least a quarter to a third of respondents interested) in electric bikes and downsizing the number of vehicles in the household. There was very little interested in using car -share or ride-share/taxi services. Transportation Option More safe sidewalks connecting my neighborhood to the rest of town Percentage Rating 4 or 5 73% Weighted Average Score 4.15 Working from home/telecommuting 62% 3.68 More safe bicycling routes connecting my neighborhood to the rest of town 42% 3.01 More bus service connecting to my job, school, shopping, or other services 39% 3.01 Driving an electric car to save on gas costs 34% 2.9 Selling a car or downsizing to a one -car household 28% 2.62 Using an electric bike (for distances, hills, or carrying needs) 17% 2.6 Car -share or ride-share/taxi services in town 16% 2.35 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 24 3.7 - Concepts Evaluation This question was intended to gauge the level of community support or opposition for land use, program, and funding concepts. The answers were weighted as follows. I Answer Strongly support - �t�l 2 Weight Somewhat support 1 Not sure/need more information 0 Somewhat oppose -1 Strongly oppose -2 Question 14 The following is a list of land use and zoning concepts that could be considered in the Housing Action Plan to help improve access to housing in Port Orchard. Do you support or oppose these concepts? Respondents Total Respondents (114) The charts below show how the respondents answered and are listed in order of the weighted average scores from high to low (for all respondents), which is summarized in the following table. Weighted andwW&and Zoning Concepts Average Score Percenta ...Oppose Percentage Percentage Streamline zoning standards to encourage more "middle housing" like attached duplexes, 0.85 65% 25% 10% triplexes, and townhomes Relax restrictions on accessory dwelling units 0.79 62°i° 22°i° 16°i° to encourage more to be built Create development incentives for essential services like childcare and assisted living, such 0.79 60% 30% 10% as height bonuses Modest increase in building height limits (1-2 0.65 54°i° 27°i° 19°i° floors) in multifamily and/or commercial areas Enact a minimum density requirement in one or more zones, to encourage a greater variety of 0.59 47% 41 % 12% home types in new subdivisions Encourage development of more multifamily (apartments/condos) in the Downtown area, 0.35 49% 28% 23% particularly on side streets Renters are slightly more supportive of the concepts, but there isn't a significant difference between renters and owners in their support for concepts. The strongest support overall is for streamlining zoning standards that encourage more middle housing. Other top -rated concepts were relaxing restrictions on ADUs and having creative development incentives for essential Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 25 services like daycare and assisted living. The most opposed and uncertain concept among all respondents is "encourage development of more multifamily in the Downtown area" With any concept some level of public outreach and education may be needed, demonstrated with the large shares of people who are not sure or need more information. Question 15 How much would you support these policy and program concepts, if they could help stabilize housing prices and access to housing in Port Orchard? Do you support or oppose these concepts? Respondents All Respondents (114), owner (92), and renter (18) The charts below compare owner and renter response and are listed in order of the weighted average scores from high to low (for all respondents), which is summarized in the following table. o 'r�olicy and PE29ram Concepts 0.66 57% .4 24% 19% Hire a city housing coordinator to assist renters and support local homeless services Requirements for private housing projects to 0.63 58% 18% 24% reserve some units for low-income households Stronger renter protections such as more 0.54 54% 18% 28% notice time for rent increases or options to manage move -in fees Tighten regulations on vacation rentals to 0.25 47% 20% 33% discourage the use of regular housing for tourists All the concepts scored relatively moderately when viewed overall but hiring a city housing coordinator was the concept with the most support. Notably, with this set of questions renters that participated showed a lot more support for all of the policy and program concepts than owners did, showing at least 70% support rate for the first three concepts listed in the table. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 26 Question 16 The following is a list of funding concepts that could be considered in the Housing Action Plan. Do you support or oppose these concepts? Respondents Total (114), owner (93), and renter (18) The charts below compare owner and renter response and are listed in order of the weighted average scores from high to low (for all respondents), which is summarized in the following table. Percenta krcentage Additional funding for public transit to help 0.89 SupportPercentage 71 % 16% ppose 13% people access jobs and services without a car City advocacy for more county, state, or federal 0.87 65% 23% 12% funding for affordable housing projects Direct and/or temporary rental payment 0.66 57% 27% 16% assistance for those most in need Financial assistance to help single-family 0.54 56% 24% 20% homeowners build accessory dwelling units A citywide property tax levy to fund affordable -0.39 29% 21 % 50% housing Overall, there is strong support for both additional funding for public transit and for the City to advocate for more funding from its government partners for affordable housing projects. There is moderate support for the concept of direct rental payment assistance, with renters more supportive than owners. There is more uncertainty with the concepts to provide financial assistance for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, and considerable opposition to the idea of an affordable housing property tax levy. Renters and owners both showed strong support for additional funding for public transit and for the City to advocate for more funding from its government partners for affordable housing projects. However, renters showed considerably more support for the other funding concepts then owners did. Renters supported direct rental payment assistance at 84%, financial assistance for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units at 72%, and an affordable housing property tax levy at 50%. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 27 3.8 - Demographic Information This section of the survey emphasized that answers are voluntary (as are all questions on the survey) and are only used to determine if the City is reaching a representative population. NOTE: Housing tenure is listed at the beginning of the survey summary under the Housing Information section. Question 17 Do you live in a subsidized or rent -restricted home? For example, a home managed by Housing Kitsap or similar housing agency. Respondents All respondents (113) Of the respondents who answered, 3 said they live in a subsidized or rent -restricted home. This is about 2.7% of respondents. Question 18 What is your race? Select all that apply. All questions on this page are optional and help the City of Port Orchard understand if its public engagement methods are reaching a representative population. Respondents All respondents (107) The survey captured a generally representative population in terms of race. For example, 27% of respondents identified as non -white and about 33% of the population is non -white. Of the respondents who answered, 6 provided 'other" answers that are mostly invalid, and are excluded from the chart below. 2% ■ White ■ Asian Other (please specify) ■ Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native ■ Black or African American Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 28 Question 19 What languages do you primarily speak at home? Respondents All respondents (1 10) Of the respondents who answered, 98.2% primary speak English at home and 0.9% primarily speak Spanish at home. English speakers are slightly overrepresented and Spanish speakers are slightly underrepresented, as in Port Orchard 1.9% of residents primarily speak Spanish at home. Other survey answers include Swedish, French, and Japanese. Question 20 Do you have any permanent physical disabilities that make it difficult to use your home? Respondents All respondents (1 11) Of the respondents who answered, 8% report having a permanent physical disability that makes it difficult to use their home. Question 21 Which of these describe the makeup of your family or household? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (1 11) A majority of owners and renters live with a partner or spouse with owners being the most likely group at around 70%, while for the renter group it was a little over 50%. Respondents whether owner or renter, had similar family or household makeups, with both groups having similar response rates for living alone, living with children, living with multiple generations, and living with pets. The only other main difference between the groups, is renters live in households with unrelated roommates at 12%. Whereas, no respondents in the owner group are living with unrelated roommates. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 29 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Owners Renters ■ 1 live alone ■ 1 live with a partner spouse I live with children ■ 1 live with multiple generations (e.g. grandparents, grandchildren) ■ 1 live with unrelated roommates ■ 1 live with pets Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 30 Question 22 What is your home 5-digit zipcode? Respondents All respondents (111) 94% of respondents report living in a Port Orchard zipcode which includes either 98366 or 98367. This is within the realm of consistency with Question 1 in the Housing Information section, as 87% of respondents reported living in the city limits, but the zipcode used for the City is also shared with nearby cities and areas. The other 6% of respondents likely represent the survey takers who live outside the city but work in the city. Zipcode 98366 79 71.2% Port Orchard, Manchester, and Southworth 98367 25 22.5% Port Orchard — Bethel and West of SR 16 98359 2 1.8% Olalla 98351 1 0.9% Longbranch 98312 1 0.9% Bremerton (west) and Gorst 98673 1 0.9% Wishram 98335 1 0.9% Gig Harbor 98337 1 0.9% Bremerton (east) 3.9 - Outreach Information The online survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey and went live on November 15, 2022, and closed on February 1, 2023. The link to the survey was formally distributed by: • An email to the interviewed HAP stakeholders • A post on the Facebook page of the City of Port Orchard Government page • An update on the project webpage It took an average of 15 minutes to complete the online survey. Of the local respondents, 89% fully completed the survey meaning they viewed and/or responded to all questions. An invitation to participate in the survey accompanied by a QR code to the survey, was attached to bi-monthly City utility bills that went out the week of November 28cn Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 31 Survey Appendix A - Written Comments for "Other" Answers Appendix A.1- Question 9 "Other" Answers Question 7 Do you or any of your closest family or friends share any of the following concerns about these costs of living and service issues in Port Orchard? Respondents All respondents (92) Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. • More and more apartment complexes keep popping up but we don't have good shopping areas and restaurants in the area. • Too many dilapidated rentals owned by non residents of the area. • Few places to eat out except fast food • The permitting process is inefficient and poorly managed. • Concerned with safety. Town is old and not vibrant. • A business district with local eateries and activities could benefit the town. • Late night crimes, but the Port Orchard police department is closed? Calls are being routed to, being handled by, who will follow up on/when? • Traffic and houses going up in wetland area • The growing homeless in wetlands that are breaking into homes and cars nearby • Put the homeless in jail and help stop the crime rate • Housing costs outrageous • Businesses are struggling thanks to regulations and over reach by our government. Transit, really ? The amount we spend on transit, to benefit a few, those that commute to Seattle, and then the empty busses. • Quality of life. We're not pets worried about being cared for • Everything is too expensive, but housing takes away from being able to afford basics • There are few safe bike routes. • High cost of water & sewer • Healthy places to eat and more variety to grocery shop other than FM's. • High property taxes • increase in car accidents with so much development going in. Part of what keeps raising our cost of living are property taxes- our property taxes skyrocketed in the last few years. • Utilities are high • Businesses are skirting laws and regulations leading to unsafe work conditions as well, money plays a large part but safety is also a factor. • Port Orchard is overwhelming crowded, Financial concerns living in Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 32 Appendix A.2 - Question 11 "Other" Answers Question 11 In the future, what types of homes would you consider or see yourself living in, assuming it met your price range and the needs of your family or household? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (1 19) • Condo!!!!!!! We need fewer apartments and more condos. • Acreage land • Small house on acreage... Elsewhere. • Single family home • Moving out of Kitsap due to the rising costs even with our planned retirement accounts. • House • Acreage in the middle of the woods • single story rambler not 2 story! Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 33 Survey Appendix B - Housing Stories Question 8 Do you have a housing story to tell? Respondents All respondents (61) Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. See a summary under section 3.4 of this report. Appendix 113.1- Housing Stories from Owners Stories with people who volunteered to attribute their first name are listed first. Stories after that are anonymous. Michelle We moved to Kitsap County in 2012; we moved again to within the city limits in September 2020. We are both retired and enjoy being out of King County (too busy over there). Our children are both grown and married. One lives on Vashon Island (no kids) and the other lives in Puyallup (3 kids). My parents recently relocated back to Washington (from Arizona) and live within walking distance to us. Our biggest concern is if Port Orchard will improve the roads considering how much the area is growing. Specifically, Bethel Avenue -- it needs to be widened to at least include a left turn lane. Old Clifton also needs a LOT of pothole attention. Kitsap County does a GREAT job of maintaining their roads. Port Orchard needs to do the same. John I moved here from Seattle in June 1999. 1 could not afford to live in Seattle anymore then and still now. This area was the only area that was affordable to purchase a home. Jane Difficulty in finding affordable housing. Housing permits and new construction regulations appear to be stifling new, affordable construction. Chuck I moved to Port Orchard in 2019 and moved into my retirement home. It was the best move I ever made. Vanessa I grew up in Port Orchard - one of four children. Two of my adult siblings cannot afford to own a home here, one (in her 40's) cannot afford to rent and has had to move back in with our parents with her three children. It is a huge financial burden on my parents and they have not been able to retire (70 years old). My youngest brother had to move to Tacoma to find an affordable apartment to rent, while the other brother and his blended family with 6 kids owns a two bedroom house. My 20 year old niece works 3 jobs to rent one room in a house because she cannot afford an apartment in Kitsap. She can't afford to go to college or own a car, and Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 34 public transportation is limited. I currently do not work because finding child care is almost impossible in Port Orchard, and unreliable where it is available. I consider myself fortunate to be able to have the option to stay home with my children as most households couldn't even consider this. Christopher I've had friends who live farther away for lower apartment rent, yet they work here in Port Orchard. I've also heard of people getting pushed out of Port Orchard to find better home rental and home buying prices. Port Orchard used to be the better value -for -your -money place when most get pushed out of the Silverdale and Bremerton areas. Don I've lived in Kitsap County my entire life. I was fortunate enough to leverage another house into this one, both at the right time. I couldn't afford this home now. Many of my coworkers feel they " ... missed that boat entirely!" My neighbor is retired, his wife passed, their cottage industry business closed its doors during Covid and he's worried about being 'taxed out' of his home. Another neighbor has his elderly parents living with him because " ... there's really a need for affordable housing and assisted living. If my wife wasn't home for most of the day with them, I fear what would happen." I would add that I've seen quite a few little businesses close shop and roll out of town. The "local mom & pop" type places are a dying breed, but maybe we'll gain yet another pot shop or new franchise! Ethan Joined the Navy and while working in Bremerton & Bangor, lived in Port Orchard as it seemed to be more of an area to grow a family when we first lived in. We ended up staying there. Jim I grew up on Bainbridge Island and worked in Seattle until I retired. then bought property here and built my house here and it is all paid for. I have children who can not afford to live here. Brenda I came to Port Orchard May 1979 returned to NY. After many years my I accepted a job transfer to WA in 2008. The first place I went to look for housing for my mother and myself was Port Orchard. I wanted a small community town for my aging mother. I remembered walking along Bay St in the late 70's and feeling safe. Fred After my wife passed, there was no way I was going to pay about 15 percent of my retirement income in property taxes. As a widower, I couldn't do that. Quality of life here is diminishing fast. The more you build, the worse it gets. Y'all don't bother to upgrade infrastructure (like roads) to handle the increased population. We've needed a new Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 35 high school for decades! We're about to be "Little Bummertown" (Bremerton), and I don't think anyone gives a rat's arse. I'm moving out of state. You'll be chock-full of Seattle transplants in no time. Good luck with that. BTW, my brother in law just lost his wife. He's moving out of state soon too. Our only other option are those old folks corrals you keep building. We're both veterans. Thanks again. Season I grew up here and have watched my parents slowly start to be priced out of the area since 2001 (they have always rented). My mom was a homemaker and my dad worked in carpet/flooring as an independent contractor. I was lucky enough to have bought a home in 2011 for $136K when there was a surplus of foreclosed homes scattered throughout Port Orchard. My spouse's mother is also in the same situation as my parents (she will actually be moving in with us in February because as a para-educator and a service industry worker, she cannot afford to rent a one bedroom apartment in Port Orchard) I am disappointed to see that new apartments are showing up (which is a good thing), but that the price does not fit the incomes of many people in our town. Ideally, I would like to see renting as a valid option for folks who have found themselves downsizing or are approaching retirement age who might not have access or time to pay a home loan, but can still live independently and with dignity. Isaac I have an adult son that cannot afford to rent or buy a place of his own. Matt I was born and raised in South Kitsap and two of my children still live here.... with us, they can't afford to buy. Julie I work in the mortgage industry in Port Orchard and have 50 plus clients who qualify to buy but can not afford the inventory in this area. Instead, they are looking in Mason County and South Pierce or other area in Kitsap they may be more affordable. Craig I have children who can't afford to move to Port Orchard. Jay I have friends who have been priced out of Port Orchard by residents moving in from King County. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 36 Karianna My husband and I choose to move to Port Orchard in 2018 because we wanted to purchase a house for our growing family. We had to make many compromises because of prices of homes in the area, but what we purchased will be good for us while we work on finding/building/etc. our final home here in WA. (I was born in WA, he is from MN, but fell in love with the state before he met me). Our home has lots of things we need to do to improve to be perfect for us now, but the long term plan is to build a home on land, and rent our current property, hopefully to military families (like us) who need a space to land. BUT since pricing in the area is next to impossible for people to afford, even we have to price our home higher to even afford to rent it. With so many in the area being military, I know finding affordable homes or apartments are extremely hard. Its lucky to find something within the housing allowance, as prices rise with the allowance being raised. We got lucky ... we are within our budget, and we make it work, but constantly rising taxes, lack of housing, unaffordable pricing, and many other factors is a CONSTANT battle for military families coming to the area, and already here. We love it here in Port Orchard, we have wonderful neighbors, we have easy access to everything we need (even if we have to travel a bit for some more specific things like Costco and other larger stores), and we LOVE how the city has grown without losing its small town feel. But... Housing is a huge problem, not just in the City of Port Orchard, but the whole Peninsula. With competition for houses from Seattle, its made the situation next to impossible for one of the biggest driving forces for the economy in the area ... the military families. How we can add housing without losing the charm of the small town feel I have yet been able to figure out ... but something DOES need done. Our family is lucky ... but there are MANY who are not. Erica I grew up in Port Orchard and the majority of my extended family lives here. My husband and I would like to find a house on acreage or property to build our dream home that supports us growing most of our own food. That is incredibly hard to find at a reasonable price. Debra Potential for large medical bills, trying to downsize by 2/3rds sq footage and cannot find a home that I can afford and does not need remodeling/updating. My income may look middle - income but it is SS - investments less withdrawals to have money to live on. With the economy my retirement savings are declining quickly but @ 68 1 have many worsening health conditions that prevents me from being to able to work. We need some nicely, made for elderly eg small - ranch homes. Melissa Recently moved here, only reason I was able to buy was because it's a townhouse Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 37 Michael My wife and I moved to Port Orchard in 1991, when it was still a beautiful place to live. The current house and apartment building explosion looks terrible, is already causing significant traffic congestion, and will inevitably cause an crease in crime. It is sad to see the incredible amount of development spoiling the place I love. Don Moved to Port orchard for a job in the shipyard. Dan Moved to PO from Silverdale. Relocated from Central California in 1993 to accept job with City of Bremerton PW&U as Project Manager and later accepted position in 2008 with Harrison Medical Center and 2016 with CHI Francisan in Hospital Planning, Design & Construction. Very fun career! David We moved to Port Orchard because we had friends here in Kitsap County Cate I was lucky and got into my home 16 years ago; I have refinanced once. If I were to try to find a place to live right now without the equity of my home, I would have to find a roommate or two to alleviate the financial strain. Diane I moved here from Auburn in 2003, since retired. Diane I moved to Port Orchard for a new job in 2000. My partner and I are now 79 and 84. 1 retired in 2020, but due to expenses, health problems and too much being withdrawn from IRA funds I'm looking for a part time job to help us stay in our home. Kris We moved to port orchard a few years ago. Even with our two middle class jobs, we find it exceptionally expensive to afford our modest home. If something were to happen and we'd need repairs to our house, such as old water pipes bursting, we'd be struggling a lot to pay the mortgage. Gerry I purchased my grandmother's home from the estate after she died. I commuted from Port Orchard to Poulsbo for work for over 30 years. Anonymous Fear for my 2 children being able to afford a modest dwelling (teenagers). Recruitment for my County employer has impacted services rendered there. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 38 Anonymous My kids can't afford to stay and live in Port Orchard so they moved away. My dad moved to another town to find more affordable senior housing. The rental market is no sustainable for young adults to start and build their families and future homes here. It used to be when I moved here 22 years ago which Is why I chooses to raise my kids here. Anonymous When we moved to Port Orchard, difficult to find homes in decent condition close to foot ferry. Anonymous Moved to Port 0 21 yrs ago to be near a son and because it was near Seattle but not IN Seattle Anonymous We own a building that we are attempting to turn into affordable, communal living for individuals in their 20's. The challenge is that as we work through the permitting process it keeps changing from the direction given between the pre -permit planning meetings and at the time we submitted for approval. Specifically, new forms and additional forms and then the entire application has to be submitted with new dates. These changes are creating additional costs in financing, professional planning, etc. These additional costs are making redevelopment to provide affordable housing prohibitive when considering future projects. Anonymous Our housing story doesn't really fit what I think you're looking for. We would like to move, not because of costs or work. The one and only reason we want to move is because of our dishonest and unethical HOA. We'd like to move to a home with privacy and seclusion. Anonymous I have watched much housing happening in the last year. I am not happy about all the green belts and housing that is occurring. There is not the infrastructure for this. Our sewage and water are not able to provide this amount of development. I see houses going up in wetlands and the area that I moved to that was rural and green is becoming full of traffic and crime. know housing is your priority but stop destroying our natural areas. Anonymous My children can't find housing here that they can afford. They have moved elsewhere. The politics in WA have also contributed to them leaving the state. We are not far behind. Can't stand what our governor is doing to this state. Anonymous Lived here for 44 years. Grown kids live with us in a mother-in-law apartment because they can't afford their own housing here. Anonymous I was only able to purchase my home in Port Orchard with Housing Kitsap's Mutual Self -Help Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 39 Housing Program. This offered my family and I an affordable path towards homeownership Otherwise, I wouldn't even be able to rent here. Anonymous Kids can't afford housing and live with us. All our employees live outside the city because it's cheaper. Anonymous Senior relatives are housed in my home (at below market rent) because living expenses are too high in King County. Port Orchard remains a less expensive option for living within the Puget Sound region. Anonymous We moved to Port Orchard from Bainbridge because we wanted to raise our kids in this community. We love our home and our neighbors in McCormick Woods. Anonymous I moved to Port Orchard 15 years ago because I loved its small feel, yet close proximity to the larger cities. More so I loved the trees. We have no trees anymore. The city is allowing clear cutting to put in mass developments. Our water quality sucks. Even filters can't remove the hard minerals and chlorine. Port Orchard should be just as concerned about protecting everyone- not just a pet project that someone at city hall has. All residents' quality of life goes down when the city doesn't seem to care about preserving what made this city unique and beautiful. Put the port orchard city plan side by side a Seattle map. City of Seattle has more designated green space than Port Orchard's long term plan. Anonymous I moved Port Orchard 30 years ago and purchased a home. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 40 Appendix B.2 - Housing Stories from Renter - Stories with people who volunteered to attribute their first name are listed first. Stories after that are anonymous. Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. See a summary under section 3.4 of this report. Chris This city is pricing out the local workforce. These surface level allocations of below market rent in new housing developments is immoral in exchange for the tax breaks they receive. The workforce used for construction will not be local either. There's a high likelihood that new housing will be rented by navy members, further limiting workforce housing as the navy doesn't stock our grocery store shelves. Demarie There is very little options when looking for a home to rent. Also keep noticing the amount of apartments that are being built but very little is being done about making sure our roadways have the capability of supporting that amount of growth. Paul Grew up next door to where I'm at now. I've rented this home for 13 years. The owners have always paid the water/utility bill because there is 2 homes on the 1 meter. I've learned this evening that the bill hasn't been paid since September and the service is scheduled to be disconnected tomorrow. My aunt and uncle own the property . They had to move to a assisted living facility several months ago. I was led to believe that the bill would be kept current. As a disabled individual living alone I am very concerned. I will call in the morning to try and resolve this issue. Vanessa Moved out to WA Jan 2022 with husband and son. We wanted to buy a home as first time buyers but find the process a bit difficult. Renting a home is getting to be expensive with rent being $2100 for two bedroom duplexes. Anonymous I grew up here and my parents live here. My husband and I struggled to find a home to buy that was the right mix of size, location, neighborhood, future appreciation, and development risk. We continued to rent with an exceptionally good set up, but we watched the home prices skyrocket the past few years and I began to have serious concerns about being priced out of the area. This year we purchased multifamily real estate in port orchard to preserve the option to stay in the area and secure our future housing needs. Anonymous We moved here from Alaska & didn't intend to stay in our current apartment for more than one year. Due to rent and other cost increases and poor well -paying job opportunities we've been Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 41 essentially trapped here for 5 years, and the situation is leading me to look elsewhere for our future. I was really excited to live in this beautiful area, and I've been sorely disappointed trying to enjoy living here. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan II 11;im:VIINI *J Second Draft - April 25, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 2 Thank You Special thanks to the Port Orchard community for sharing your time, knowledge, and energy to shape this housing action plan that meets your needs and interests. Mayor Robert Putaansuu City Council Fred Chang John Clauson Shawn Cucciardi Scott Diener Cindy Lucarelli Jay Rosapepe Mark Trenary City Staff Nick Bond, Director of the Community Development Department Jim Fisk, Senior Planner Josie Rademacher, Assistant Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Consultant Team MAKERS Architecture & Urban Design: Bob Bengford, Scott Bonjukian, Markus Johnson Leland Consulting Group: Chris Zahas, Andrew Oliver Stakeholder Organizations Interviewed Port Orchard City Council and Mayor Kitsap Housing Authority Disney & Associates Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce Tarragon Contour Construction McCormick Communities Washington State This plan was supported by a Department of Commerce grant for cities to support housing affordability. DRAFT - MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 0 1 Page 3 Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................... 1 - Background Information....... 2 - Regulatory Strategies............ 3 - Programmatic Strategies ..... 4 - Citywide Planning Strategies 5 - Funding Strategies ................ 6 - Implementation ..................... Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 4 .................................................................................................. 6 ................................................................................................18 ................................................................................................34 ................................................................................................ 50 ................................................................................................ 59 ................................................................................................71 ACS. American Community Survey, an annual product of the U.S. Census Bureau. ADU. Accessory dwelling unit. AMI. Area median income. CHAS. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a product of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. GIS. Geographic information system. GFC. General facilities charge. HAP. Housing Action Plan. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LEHD. Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. MFTE. Multifamily tax exemption program. MSA. Metropolitan Statistical Area. OFM. Washington State Office of Financial Management. POMC. Port Orchard Municipal Code (city law). RCW. Revised Code of Washington (state law). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 4 Executive Summary The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. The process to develop the HAP included a review of Port Orchard's system of policies, programs, and regulations which shape opportunities for housing development and which impact the affordability of existing and new housing. The purpose of this effort is to identify ways to encourage construction of additional affordable and market rate housing in a greater variety of housing types and at prices accessible to a greater variety of incomes. The priorities for the HAP were informed by an existing conditions and housing needs assessment, public engagement, discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission, and City staff. The HAP is intended to inform updates to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (most notably the Land Use and Housing elements) and to guide implementation strategies such as development regulations, housing programs, and infrastructure spending priorities. The City is not obligated to adopt any of the recommended changes contained within this report except where specific requirements exist within state law in which case the City may consider the recommendations found in this report as an option for complying with the law. The report is intended to provide a menu of options for consideration as the City works to address housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity. It is recognized that Port Orchard has taken significant steps to promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunities through regulatory updates in recent years. Because of this, many of the recommendations contained in this report are focused on fine tuning zoning regulations rather than suggesting significant zoning changes. Port Orchard has comparatively few recommended zoning changes compared to other similarly sized jurisdictions due to recent actions taken by the City Council. The programmatic strategies and citywide planning strategies contained within the report are generally more significant changes to city policies that require careful consideration. Research Questions These research questions developed at the beginning of the project drove the housing analysis and the subsequent actions and strategies. 1. What are the most pressing housing needs in Port Orchard for each segment of the population? 2. What are we most concerned about and most hopeful about for residential development in Port Orchard over the next 10 years? 3. What code updates can be made to meet the needs of all economic segments of the Port Orchard community? 4. What are the biggest longstanding or new barriers to affordable and diverse residential development in Port Orchard? 5. What new or updated tools, policies, staff capacity, and funding are most likely to meet Port Orchard's housing goals? Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 5 Housing Actions and Strategies The housing actions are organized by broader strategy sections of this plan. The implementation timeline is an estimate of how long it will take to implement an action. There are also many sub -sections which may require different timelines if additional community outreach is needed, alignment with the City's annual budget process is necessary, or there is a desire to roll policy updates into the next major Comprehensive Plan update. See Section 6 for more details on implementation priorities. Strategy 1W � Description Priority Time Regulatory Strategies 2.1 Expand the allowed uses High 0-6 months 2.2 Streamline the building type standards Medium 0-6 months 2.3 Adjust form and intensity standards High 0-6 months 2.4 Adjust other standards Medium 0-6 months Programmatic Strategies 3.1 Anti -displacement strategies Medium Ongoing 3.2 Homelessness strategies High Ongoing 3.3 Support staffing needs Medium Ongoing Citywide Planning Strategies 4.1 Housing Element updates Medium 12-24 months 4.2 Land Use Element updates High 12-24 months 4.3 Public land for affordable housing Low Ongoing 4.4 McCormick East Neighborhood Planning Medium 12-24 months Funding Strategies 5.1 Adjust the multifamily tax exemption program High 0-6 months 5.2 Development fee adjustments Low 0-6 months 5.3 Local bank funding Low Ongoing 5.4 Tax increment financing Medium 6-12 months 5.5 Funding for ADU development Medium 6-12 months 5.6 State advocacy Low Ongoing Next Steps The scope of Port Orchard's housing challenges demand that a variety of strategies and actions be pursued immediately and simultaneously. This plan informs and recommends high priorities for 2023 and beyond, such as code updates (Strategy 2) and refinements to the multifamily tax exemption program (Strategy 5.1). A housing coordinator staff position should be created and hired to implement all HAP strategies and serve as the City's lead on housing policy and coordination. Updates and evaluation are recommended in the next Comprehensive Plan update in 2024, and other programmatic, funding, and planning actions can begin as soon as resources are allocated. See Section 6 - Implementation for detailed next steps. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 6 1- Background Information 1.1- Project Purpose Port Orchard is a great place to live, but it is getting more expensive. As the population grows and diversifies, the supply of homes and variety of homes is not keeping pace. As a result, it is getting harder for people of average means and different family structures to find and afford a home across all areas of the city. The supply of housing is closely linked to the price of housing. The purpose of the Housing Action Plan is to identify strategies that promote more housing options for current and future residents at all income levels and support increases in the housing supply. Port Orchard's residents are diverse and each household has its own preferences and experiences in how they live. This plan is intended to help guide City actions over the next several years to promote more housing choices for current and future residents. The City is able to undertake this project thanks to grant funding provided by Washington State through the Department of Commerce. This grant program allocated funds for cities with the goal of supporting housing affordability through regulatory and planning actions. 1.2 - Housing Needs A brief summary of Port Orchard's current and future housing needs is provided below. For more detail, refer to the complete HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report in Appendix B, which contains detailed information on the full range of Port Orchard's demographics, household incomes, employment trends, housing inventory and production statistics, housing affordability considerations, existing housing funding and policy frameworks, and a discussion of buildable land capacity in the city. Port Orchard is a fast-growing community with a 2022 population estimate of 16,400 and a 2044 population target of 26,087 residents.' The city has grown on average 4 percent annually since 2000 and is expected to grow at a rate of close to 3 percent over the next 20 years (excluding possible annexations), potentially exceeding countywide growth targets. Some of the city's growth has been due to annexations in the 2000s, but the continued forecast for rapid growth, as well as decreasing vacancy rates over the past decade, suggests an ongoing demand for housing in Port Orchard.2 Current permitting data indicates that housing in Port Orchard is being produced at a rapid rate. In total, 5,198 units are in some stage of permitting citywide, and 2,482 of those units are planned to be completed between 2022 and 2024, of which 45 percent will be multifamily units.3 This permit data reflects all potential housing production currently permitted, including all proposed development throughout McCormick Woods. Although not all units that have been permitted will necessarily be constructed, this number demonstrates the continued high rate of ' 2022 Population: Washington Office of Financial Management Postcensal Population Estimate. 2044 Population Target: Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update, 2022. 2 Census -reported rental vacancy rates have declined from 7.8% to 5.8% between 2010-2020. CoStar, a commercial real estate database, showed multifamily rental vacancy rates declining from 6.5% to 3.5% between 2012 and 2022. 3 City of Port Orchard Permit Data Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 7 housing production and demand in the city. Even with this high rate of production, prices are still increasing as detailed below. About 60 percent of Port Orchard households are homeowners and 40 percent are renters. Nearly 70 percent of households are family households, and the average household size is 2.4 people.4 As shown below in Figure 1, there is a mismatch between household size and housing unit size, with larger housing units available compared to household sizes. This shows a need for increased supply of smaller housing units to better serve the variety of household sizes in the city. Household Size Housing Unit Size 3-person household 16°i° 2-person household A& 34% Figure 1. Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04 Port Orchard's median household income (MHI) was $71,789 in 2020. This is $7,250 less than the Kitsap County median, though it has increased 21 percent since 2010 - a higher rate than county and statewide income increases over the same period. However, this increase was much more pronounced for homeowner households than renter households, as shown below in Figure 25 Overall, about eight percent of Port Orchard residents earn under $10,000 per year, compared to four percent countywide, and over a quarter of renters earn under 30 percent of the median family income (MFI).6 4 2020 American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04. 5 American Community Survey 2020 Five -Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index 6 The Median Family Income for the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by HUD, was $102,500 in 2022. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 8 $97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020 $71,719 $75,600 $59,325 $44,074 $46,209 Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard (All Households) (Ownership Households)(Renter Households) $78,969 $70,268 = $67,548 $77,006 Kitsap County Washington Figure 2. Inflation -Adjusted Median Household Income in Port Orchard and Region, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index Figure 3 below shows a detailed breakdown of Port Orchard and Kitsap County household incomes, showing the range of income levels found throughout the city. The largest share of households earn between $75,000 and $100,000 per year. Port Orchard has smaller shares of high -income earners making over $150,000 per year than Kitsap County, and a much larger share of the lowest -income households earning less than $10,000 per year than countywide averages. 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% ■Port Orchard OKitsap County 111010111100 O O O O� Ln r- CD N CD Ln On O CD av Y c w w w w N O to b4 b4 to CD Y Y N O O O O O O tyh N M U) l0 U') O Ln O to 414 414 b4 4.4 to O N Ln to Efi tsi kA Figure 3. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table 819001 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 9 Lower -income Port Orchard residents face significant challenges paying for housing -70 percent of households earning under 30 percent of the MFI spend more than half of their income on housing costs, and 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of the MFI spend over 30 percent of their income on housing costs.' This shows a need for deeply subsidized housing for Port Orchard's lower -income residents, corroborated by stakeholders who described over 1,000 people on the waiting list for housing vouchers administered by the Kitsap Housing Authority. Family size and composition can also affect housing needs, particularly when correlated with incomes. In Port Orchard, 69 percent of households are family households. Of these, most are married -couple families, nearly 3,000 households. The remaining 824 are classified as "other family," which includes single -parent households. Census data indicates about 250 Port Orchard households are single mothers earning less than the federal poverty level. This is about five times higher than the number of married -couple households below the poverty level.$ Kitsap County statistics are similar. This data shows another group of Port Orchard residents who potentially have needs for deeply subsidized housing. In recent years, housing prices have risen rapidly in Port Orchard when compared with incomes, as shown below in Figure 4. Rents increased 28 percent and home values increased 56 percent between 2015 and 2020, compared to only a 15 percent increase in incomes over the same period. This shows that housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident in recent years, a trend also seen across the country. As of 2020, the average Port Orchard household could afford a home worth about $303,012, but the typical home in the city was worth 1.5 times as much, $468,702.9 70% 60% 50% 40°i° 30°i° 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Median Gross Rent Zillow Home Value Index Median Household Income Figure 4. Change in Home Prices, Rents, and Incomes in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: Zillow, American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, DP04, Leland Consulting Group HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2015-2019 8 2021 American Community Survey, Table B17010 9 Home affordability calculated using Freddie Mac interest rate as of December 2022, Zillow home price data, income data from 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 10 A housing affordability chart illustrating home prices which would be affordable to a variety of income levels is shown below in Figure 5. Port Orchard's median incomes and sales prices are both shown. This data illustrates the degree to which ownership housing has become out of each for many Port Orchard residents, even those earning more than the city's median household income.10 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 ■ Household Income ($1,000s) ■ House Price ($1,000s) $400 $300 Median Household $200 Income ($71) $192 $96 $100 $50 A household earning $100,000 could not afford the median Port Orchard sales price of $468,000 even though they are earning nearly $30,000 more than the median household income. $383 $287 $75 $100 i■ $575 ■ $766 Figure 5. Housing Prices Affordable to Various Incomes with Port Orchard Median Income and Sales Price, 2021. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Preliminary Kitsap County housing targets indicate that Port Orchard will see a demand for up to 4,804 new housing units by 2044. This is fewer housing units than are currently in the permitting pipeline and indicate that Port Orchard may exceed its housing and/or population growth targets prior to 2044. Figure 6 shows the breakdown of these units by household income level, based on Port Orchard's current income distribution. The breakdown of units by income is relatively even. It includes about 1,000 units over the next two decades for the lowest -income households which can only be met through regulated affordable (i.e., subsidized) housing, and nearly 1,000 units for households earning between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI (often referred to as "workforce" housing) which can be provided through a variety of channels 10 Note that housing price data from Zillow is used for this analysis, whereas other data comes from the US Census American Community Survey. Although the Census does collect data on the value of homes, Census home value data reflects the occupants' assessment of their home's value when surveyed, rather than the market realities of how much people are currently paying for housing. Zillow's Home Value Index is a well -researched dataset which aggregates current sales values to reflect up-to-date market prices and therefore is a more accurate representation of what Port Orchard households would currently need to pay in order to purchase new housing in the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 including subsidized units, vouchers, other incentive programs such as MFTE, and filtering" of existing units as new housing stock is built. There will also remain a demand for about 1,200 market rate housing units targeting households earning more than 120 percent AN over the next 20 years. 1,400 � 1,200 N O 1,000 800 a� a� z 600 U) c 400 3 a� z 200 0 0-30 30-50 50-80 80-100 100-120 120+ % AMI Figure 6. Housing Demand by Income Bracket in Port Orchard, 2022-2044. Sources: Leland Consulting Group, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies "Filtering" refers to the process by which new housing units depreciate overtime, becoming more affordable to lower -income households as other new units are added to the supply. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 12 1.3 — Geographic Equity within Port Orchard Port Orchard is becoming increasingly stratified based on geography and income levels. The areas of Port Orchard located west of SR-16 have higher median incomes, higher property values, and housing costs. Areas east of SR-16 have median incomes that are lower than average, and property values and housing costs are typically lower. There are growing concerns of equity in investment and opportunity among Port Orchard residents based on where a person lives. Increasingly, affordable housing types are being constructed in areas where incomes are lower and less affordable housing types are being constructed in areas where incomes are higher. New schools (including a new second high school) are planned in the areas west of SR-16 and add to concerns of unequal investment. Census Tract Data N Census Tract921.01 Census Tract921.02 Census Tract922 Census Tract923 Census Tract924 Census Tract925 Census Tract928.01 loot $45,096 /$36,299 $28,431$35,065 $33,671 $38,262 $36,995 M1le6ian lnrnme 1pe. aplr� Median lnmmr(per,a♦Slul Metlianlnmme(per(aP1a1 McA�anlnmmz�yerra�lm Mzdian33,e(peieapimf Mahanlnenmelryu eap Mudlan lncunr�.percopllol 1458,600 $361,600 $317,700 $288,200 $329,800 $350,200 $339,800 Mntlian value of frvnn n_n�prer. units IAaAian va We of n.vnerM eupien umfs MMian ra im ofnwnnr- r.uplM units MMlan,alue ofnwnn,.s.. unlr. Mwlmnnnx.nPnwim .- pjM .,,, Mwlm.n 1uenPnxn rupl1.0 Mcdianvu—fown,ioccudvdumis Figure 7. Median Income and Median Home Value of Owner -occupied Unit in Port Orchard, 2021. Sources: 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Census Reporter Profile This housing strategy includes recommendations that seek to encourage greater geographic equity and opportunities for people at all income levels to live in all areas of the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 13 1.4 - Racially Disparate Impacts "Racially disparate impacts" occur when policies, practices, rules or other systems result in a disproportionate effect on one or more racial groups. Many past and present zoning policies used in cities across the nation have racially disparate impacts, reflecting a systemic issue as a result of federal laws, programs, and economic and housing policies dating back half a century or more. Under RCW 36.70A.070(2), cities in their comprehensive plans must identify "local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing." While this HAP does not complete this mandatory work, instead deferring to the next major comprehensive plan update due in 2024, one brief example of this concept applied to household tenure statistics is provided below. In Port Orchard 40% of all households are occupied by renters. About 35% of White households are renters, while 58% of Hispanic and Latino households and 88% of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households are renters.12 Therefore, policies that restrict the supply and price of rental housing can have a disproportionate impact on people of color. Further, almost half of all renter -occupied households are considered cost - burdened, while just one in 10 owner -occupied households are considered cost -burdened. All households White Households Asian households J Black households Hispanic and Latino households Other / Two or more race households Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander... 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■ Rent ■ Own Figure 8. Share of Household Tenure By Race/Ethnicity. Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table B25003 series 12 Source: American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, B25003 Tables. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 14 Figure 9 below shows the same data by total number of households. White alone 95 Asian 6 99 98 Black or African American L 73 Hispanic or Latino origin ME- 206 One/Two or more races 0- 143 193 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 27 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Households ■ Rent ■ Own Figure 9. Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity. Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table B25003 series A common form of rental housing is multifamily (apartment) buildings, which are more limited in where and how they can be built in Port Orchard compared to where and how single-family homes are regulated. Zoning matters for social welfare because where people live makes a difference. Neighborhood quality can have significant effects on long-term outcomes like school performance, income, labor mobility, and health. It also contributes to the multi - generational wealth gap if some people are not able Figure 10. Example of multifamily housing. to purchase quality homes that increase in value as much over time as homes in higher -priced neighborhoods, resulting in smaller inheritances for descendants. People of color generally pay higher shares of their income for housing costs and have less savings for down payments, meaning the home prices they can afford are lower or they are forced to rent. Smaller homes which have lower costs are needed not only for people of color, but also Port Orchard's large share of small households (56% of households are made up of one or two people but only 37% of housing units are studio, one- or two -bedroom units). Occasionally, larger multi -bedroom homes are good options for people who want to split costs with extended family members or roommates, but apartments with three or more bedrooms are rare and there are few shared -living options like cottage clusters or triplexes available. Common racially disparate policies and practices at the local level include the following: 0 Minimum lot sizes Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 15 • Lack of available land zoned for multifamily housing and middle housing (like duplexes and townhomes) • Multifamily housing only allowed in busy commercial districts, polluted industrial areas, in hazardous areas like floodplains, and/or near loud and auto -oriented arterial roads • Multifamily housing not being allowed near amenities like parks, schools, grocery stores, and healthcare facilities • Excessive minimum setbacks, building height limits, parking standards, historic preservation standards, and other restrictions that limit the housing capacity on individual sites, especially for multifamily and middle housing • Excessive fees, complicated processes, and unclear regulations, especially for small projects commonly undertaken by local homeowners and small investors like adding an accessory dwelling unit or building a duplex • Complete prohibitions on low-cost building materials • Lack of trees and park space in areas near multifamily housing or neighborhoods with lower incomes • Lack of low-cost transportation options like pedestrian/bike routes and transit service connecting multifamily housing to jobs and services Racially disparate impacts has been gaining much -needed attention across the state and country, even earning a statement on zoning from the White House. Other types of racially disparate impacts have historically included: redlining, where people of color were not able to access loans and credit in certain neighborhoods; highways built through communities of color; and disinvestment in infrastructure like transit, schools, and parks in communities of color. It should be noted that some of the least racially diverse census tracts in the city are those that were primarily developed while in unincorporated Kitsap County and which were only annexed by the City of Port Orchard over the past 15 years (see Section 1.3). These are also areas where the City is seeing significant development of multi -family and middle housing. This Housing Action Plan provides a number of strategies to address most of these issues, which focus on easing regulations and streamlining standards to make it easier to build middle housing and multifamily housing in more locations. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 16 1.5 - Military Population A unique characteristic of the Port Orchard population is the presence of military personnel, families, and contractors. The military provided countywide data on its civilian population for this report, but provided no data on active duty population nor data specific to personnel living in Port Orchard. Census data shows approximately 645 Port Orchard residents, representing 5.5% of the employed population of the city, employed in the Armed Forces overall, with a moderate margin of error.13 This likely reflects enlisted personnel rather than civilian employees but provides a general picture of the extent of military employment in the city. In addition, anecdotal information provided by stakeholders, appointed and elected officials suggests that the City houses a significant military population in Port Orchard due to employment opportunities both at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Naval Station Kitsap. A significant portion of this population is transient and may only live in Port Orchard for short periods of time. The military population is diverse, potentially more so than Port Orchard's non- military population, and some of these residents receive housing stipends which are not reflected in household income data. Housing stipends in 2023 (known as Basic Allowance for Housing) vary from $2,136 (E01) to $3,372 (007) per month for personnel with dependents. 14 When reviewing the data collected for this report and in considering recommendations on to increase housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity, it is important to consider that some important information about the City's military population was not able to be considered when formulating recommendations. 1.6 - Public Engagement The Housing Action Plan was informed by early and continuous public engagement. Engagement was conducted to create a plan that meets the needs and interest of the Port Orchard community. Key activities included: • One-on-one interviews with 14 stakeholders • Housing survey with 140 responses • Public kickoff meeting and presentation at City Council (July 26, 2022) • Check -in meeting with existing conditions and housing needs analysis at City Council (January 10, 2023) and Planning Commission (February 7, 2023) • Draft plan presentations at Planning Commission (April 4, 2023) • Public hearing at Planning Commission (May 2, 2023) 13 2021 American Community Survey, Table DP03 14 Personnel can decide how to allocate the BAH without a penalty for deciding to conserve some dollars on rent to pay other expenses. Therefore, actual out-of-pocket expense for an individual may be higher or lower than the prescribed rate based on choice of housing. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 17 1.7 - State Law Updates In April 2023 the Washington State Legislature passed several housing -related preemptions and other housing regulations. The following may affect Port Orchard the most significantly. Cross-references to HAP strategies are provided where preliminary review finds there are actions Port Orchard should take to meet new requirements. Direct effects to City government • HB 1110 - Reduces other zoning and permitting barriers to middle housing. See Strategy 2.4.2, Strategy 2.4.10, and Strategy 4.2.4 for recommendations to comply. • HB 1337 - Preempts common regulations on accessory dwelling units (ADU). See Strategy 2.1.7 for development regulation changes needed to comply. • SB 5412 - Housing developments in urban growth areas that comply with a Comprehensive Plan which has undergone an environmental analysis are exempt from additional environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act. • SB 5258 - Cities must provide a short plat procedure for unit lot subdivisions, which is a division of a parent lot into separately owned unit lots (this is often a useful tool for middle housing). See Strategy 2.4.9 for recommendations to comply. • SB 5258 - Also, impact fees for residential development must be lower for smaller units; see Strategy 5.2 for recommendations to comply. • SB 5491 - Cities are encouraged to allow single -stairway residential buildings up to six stories tall and with up to four units per floor (currently such buildings can only be up to three stories tall). See Strategy 2.4.7 for recommendations. • HB 1042 - Cities cannot use development regulations (such as density limits or parking) to prevent additions of housing with an existing building envelope in a zone that allows multifamily use. • HB 1181 - Comprehensive Plans must include a Climate Change & Resiliency Element Indirect effects to City government • HB 1771 and SB 5198 - Rules are strengthened for giving mobile home park residents an opportunity to purchase the property when it is proposed for closure or conversion, and for displaced residents receive relocation assistance. • SB 5258 and SB 5058 - Encourages construction of small condominium buildings by modifying the procedures for construction defect actions and warranty claims and exempts buildings with 12 or fewer units and two or less stories from condo defect provisions such as extra inspections. There is a new exemption to the real estate excise tax for first-time homebuyers of condominiums (including townhouses). • HB 1474 - Creates statewide down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers with income less than the area median who were themselves, or are descendants of someone who was, excluded from homeownership in Washington by a racially restrictive real estate covenant prior to 1968. HB 1074 and SB 5197 - Strengthened tenant protections upon move -out or eviction. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 18 2 - Regulatory Strategies While the City of Port Orchard does not directly supply or control the private housing market, it does shape what is possible on Port Orchard's land through zoning and development regulations. 2.1- Expand the Allowed Uses Action: Allow more housing types in more zones to promote middle housing and affordable housing. Providing more flexibility to integrate a variety of housing options is an important tool to expanding housing supply and land capacity. In the HAP community survey, 70% of respondents support the concept to "Allow more housing types like duplexes, cottages, and townhouses in single-family neighborhoods if they're compatibly sized and designed." This concept was also supported by most stakeholders when it came up in interviews. It should be noted that the recommended changes in this section mostly omit the McCormick Woods area from consideration. McCormick Woods (also McCormick Trails and McCormick Village) has entitlements established in the 1980s and 1990s and are subject to a variety of development agreements inherited from Kitsap County and subsequently modified by the City of Port Orchard. Most of these agreements have terms of 20 years with the possibility of extensions. The area also lacks fixed route transit service and commercial services which makes middle housing and affordable housing more difficult to accommodate. As such, the City and this HAP have focused on other parts of Port Orchard where increasing the supply of housing to people of all income levels is more viable. With that said, the City should still allow for middle housing types in the McCormick Woods area even if they are unlikely to be constructed soon, and there are some smaller unentitled properties in the area which are opportunities for more diverse lot configurations and building types (for example, see Strategies 4.2.3 and 4.4). Consider the following changes to allowed uses. 2.1.1 - R5 ZonF Consider eliminating this zone from the code, as there are no current mapped R5 zones and the proposed changes to R4 (including height bonuses) likely make this zone unnecessary. If implemented, the R6 zone could be renamed to R5 to avoid a gap in zone naming. 2.1.2 - NMU Zone The use table in POMC 20.39.040 allows multi -family of 5+ units in Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) zones, but the apartment building type is not permitted in NMU. Allow the apartment building type in the NMU zone to correct the inconsistency Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 19 ?.1.3 - Congregate Living Housing Streamline the standards for congregate living housing. This type of housing operates, also known as single -room occupancy (SRO), dorms, or hostels, provides a dignified housing option for people with the lowest incomes. This form of housing historically served as an invaluable affordable housing option, but these buildings were mostly zoned and demolished out of existence starting in the 1970's.15 Conversions of existing buildings (such as aging hotels) may be more likely than new ground -up congregate living developments, but in either case the zoning code must be supportive for it to occur. Congregate living facilities are restricted, being a conditional use in almost every zone they are allowed. This use has supplemental standards inserted within the definition () that include: • Residents must have leases of at least 30 days • The use must be in a center and within one -quarter mile of transit service • The facility must have 24-hour resident management • The facility is prohibited from having medical care or social welfare services on -site (as this could categorize the use as permanent supportive housing, see Strategy 2.1.4 below) Specific recommendations and considerations: • Providing land use standards within a definition is not best code practice. Move the standards to POMC 20.39.100. • Allow congregate living housing in some non-residential zones by -right, notably in the CMU zone. • Clarify the parking requirements. Section POMC 20.124.130 should be amended to clarify whether congregate living is considered a multifamily residential use, and if not, it should have a parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per bedroom/resident or less. Under Table 20.124.140, clarify the blank cell for congregate living by entering "none" (and for other uses with no parking requirements). See Strategy 4.2.4 for related actions. • Amend the standards to allow more flexible lease arrangements by deleting "at a time" after "30 days." This allows a minimum stay to still be required but avoids requiring that residents have monthlong leases. • Consider renaming uses. There is some confusion between "Congregate Living" and "Congregate Care"; the latter is differentiated by having on -site medical and/or social services for residents but it is undefined in code and regulated as a sub -use of "Group Living." 2.1.4 - Adult Family Homes New state legislation passed in 2020, RCW 70.128.066, provides a way for adult family homes to have seven or eight beds. The standards and definition under POMC 20.39.100(10) should be updated accordingly. 15 "The Hotel -Spirit." Slate. July 2022. https-.//slate.com/business/2022/07/hotels-rental-market-housing-prices- shortage-solution.html Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 20 2.1.5 - Supportive Housing Under RCW 35A.21.430 (2021), Washington cities may not prohibit permanent supportive housing or transitional housing in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted (other parts of state law define "multifamily" as four or more units). This supersedes a similar 2019 law, RCW 35A.21.305. Similarly, emergency shelter and emergency housing may not be prohibited in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Port Orchard is mostly in compliance, except emergency shelter and emergency housing must also be allowed in the GMU zone, where hotels are allowed. Consider providing definitions which reference state law: • Emergency housing: RCW 36.70A.030 • Emergency shelter: RCW 36.70A.030 • Permanent supportive housing: RCW 36.70A.030 • Transitional housing: RCW 84.36.043 Some jurisdictions require operational plans and information -sharing on supportive housing uses. For example, the City of Bellevue requires registration information from applicants prior to certificate of occupancy with the following information (and it must be updated when it changes):16 • Name and contact information of property manager(s) and/or owner(s) who may be contacted in case of emergency or code violations • Name and contact information for on -site facility staff (if applicable) • Standard operating procedures plan for the facility, including: o The number of residents intended to be housed in the facility o A description of the supportive services provided to the residents of the facility, on site and off site, including names and contact information of service providers • A safety and security plan describing measures that the operator will employ to promote the safety of Supportive Housing occupants and surrounding residents; and • A code of conduct that applies to all individuals granted access to the proposed Supportive Housing use. Seattle has more limited requirements. The code offers a number of waivers and modifications for parking and design standards that are reviewed administratively. A community relations plan is required." 16 Bellevue Municipal Code LUC 20.20.845.E.2, https://bellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.20.845.E.2 17 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.057, https://I ibrary.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT23 LAUSCO_SUBTITLE_I I I LAUSRE_C H 23.42G EUSPR23.42.057PESUHo Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 21 ?.1.6 — Tiny Homes Consider defining and permitting tiny homes in as another relatively affordable housing option but doing so in a limited number of lower intensity zones, such as R1 and R2 zones. Because tiny homes are uncommon or unknown in Port Orchard, the City could potentially create a pilot program that allows limited construction on one or two sites in partnerships with the property owners (such as at a religious facility). There are currently several building code limitations that the City would have to address to make tiny homes viable to build. Other regulatory considerations and potential categories of tiny homes are shown in the following table. Home ] Type Permanent ADU ConsiderationsTiny qq I When a permanent tiny home is placed on a lot with a principal structure, treat the tiny home as any other type of detached ADU. Such homes must be on permanent foundations with all required utility connections. .. Example — _- - _ _ = Permanent When more than one permanent tiny home is placed cluster on a lot, apply permanent tiny home cluster - standards. Such homes must be on permanent raw foundations with all required utility connections. _l Consider density provisions, such as limiting tiny ` t homes to 250-400 square feet of floor area and r J` counting each home as one -fifth of a dwelling unity for density purposes. Consider providing basic R„ design standards similar to cottage housing. .�.. _— Explore reasonable parking requirements that balance affordability with neighborhood integration;' consider one space per two or three tiny homes as a' starting point. Do not allow tiny homes to be used for short-term rentals. Consider whether tiny homes should be able to use a unit lot subdivision to create homeownership opportunities. See some example standards from Langley.1$ -------- Consider limiting permanent clusters to lower intensity residential zones such as R1 and R2. t '$ Langley Municipal Code 18.22.290. https:/https://www.codepublishingcom/WA/Langley/#!/Langleyl8/Langley1822.html#18.22.290/WA/Langley/#!/Langleyl8/Langley1822.html#18.22.290 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 22 Figure 11. Tiny home options 19 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.054 and 23.42.056. https://I ibrary. municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT23 LAUSCO_SUBTITLE_I I I LAUSRE_CH 23.42GEUSPR Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 23 2.1.7 — Backyard Cottages and Accessory Dwelling Units New state law in 2023 (under House Bill 1337) preempts some types of accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations by cities. The Growth Management Act is amended to preempt local ADU regulations which conflict with the following: • Cities must adopt at least three of these four options: o No requirement for off-street parking o No requirement for property owner occupancy o No limitations of less than two ADUs per lot o Limiting ADU impact fees to no more 50% of the fees for princpal units.20 • In addition, cities must allow ADUs to contain at least 1,000 square feet in floor area and for detatched ADUs to be at least 24 feet tall • Cities may not impose setbacks, lot coverage limits, tree rention requirements, restrictions on entry door locations, or other design standards which are more restrictive than for principal units • ADUs cannot be restricted from being sold as a condominimum unit • No restrictive covenants or deeds may prohibit ADUs after the effective date of the bill Port Orchard must make the following code changes within six months after the adoption of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. Public health, safety, building code, and environmental permitting requirements may continue to apply to ADUs. Building Type Standards These standards under POMC 20.32.030 govern the design of backyard cottages (detached ADUs). Under subsection (3)(i), the option for backyard cottages to be limited to 40 percent of the total square footage of the primary dwelling must be removed Under subsection (4), the maximum number of backyard cottages allowed per lot must be increased to at least two; alternatively, the City can adopt reductions to its impact fees so that the maximum fee for an ADU is no more than 50% of the fees that would be applicable to the principal unit. See also new state law requirements under Strategy 5.2. ADU Standards - General Requirements These standards under POMC 20.68.100 govern the general approval criteria for ADUs. Under subsection (2), the maximum number of ADUs allowed per lot must be increased to at least two; alternatively, the City can adopt reductions to its impact fees so that the maximum fee for an ADU is no more than 50% of the fees that would be applicable to the principal unit 20 The city is currently compliant with the 2 of 4 requirements because there is no off-street parking requirement, and no requirement for owner occupancy. Except for school impact fees, the city's park and transportation impact fee structures are also compliant. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 24 • The City may wish to add a new subsection clearly stating that ADUs may be created from existing structures, including but not limited to detached garages, even if said structure violates current code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage • The City may wish to add a new subsection clearly stating the ADUs may be sold or conveyed as a condominium unit independently of the principal unit • The City may wish to add a new subsection clearly stating that ADUs do not trigger any requirements for public street improvements as a condition of permitting. ADU Standards - Bulk, Location, and Design These standards under POMC 20.68.110 govern additional design requirements for ADUs. Under subsection (1), detached ADUs must be allowed in at least the NMU and BPMU zones where single-family detached houses are also allowed Under subsection (3), the option for backyard cottages to be limited to 40 percent of the total square footage of the primary dwelling must be removed Under subsections (7) and (9), the restrictions on the placement of entry doors for ADUs must be removed Zoning Standards Chapters 20.34 and 20.35 POMC govern lot standards for backyard cottages. Where they are allowed, the primary street setback for detached ADUs must match the same setback for principal buildings or be removed (note that POMC 20.68.110(5) already requires that detached ADUs be located in rear yards, which is a permissible requirement under state law). Similarly, the minimum lot size for a backyard cottage must match the same size for detached houses (applicable in the NMU and BPMU zones). The rear setback for a detached ADU abutting an alley must be zero feet. Subdivision Standards The City may wish to add a new subsection in its subdivision regulations clearly stating that no new restrictive covenants or deeds may prohibit ADUs. Other protections can also be added, such as not allowing the development of ADUs to trigger requirements for private street improvements, not allowing restrictions on renter occupation, and not allowing restrictions on the development of other building types and land uses permitted by City zoning.21 See related recommendations for middle housing in Strategy 2.4.10. 21 Example of City preemptions of homeowner associations from Ridgefield, WA: RMC 18.401.140.C. https://library.municode.com/wa/ridgefield/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=CO_TIT18DEC0_CH18.401 PLUND E 18.401.140HOAS Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 25 2.2 - Streamline the Building Types The permitted building types are unique additional layer of form -based regulation. Some stakeholders identified code interpretations and comprehension as a barrier to middle housing development. This may be driving most builders and developers to follow the path of least resistance and continuing to produce what they know best, which are detached single-family homes and garden apartments. Reducing the complexity of the middle housing building types is a strategy to increase their chances of being produced. The simplest approach would be removing building types and consolidating their standards elsewhere (such as POMC Chapter 20.39, Article II Residential Uses). Short of that, this section suggests modifications to reduce duplication and streamline the building type standards. ?.2.1 - Adjust Cottage Court Standards Under POMC 20.32.040, the minimum site size for a cottage court development is 22,500 square feet and an additional 4,500 square feet is needed per unit when there are six or more cottages. These standards apply regardless of the location, and have an unclear relationship to the separate minimum unit lot area of 1,200 square feet. Stakeholders have identified the minimum site size standards as a challenge, and it is unique among cottage housing standards in the region. Consider the following changes to provide flexibility. Remove or reduce the minimum site size. Building footprints, setbacks, parking, and required open space largely dictate how much land area is needed for a cottage court. The preferred approach is to remove the minimum site size standard. If the standard remains necessary, consider 12,000 square feet for standard front -loaded lots and 10,000 square feet for lots with alley access. Reduce the minimum number of cottages from five to four. A minimum of four cottages is standard among other codes in the region. This provides greater flexibility for cottage court design on smaller sites. Adjust the minimum courtyard size standards. The minimum courtyard area is 3,000 square feet (minimum width 40 feet) with an extra 600 square feet per unit required when there are six or more cottages. This should be replaced by a simpler approach which requires a minimum of 400 square feet of common courtyard space per cottage cluster regardless of number of units, and with minimum dimensions of 15-20 feet. These dimensions are more common across the region and have been shown to provide adequate levels of open space in built projects. Allow duplex cottages in all zones where cottage courts are allowed to enable more efficient use of land and materials. This may require a clear statement in the code, since duplex cottages are generally impractical currently with a maximum building footprint of 1,200 square feet. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 26 2.2.2 - Consolidate Duplex Types and Standards Of the approximately 2,200 units built in Port Orchard over the past decade (2012-2022), a total of ten units (0.4%) were in duplex buildings. While the building type standards are relatively new (adopted in 2019), it is possible that complex regulations are one reason duplexes are not being produced in greater numbers. It is recommended to simplify the duplex standards. Consolidate the building types "Duplex: Side -by -Side" and "Duplex: Back -to -Back" into one type called "Duplex." The land use term "duplex" could replace "Two-family" in Chapter 20.39 POMC to provide consistency in naming. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. The type "Attached House" could remain if there is a desire to clearly distinguish this option for fee -simple ownership. However, from a design standpoint, a duplex on one lot and a duplex on two lots can have the same appearance. An option to further consolidate "Attached House" could be to provide a building type definition that addresses all forms of duplexes. Example: Definition. A building type that accommodates two dwelling units sharing avommon wall and arranged side -to -side. front -to -back, or top -to -bottom. Duplex units may be placed on a single lot or two separate units: units intended homeownership may require a subdivision, short subdivision, or condominium. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. 9 9 3 - Rename the Tvna Rename the Fourplex building type to Triplex/Fourplex. This type is described as allowing 3-4 units, but its misleading name and may cause some code users to conclude triplex buildings are not allowed. Triplexes should be promoted similarly to duplexes as a middle housing option. 2.2.4 - Adjust Townhouse Type Standards Remove the minimum site size and width and let other zoning standards and market factors dictate the land area needed for townhouse development. While 5,000 square feet is a small site to begin with, this would remove duplication in code and would improve flexibility in where and how townhouse units can be developed. Standards for open space, parking, setbacks, and landscaping would continue to apply and influence required land area and how townhouses are placed on a site. Also see related lot size and width suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. 2.2.5 - Consolidate the Live -Work Type Live -work has limited feasibility outside of the strongest urban markets and could be de- emphasized in the code. It is relatively uncommon since a small number of households are self- employed in businesses which can also be in their home in a separate space (excluding standard office work -from -home setups). Additionally, live -work units are often expensive since they need to be relatively large to accommodate the workspace. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 27 There is an opportunity to retain the live -work standards while streamlining the code; current code illustrations and the limitation of "six units in a row" indicate live -work is intended to be integrated into townhouse -style buildings. Amend the Townhouse building type section to note where standards differ for Live -Work configurations. The separate site area and width standards for Live -Work are proposed to be removed. Notations could also be added to explain Townhouses are allowed in the DMU, CC, and IF zones only if the development includes space designed for live -work use. A related option is to allow or encourage the Apartment building type to be designed with ground floor units that are convertible and usable as commercial space. One option to incentivize this may be providing a height bonus for such designs. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. ?.2.6 - Adjust Shopfront House Standards This building type requires a minimum of two dwellings per lot and a maximum of two dwellings per lot, providing no flexibility in configuration options. It appears no developments have employed this building type. More design options should be allowed. Allow a range of 2-4 units per lot with this building type. 2.2.7 - Building Height All of the building types in Chapter 20.32 POMC have a maximum building height specified, but this standard is either duplicated or overridden by zone -specific maximum building heights in Chapters 20.34 and 20.35 POMC. Maximum building height is a critical and sensitive zoning tool, so it should have clear and consistent standards across the code. A unique case is backyard cottages and cottage courts which are intended to be small. Remove the maximum building height from all building types, except for backyard cottages and cottage courts. Regulate accessory structure height limits in the zoning chapters. 2.2.8 - Minimum Private Useable Open Space Integrating multiple dwelling units onto relatively small lots requires careful planning to integrate the buildings, access and parking, and usable open space in a way which works for the site residents and the neighborhood. The Design Standards in Chapter 20.127 POMC require usable open space for multifamily uses but not middle housing types. Coupled with Strategy 2.3.1 for relaxing minimum lot size standards, it is recommended to add requirements for minimum private usable open space for duplexes (multiple types), triplexes/fourplexes, townhouses, and shopfront houses. Specific recommend standards: Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 28 • Minimum private usable open space per unit: 300 square feet (50% of the required usable open space may be satisfied through a rooftop patio or balcony) • Minimum dimensions: 10 feet for each unit, except 6 feet for rooftop patio or balcony. • Spaces shared between two or three units are permitted, provided the shared open space dimension is 15 feet and the space is located adjacent to each unit. For townhouses with four or more units, shared open spaces must comply with 20.127.350(2)(b), On -site open space. • The front yard may be used as private usable open space, provided a low fence (between 16" and 48") demarcates the space • Private usable open space cannot be parked or driven on, except for emergency access 2.2.9 - Ground Floor Elevation Nearly all of the building types require a minimum ground floor elevation of two feet. This adds significant cost to construction by requiring a taller foundation and the addition of ramps for ADA wheelchair access on buildings with four or more units. The purpose behind this type of standard is usually to promote a transition between the public and private realms and improve security and privacy for ground -floor residents. This is already addressed by the block frontage standards under POMC 20.127.230, which requires a combination of setbacks and/or raised elevation for ground floor residential units, depending on the context. The block frontage standards apply to all building types except single-family and duplexes. Recommendation: Apply this standard only to detached houses and duplex types, and reduce the minimum elevation from two feet to 16 inches. 2.2.10 - Blank Walls Blank walls are regulated in the design standards in POMC 20.127.460, which applies to commercial uses and multifamily uses with five or more units. To reduce duplication or conflicts, the blank wall standards can be removed for at least the apartment, single -story shopfront, mixed use shopfront, and general building types. For the smaller building types where blank walls are regulated, consider applying a standard consistent with POMC 20.127.460. 2.2.11 - Transparenru POMC 20.139.025(3) provides transparency standards for detached houses, cottage courts, duplex types, and townhouses. The minimum transparency standard of 8% should be moved to the building types in Chapter 20.32 POMC for consistency, where other building types like fourplexes and apartments have transparency standards listed. The measurement method of transparency could be retained in Chapter 20.139. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 29 2.3 - Adjust Form & Intensity Standards Action: Adjust the form and intensity (dimensional) standards to improve the physical and economic feasibility of building small homes, multifamily housing, and affordable housing. Following public interest and an analysis of the situation by the consultant team, some changes to dimensional standards are proposed. /-.3. i - Adjust Minimum Lot Dimensions Consider relaxing the minimum lot size and width provisions for "middle" housing/building types to reduce barriers to those housing/building types. Such action should occur in concert with requiring a minimum amount of private usable open space (see Strategy 2.4.2). Specific recommendations: R2 zone: • Retain the current minimum lot dimensions for detached houses For cottage courts, see Strategy 2.2.1 for updated suggestions for minimum site area Exempt other "middle" building types from both minimum lot area and width standards. This includes duplexes (all types), attached houses, triplexes/fourplexes, and townhouses. R3 zone: • Retain the current minimum lot dimensions for detached houses • For cottage courts, see Strategy 2.2.1 for updated suggestions for minimum site area. • Exempt other "middle" building types from both minimum lot area and width standards. This includes backyard cottages, duplexes (both types), attached houses, fourplexes, and townhouses. • For apartments, reduce the current 10,000 square foot lot size minimum to 7,000 square feet, with the option for 5,000 square foot lots where alley access is available. Reduce minimum lot width from 80 feet to 70 feet, with the option for 50-foot wide lots where alley access is available. R4 zone: • Consider eliminating lot dimension standards entirely, particularly as detached houses are not allowed and there are enough other standards in place to help ensure that the form and intensity of development meets community objectives. R5 zone: If not eliminating this zone (see Strategy 2.1.6), consider eliminating lot dimension standards entirely for same reasons as in R4 zone noted above. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 30 R6 zone: Retain the current 4,000 square foot minimum lot size and 40-feet lot width for a detached house, but exempt other "middle" building types from both minimum lot area and width standards. This includes duplexes (both types), attached houses, triplexes/fourplexes, and townhouses. Commercial and mixed -use zones: Retain any existing minimum lot size and width provisions for detached house, but eliminate such standards for all other building types to maximize flexibility. This includes the McCormick Village Overlay District. Many standards are in place to help ensure that such building types are integrated in a compatible manner. 2.3.2 - Adjust Height Limits and Add Affordable Housing Bonus The City should consider building height limit increases to increase the economic feasibility of multifamily and mixed -use development. Constrained height regulations have a large negative impact on housing affordability, particularly in urbanizing areas with increasing land prices such as Port Orchard.22 Several of the zones where Port Orchard allows multifamily housing and mixed -use development have relatively low height limits in the 35-45 feet range, which creates feasibility challenges for light wood frame construction (the most common material for multifamily buildings in the Puget Sound region). Construction costs per square foot for wood buildings between three and seven stories are relatively constant, regardless of building height.21 Another key cost item is elevators, which cost at least $100,000 each and are required for buildings four stories and taller. Allowing more height enables developments to create additional dwelling units that help spread out of the cost of construction. The economic benefits of light wood frame construction are maximized with height limits in the 65-85 feet range; taller structures in this range are often a hybrid with the lower floors being built of concrete and include structured parking. Also note that many jurisdictions assume residential floor -to -floor heights are 10 feet, but 11-12 feet is oftentimes preferred by designers and builders for accommodating mechanical systems and energy code ventilation requirements, especially for taller buildings. Commercial ground floors are often desired to be 15-20 feet tall. The cost and risk of developing mixed -use structures and leasing ground -floor commercial space typically can be offset by a higher amount of residential floor area. Since the COVID-19 22 Eriksen, & Orlando, A. W. (2022). Returns to Scale in Residential Construction: The Marginal Impact of Building Height. Real Estate Economics, 50(2), 534-564. https://doi.org/l0.1111/1540-6229.12357 23 Ibid. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 31 pandemic, developers are indicating increased risk associated with commercial development due to continued uncertainty about the retail and particularly office markets. This further increases the attractiveness of developments with a higher share of residential floor area. Port Orchard allows height increases through the use of a transfer -of -development -rights (TDR) ordinance adopted in 2019 in partnership with Kitsap County (Chapter 20.41 POMC). TDR programs facilitate the exchange of zoned dwelling units from incorporated resource lands to eligible "receiving sites" in the city limits. TDR programs are complex and require savvy participants and willing rural landowners to participate. No project has yet used Port Orchard's TDR program, and other Washington jurisdictions have found it difficult to attract participants to TDR programs outside of the highest -priced markets like Seattle and King County. The proposed height changes below would decrease the attractiveness of Port Orchard's TDR program with the tradeoff of incentivizing affordable (subsidized) housing. However, TDR would continue to be the only way to achieve the tallest allowed buildings in certain locations (up to eight stories or 88 feet). Increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be mitigated by the broad set of multifamily and commercial design standards Port Orchard already has in place. These include standards to provide high -quality building massing, light and air access, useable open space, attractive materials, windows and entries, and other provisions. The table below shows recommend height increases to explore in Port Orchard's key multifamily and commercial zones. These include modest changes to base height limits (up to one floor). In addition, new bonus height limits allowing up to an additional two floors are proposed for developments participating in the City's multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, incentivizing greater production of multifamily housing in general and also affordable (subsidized) housing. The MFTE bonus should be limited to the Type 1,12-year affordability program, and it could be expanded to the 20-year affordability program if the City adopts one. See other recommendations for the MFTE program in Strategy 5.1.1. Zone R3 Current =ase Height Limit 35 rroposed: HE Height Limit 45 ProposedBonus Participation 55 R4 45 - 55 R5 (if zone is not deleted per strategy 2.1.1) 55 - 65 Commercial Corridor (CC) 35 45 65 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 40 55 75 Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) 35 45 55 Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) 40 55 - Ruby Creek Overlay District 55 - 65 Figure 12. Recommended height limits Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 32 2.3.3 — Minimum Residential Density Comprehensive Plan policies LU-11, HS-9, and HS-16 call for minimum residential densities at least in centers. In addition, any locations where a multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) 12-year and 20-year program is available must allow at least 15 units per acre. Development at 15 units per acre is also the rough threshold where fixed -route transit service becomes more sustainable. Minimum density standards can help provide consistency with state law and a level of expectation to leverage public infrastructure investments and maximize the efficiency of land where compact and walkable development is desired. In order to reduce complications for small infill development and promote economies of scale, the minimum density requirement could apply only to new development on sites above a certain site size such as a 1/4 acre or 1/2 net acre; a "net acre" could use the same measurement as applied in the MFTE chapter, which is defined to exclude critical areas and buffer, and other land that is undevelopable such as shoreline buffers and tidelands. Another option is to apply the standard only to sites within designated centers, where the City is seeking to direct growth most intensely. Based on public feedback and where the MFTE program typically applies, a limited number of zones is proposed to have a minimum residential standard. .p. ed Minimum units/grossResidential Density dwe ne.jl&IL lling Apply only to sites above a certain size as a �i, or 312net acre R3 12 R4 15 R5 (if zone is not deleted per strategy 2.1.2) 15 cc 20 cMU 25 GMU 25 DMU 25 Figure 13. Recommended minimum density standards Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 33 2.3.4 - Religiously -Owned Land Density Bonus Under state law RCW 35A.63.300 (2019), upon request from a religious organization, cities planning under the GMA must allow an increased density bonus on such properties consistent with local needs for affordable housing development. The density bonus must be contingent upon the religious organization's land being used for housing occupied exclusively by low- income households for at least 50 years. The density bonus can be used for any type of housing, ranging from single-family to multifamily. Port Orchard is home to a number of churches. Most are on properties ranging from 0.5 to 5 acres and are located in residential or mixed -use neighborhoods. They are mostly zoned Civic and Institutional, which does not allow any types of residential uses. The state requirements could be implemented in several ways, such as an update to underlying zoning, creation of a new overlay zone, or development agreements. Development agreements are preferred option since use of this bonus could be relatively rare. Port Orchard should consider adding a religiously -owned affordable housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan that allows religious organizations to partner with the city to develop affordable housing through a development agreement. The policy could stipulate a minimum density, such as 30 dwelling units per net acre. Port Orchard can also begin proactively reaching out to religious organizations to see if they are interested in developing affordable housing on their properties (this could be a role of the Housing Coordinator staff position described in Strategy 3.3). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 34 2.4 - Adjust Other Standards Action: Adjust other development regulations to help reduce barriers to housing production. A miscellaneous set of other standards can be updated to streamline the development regulations and potentially reduce construction costs. 2.4.1 - Residential Design Standards Chapter 20.139 POMC provides some supplemental design standards to the building types including for driveways, architectural details and variety, roof design, and walls fences. Some minor adjustments are recommended to improve the function of these standards. • The building type standards (Chapter 20.32 POMC) should have additional cross- references to the residential design standards for ease of code use • The duplex garage configuration standards in section 20.139.015 will need to be consolidated consistent with Strategy 2.2.2. It is recommended to use the 40-feet lot width threshold for all configurations. • The transparency standards in subsection 20.139.025(3) for some building types should be placed in the building type standards for consistency (also see Strategy 2.2.11) • The minimum 4:12 roof pitch in subsection 20.139.045(2) for detached houses and duplexes prevents modern architectural styles with flat roofs and roof decks (particularly on small infill lots) and creates a de facto prohibition on typical manufactured homes. The first sentence of the standard could be deleted, and the roof elements standard could continue but remove the word "pitched." • Section 20.139.055 for duplexes has repetitive driveway standards and conflicting transparency standards from other sections in the chapter, which should be resolved. Further, the allowed porch projection standard in subsection (2) is duplicative of POMC 20.122.060 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 35 2.4.2 — Significant Tree Standards There is a long history of protecting significant trees in Port Orchard. Significant trees provide numerous benefits to the environment, climate resiliency, livability, and aesthetic qualities in Port Orchard but can also make the development of affordable housing more challenging. The current standards of Chapter POMC 20.129 can reduce housing capacity on individual sites and can also result in unsafe situations where a lone remaining significant tree is exposed to wind and erosion subsequent to development. In addition, under House Bill 1110 middle housing cannot have stricter design and development standards than detached homes. Currently detached homes are exempt from the requirement to prepare a significant tree retention plan (but they must comply with other significant tree standards). An architect's analysis of similar proposed tree preservation standards in Seattle found that tree retention plans can add tens of thousands of dollars in soft costs and government staff costs.24 The City should explore alternative approaches for tree standards which are easier to administer and have less impact on soft costs and housing capacity. One option is not focusing on individual trees and instead requiring a minimum tree canopy coverage at the time of tree species maturity (allowing both newly planted and existing trees to contribute). This is similar to the method Port Orchard applies to the McCormick Village Overlay District, where many trees are being removed to make way for new development, under POMC 20.38.280. Recommendation: The City should weigh the benefits and costs of its significant tree code. In the near -term, exempt middle housing developments or mixed housing developments containing a significant number of middle housing types (all types of duplexes, cottage housing, townhouses, and triplexes/fourplexes) from the requirement to prepare a significant tree retention plan. 2.4.3 - Family Definition Amend the definition of "family" under POMC 20.12.010 to be consistent with state law RCW 35A.21.314 (2021). Cities may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit. A simple approach is shown below. "Family" means any number of persons related by blood, marriage or legal adoption and including foster children and exchange students living together as a single housekeeping unit. "Family" alsc means the following when living together as a single, not -for -profit housekeeping unit: (1) A group of related and unrelated adults and their related minor children, -but not tc exceed a total of eight related and unrelated persons or 24 "Does Money Grow on Trees?" Neiman Taber Architects. April 2023. http://neimanarchitects.blogspot.com/2023/04/does-money_arows-on-trees.himI Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 36 2.4.4 - Elevator Penthouse As more multifamily and mixed -use housing is built in Port Orchard, details like elevator design are important factors for livability and functionality. Ten -feet tall elevator cabs are desirable for residents to move the largest pieces of furniture which cannot fit through stairwells. Also popular are elevator -accessible roof decks that help meet developments meet residential open space requirements. However, these two features are difficult to combine due to the limitations of POMC 20.40.050(2)(c)(i). This subsection limits structures screening elevators to 10 feet in height where the elevator is accessing a roof deck. Elevator technology is evolving. Over the past decade the "Machine Room -Less" elevator has become a cost-effective option for buildings over four stories tall and it avoids the environmental impacts of hydraulic piston designs which penetrate deep into the ground below the building (a technology which was previously typical for buildings up to eight stories). The Machine Room -Less design uses a hoistway and mounts mechanical equipment on top of the cab, which increases the overrun above the roof level beyond that assumed by the code. Recommendation: To achieve a 10-feet interior cab dimension and accounting for the assembly of the penthouse structure, it is recommended to increase the code allowance to 17 feet. 2.4.5 - Parking Lot Landscaping Under POMC 20.128.070(3), reduce and simplify minimum planting area widths to allow more efficient use of land. This is critical for smaller lots where infill multifamily and townhouse development may occur, but still meet the purpose of parking lot landscaping. Consider reducing the minimum width of landscaping along public streets to 7.5 feet regardless of the block frontage designation, and to five feet along internal lot lines. Also, consider making parking lot landscaping its own code section so it is easier to find in tables of contents and because it is frequently used. For example, convert subsection (3) to new 20.128.075. 2.4.6 - Service Areas and Mechanical Equipment Under POMC 20.127.360, some minor clarifications can be made about applicability to offer some more flexibility. Subsection (2) currently acts as a title but could be expanded with examples to replace the parenthetical in subsection (2)(a), to read: "(2). Location of ground related service areas and mechanical equipment. Ground -level building service areas and mechanical equipment includes loading docks, trash collection and compactors, dumpster areas, storage tanks, electrical panels, HVAC equipment, and other utility equipment. If any such elements are outside the building at ground level, the following location standards apply:" Under subsection (3)(a)(iv), say collection points must be located and configured "to the extent practical" to help moderate construction costs in certain situations. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 37 Under subsection (5)(b), consider removing the prohibition on perforated metal as a rooftop equipment screening material since it is cost effective and has a variety of design options. 2.4.7 - Single -Stair Buildings New state law in 2023 (under Senate Bill 5491) provides model code language for cities to adopt the Seattle version of stairway regulations through July 2026. Up to two buildings per property may feature single -stairway designs. There are several conditions for fire safety, such as requiring minimum one -hour fire ratings, automatic sprinkler systems, maximum walking distances to exits, and minimum water flow capacity availability at the site. Certain group residential uses cannot be located in single -staircase buildings. By July 2026, the State Building Council will provide statewide standards for single -staircase buildings which local jurisdictions can choose to adopt. Recommendation: Examine updating Port Orchard's locally -adopted version of the International Building Code (POMC 20.200.012) to allow single -stair multifamily buildings up to six stories where there are four or less units per floor. By default, the International Building Code limits this condition to three floors. Seattle has allowed it since 1977.21 This could be an opportunity to reduce construction costs and increase design flexibility for small apartment buildings on infill lots, especially in conjunction with height limits recommendations under Strategy 2.3.2. ".4.8 - Aoply the International Residertini r-nrla 4 -_ RA;A I-m Housinf Examine updating Port Orchard's locally -adopted version of the International Building Code (POMC 20.200.012) and the International Residential Code (POMC 20.200.014) to allow small residential structures with less than 5,000 square feet of floor area (e.g. triplexes, townhouses, and small multifamily buildings) to be designed and built under the less -strict provisions of the International Residential Code. Normally, structures with three or more units are considered commercial and fall under the International Building Code which requires fire sprinklers. In exchange, applicable structures would be required to have a higher 2-hour fire rating for wall and floor/ceiling assemblies. Since sprinklers can cost up to $15,000 per unit to install, this can help reduce the costs of attached middle housing while still ensuring fire safety. Other opportunities for streamlining include revisions to egress requirements in common spaces and allowing combined mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings.26 Demonstrated success in at least one community (Memphis, TN) suggests the topic may be worth further discussion.21 Making a change for only three- or four -unit buildings may still provide cost benefits. In 2023, House Bill 1167 would have advanced this change statewide; it did not pass but will be on the docket for the 2024 session of the Washington Legislature. Port Orchard could be a 21 "Second Egress: Building a Code Change". https://secondegress.ca/Seattle 26 "A Trailblazing Reform Supports Small -Scale Development in Memphis." Strong Towns. January 2022. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/l /26/a-trailblazing-reform-supports-small-scale-development-in- memphis 27 "Memphis, TN Amends Local Building Code to Allow up to Six Units Under Residential Building Code (IRC) to Enable Missing Middle Housing." Opticos Design. January 2022. https://opticosdesign.com/blog/memphis-tn-amends- local-building-code-to-allow-up-to-six-units-under-residential-building-code-irc-to-enable-missing-middle-housing/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 38 leader on this issue by working with legislators and coordinating with the design and development community on the best path forward, along with stakeholders such as building officials, the fire district, and others. 2.4.9 — Create Standards for Unit Lot Subdivisions Senate Bill 5258, adopted in 2023 and codified in RCW 58.17.060, now requires all local jurisdictions to provide unit lot subdivision procedures for short plats (up to 9 lots). It is recommended that Port iowed �omma Orchard comply with this statue and also make the option available for regular plats (10 or more lots). Unit lot subdivisions follow the procedures for the underlying plat type. �o�� -PER Unit lot subdivisions facilitate the Figure 14. Diagram of the unit lot subdivision concept development of homeownership options for middle housing like side -by -side duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, townhomes, and cottage housing. Zoning regulations such as setbacks and lot coverage are applied to the overall "parent parcel" existing before the subdivision, allowing the individual "unit lots" upon which dwelling units are placed to be arranged and sized in almost any configuration. Remaining pieces of the parent lot are owned in common or managed by a homeowners' association. There is no template for unit lot subdivision provisions in Washington State, but many cities allow them. Examples of code language can be found in Anacortes. Everett. Port Angeles. and Wenatchee. 2.4.10 - "-ohibit Subdivision Covenants on Middle Housing New state law in 2023 under House Bill 1110 prohibits new restrictive covenants or deeds from prohibiting middle housing (defined as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing). In other words, private agreements are not allowed to exercise zoning -like powers that are the domain of City government. Existing restrictive covenants or deeds are unaffected. It is recommended that Port Orchard update Title 20, Article V POMC to implement this restriction. Other protections can also be added, such as not allowing restrictions on renter occupation. See similar recommendations for ADU's under Strategy 2.1.7. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 39 3 - Programmatic Strategies In addition to regulatory considerations, this section discusses strategies which Port Orchard can consider for increasing housing opportunities through programs addressing displacement, tenant protections, and strategies for reducing homelessness. 3.1- Anti -Displacement Strategies Action: Adopt local tenant protections and consider other regulatory and programmatic anti -displacement actions to improve the stability of renter households. As discussed above in Section 1.4, exclusionary zoning practices have led to numerous facets of housing inequity across the U.S. Additionally, redevelopment programs implemented in earlier decades resulted in both intentional and unintentional displacement of lower -income residents and people of color in many communities. Therefore, strategies to mitigate or prevent displacement have gained much attention in recent years, and a variety of approaches have emerged. Overall, the effectiveness of anti -displacement strategies is highly neighborhood- and community -specific, and recent academic research has found decidedly mixed results of many approaches.28 While most strategies have focused on minimizing displacement pressures, it should be noted that not all displacement is involuntary (there is always some movement in the housing market), and displacement can sometimes mean moving "up" to a higher opportunity neighborhood. Increasing housing production overall, including market -rate housing production, is an important tool to moderate price increases and therefore make housing more affordable to low and moderate income families and prevent displacement.29 This is particularly true in hot housing markets and if the new housing units are comprised of a variety of housing types. A study in California found that both market -rate and subsidized housing production reduced displacement rates in San Francisco, but subsidized housing production decreased displacement risk more significantly.30 The same study also found that the positive effects of production on displacement at a hyperlocal neighborhood scale may differ depending on the complex neighborhood context. One downside of increased production is the time it takes to build new housing, which can be lengthy not only for construction, but also design and permitting. The most comprehensive academic survey of anti -displacement strategies to date suggests that in addition to production, neighborhood stabilization and tenant protection policies have the most immediate impact on 28 Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. "White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness." Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, February 2021. 29 Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould and Katherine O'Regan. "Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability." New York University Furman Center, August 2018. 30 Zuk, Miriam and Karen Chapple. "Research Brief. Housing Production, Filtering, and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships." UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. May 2016. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 40 mitigating displacement.31 The following are suggestions for proactive policies that Port Orchard can adopt to further prevent displacement. A study from Common Good Labs analyzed data on thousands of U.S. neighborhoods over 15 years (2000 to 2015) to understand how poverty is reduced without community displacement.32 It found eight indicators that are associated with inclusion, increased prosperity, and decrease in poverty. Three of the indicators can be most directly affected by municipal policies, noted in the table below. . Increased housing density Zoning standards that directly regulate the density of residential development. Higher rates of Zoning and subdivision standards that allow and encourage a greater variety of small homeownership and attached housing types (e.g., small single-family, cottages, townhomes, flats, condos). A New York Times report finds that the production of entry/starter homes has never been lower than today (particularly homes smaller than 1,400 square feet).33 Presence of community Financial and/or staffing support for community organizations. organizations Zoning standards that provide low-cost commercial space and/or municipal facilities with space for community organizations to have offices, host events, run recreation and cultural programs, etc. Figure 15. Inclusion indicators 3.1.1 - Local Tenant Protections Washington State sets the baseline for the landlord -tenant relationship through the State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act, RCW 59.18. Washington State regularly amends the Act as summarized in the HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. According to the Attorney General's Office, there is no centralized enforcement mechanism for the RCW, and so it is incumbent upon landlords and tenants to either self -remedy violations, seek counseling or low-cost legal help from non-profit organizations, and/or resolve disputes through the courts. Local ordinances are enforced by the local jurisdiction. Cities are free to adopt additional or more stringent regulations than those provided by the state (with the exception of market -rate rent control), and numerous Washington communities have done so. Port Orchard has not enacted any local tenant protection ordinances. The King County Bar Association (KCBA) provides a model tenant protection ordinance within the framework of Washington State law. This is summarized in the table below. 31 Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris. 32 "Reducing poverty without community displacement: Indicators of inclusive prosperity in U.S. neighborhoods." Brookings. September 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reducing-poverty-without-community- displacement-indicators-of-inclusive-prosperity-in-u-s-neighborhoods/ 33 "Whatever Happened to the Starter Home?" The New York Times. September 2022. https://www.n)aimes.com/2022/09/25/upshot/starter-home-prices.htmi Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 41 Local Tenant Protection Option Other Rents and Payments Notice of monthly rent increases 90-180 The state law default is 60 days notice per RCW 59.18.140. Upon days before the effective date, with more receipt of notice, allow tenants to terminate tenancy early without notice required for larger increases further payment except pro rata rent. No increase in rent allowed if the property Poor conditions means the dwelling unit has defective conditions is in poor condition making it unlivable, a request for repairs has not been completed, or the property is otherwise in violation of RCW 59.18.060. Increases over 10% of monthly rent over a The tenant must be notified this is an option in every rent increase 12-month period requires landlord to pay notice regardless of the increase amount. The assistance can be relocation assistance for economically- valued in a number of ways — the KCBA model bases it on three displaced tenants. times the monthly rent amount. Optionally, this tool could require relocation assistance for physical displacement as well (due to property renovations or demolition). Move -in fees capped at one month's rent Allow up to a six month installment plan which commences upon and require offer of installment plans move -in. This helps lower income tenants manage move -in fees that can be many thousands of dollars. Caps on rent payment late fees The KCBA approach is a cap of $10 per month and the tenant is not responsible for any legal fees or other services. Leases must allow rent to be paid on This allows tenants to adjust the due date of rent payments if the different days of the month tenant has a fixed income source (e.g. a paycheck lag after the first of the month or a social security payment). A landlord shall not refuse to lease to tenants who request this. Evictions and Discrimination Require cause to evict as specified in the Only allow for evictions for: 1) failure to pay rent after receiving all lease agreement notices required; 2) substantial breach of a non -monetary term of the lease and all steps to resolve it have failed within the time required; or 3) the landlord seeks to remove the unit from the market with honest intent (with 120 days notice). Banning discriminatory, deceptive, and Prohibits inquiries or verification requirements based on immigration unfair practices in the rental market or citizenship status, using social security numbers as a method of proving financial eligibility, and representing that a unit is not available when it is in fact available. Also prohibits requiring that a lease be signed by children and deceptive omissions and practices like confusing lease terms or taking advantage of a lack of understanding by tenants. Administration Rental unit registration and inspection The purpose of such programs is to ensure rental housing meets programs standard living conditions. Registration includes property address, contact information, list of rental units, and condition of the housing units. Fees may be imposed and re -registration is required with new ownership. Figure 16. Tenant protection options No particular set of tenant protections is recommended as part of this HAP. The Port Orchard community and decision makers are encouraged to use this "menu" of options as a basis for Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 42 continued discussion. Port Orchard can look to other communities like Burien and Kenmore that have adopted some of these protections. 34, 35, 36 Longer rent increase notice time, move -in fee caps, and economic/physical relocation assistance are some of the strongest anti -displacement strategies available for low-income residents forced to move, giving them an opportunity to find new housing in the same community within a reasonable amount of time. Any new regulatory action would require some degree of effort, ranging from education and outreach to increased staffing and resources for monitoring and enforcement. Regulatory action could also be considered at the regional level to provide consistency for landlords and property management companies working across multiple Kitsap County jurisdictions. .3.1.2 - Other Anti -Displacement Strategies Strategic Acquisition of Existing Multifamily Housing To better retain affordable housing, the City of Port Orchard should work with Housing Kitsap, land trusts, and other non-profit providers to identify naturally occurring affordable housing and multifamily housing with income restrictions or covenants that are close to expiration. Funds should be identified to acquire as many such properties as possible to avoid displacement of low- or moderate -income residents. This practice preserves existing communities and retains long-term affordable housing stock at a lower cost than development of new affordable housing. Tenant Legal Services Eviction rates have been shown to drop when tenants facing eviction have access to legal representation. The Washington State Office of the Attorney General has a comprehensive list of resources for tenants facing legal issues, including free phone assistance from the Northwest Justice Project for low-income tenants statewide.37 Contacts and guidance could be provided alongside or in addition to the homeless services directory (see Section 3.2). Tenant Opportunity to Purchase A tenant opportunity to purchase program, such as the one instituted in Washington, D.C. in 1980, gives tenants the first right to purchase their unit if it is being converted into a condominium. In D.C., a study of the program showed this helped 58% of eligible tenants purchase their unit.38 The D.C. program has also resulted in the creation of many limited equity 34 "City of Burien, Washington, Ordinance No. 804." October 2022. https://burienwa.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/33975/?preview=76250 35 City of Kenmore, Washington, Ordinance No. 22-0545." March 2022. https://ken more.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/118191 /?preview=119244 36 "Five Seattle suburbs added new landlord -renter laws this year. Here's what they do." The Seattle Times. December 15, 2022. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/five-seattle-suburbs-added-new-landlord-renter- I aws-this-yea r-heres-what-they-do/ 37 "Residential Landlord -Tenant Resources." Washington State Office of the Attorney General. https://www.atg.wa.gov/residential-landlord-tenant-resources 38 Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. "White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness." Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, February 2021. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 43 cooperatives when tenants work together to purchase a building being converted to condominiums.39 Rental Assistance Programs Rental assistance programs help low-income tenants pay rent in moments of hardship. Such a program can be very helpful in preventing families and individuals from becoming homeless and help stave off eviction and displacement. However, rental assistance programs are also relatively expensive and may have limited reach in a city of Port Orchard's size. One option would be to investigate a temporary rental assistance fund for eligible low-income renters which can provide assistance for 1-3 months when a tenant is experiencing a financial crisis. Housing Rehabilitation Some low-income households are unable to afford ongoing maintenance on their homes, particularly older housing units. This can lead to displacement if the homes become uninhabitable or the home is sold at a low price. Many cities and counties in Washington, including Vancouver, Spokane, and Pierce County for example, provide no- or low -interest loans to qualifying low-income homeowners to help repair and rehabilitate their homes .40,41,42 Some programs do not require repayment of the loan until after the house is sold, and others defer payments if residents cannot afford them, or waive interest for disability modifications. These programs are funded by a variety of sources, including city or county affordable housing funds, CDBG block grants from HUD, or HOME Investment Partnership programs. Community Control of Land There are several models of cooperative or shared land ownership which have been used to remove land speculation and market pressures from ownership housing and provide affordable and stable ownership opportunities for lower- and moderate -income households. Such organizations have mostly taken the form of cooperatives and community land trusts (CLT), or a combination of both approaches. In a community land trust, the land is held in trust by a nonprofit or city and only the housing unit is bought and sold, usually with permanent affordability restrictions in the covenant. Although this can reduce the amount of equity which can be built by buying and selling a home in a CLT, it does create opportunity for households whose incomes would typically exclude them from homeownership. In a co-op model, residents own shares in the land or buildings (depending on the model) and pay affordable monthly payments with limited equity to residents. One Oregon model showed 39 "Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase." PolicyLink. https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/tools/all-in- cities/housing-anti-displacement/topa-coca 40 "Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program." City of Vancouver. https://www.cityofvancouver.us/eph/paae/housina- rehabi I itation-loan-prog ram 41 "Home Rehabilitation." City of Spokane. https://my.spokanecity.ora/housing/affordable/ 42 "Home Rehabilitation Loan Program." Pierce County. https://www.piercecountywa.aov/3093/Home-Rehabilitation- Loan-Program Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 44 that combining a CLT and co-op yielded opportunities for homeownership for households earning 30-60% of the AM1.43 Overall, the largest barrier to community land control models is lack of funding for ownership affordable housing to jumpstart these types of organizations.44 Foreclosure Assistance Foreclosure assistance can take the form of financial support to homeowners facing foreclosure, similar to the rental assistance programs described above. Additionally, foreclosure assistance can take the form of technical assistance and counseling to households at risk. A study conducted by the Urban Institute during the Great Recession found that households that received counseling were more likely to avoid default and modify their loans to be able to keep making payments.45 Such a program could be provided by the city or in partnership with another organization. Living Wage Ordinance In the Port Orchard area, the hourly wage needed to afford the average two -bedroom apartment is $32.69 an hour.46 The minimum wage in Port Orchard is the default Washington State minimum wage of $15.74 per hour. A living wage ordinance requires a higher minimum wage than that required by state law, which can help reduce housing cost burden. Local ordinances are not widespread in Washington; only the cities of Seattle, SeaTac, and Tukwila currently have minimum wages higher than the statewide minimum.47 Childcare and Early Education Subsidies Subsidizing early education is another way to help lower -income households who are unable to afford housing, as well as improving lifelong outcomes for children. Washington State provides financial assistance for child care for low-income families through the Working Connections Child Care subsidy. Other municipalities in Washington also provide childcare subsidy, such as Seattle's Child Care Assistance Program and the King/Pierce County Child Care Resources subsidy program for families experiencing homelessness. 43 "A Case for Public Investment in Shared -Equity Homeownership." SquareOne Villages. September 2020. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021 R1 /Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/20717 44 Gabobe, Nisma. "How Can Cities Move The Needle on Community Land Trusts?" Sightline Institute. August 2021. https://www.sightline.org/2021 /08/23/how-can-cities-move-the-needle-on-community-land-trusts/ 4e Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. "White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness." Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, February 2021. 46 National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Out of Reach: The High Cost of Housing." 2022. https://nlihc.org/oor/zip?code=98367 47 "Minimum Wage", Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. https://www.Ini.wa.gov/workers- rights/wages/minimum-wage/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 45 3.2 - Homelessness Strategies Action: Strengthen coordination between the City and local homelessness support services and adopt a Housing First approach. Homelessness is a government concern because it relates to the health, safety, and welfare of individuals and the community at-large.48 This housing action plan addresses homelessness because the production and price of housing, which is affected by City policy, is directly correlated to the rate of homelessness.49 At the national level, every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a nine percent increase in the estimated homelessness population, even after accounting for demographic and economic characteristics.5o Kitsap County conducts a point -in -time count of people experiencing homelessness countywide each year, typically in January. In 2022, the count was conducted in February instead. The count encompasses both sheltered and unsheltered people and is conducted during one 24-hour period each year. Therefore, the number is generally considered to be an undercount of the true population experiencing homelessness. In February 2022, 563 individuals were experiencing homelessness countywide, of which 136 were in transitional housing, 244 in emergency shelters, and 183 unsheltered. Of the 183 unsheltered residents surveyed, 23 percent, or 42 people, were in Port Orchard. Countywide, 67 percent of those surveyed reported becoming homeless due to health or mental health issues, 58 percent due to job loss, 40 percent due to loss of housing, 35 percent due to family conflict, and 25 percent due to substance uses' Port Orchard staff should continue to monitor the annual point -in -time count and support the county as necessary to ensure consistent data collection on the extent and changes in the homeless population in the city. 3.2.1 - Coordination The City does not directly offer any homeless shelters or transitional housing. Continue working with Kitsap County and service providers to provide outreach and offers for service and shelter for homeless individuals. This could include creation of a standardized directory of support services with available times and contact information (such as food banks, shelters, counseling, public transit, etc.), and distribute it on the City website and in print with local service providers. Assign a City staff person to contact each service at least monthly to maintain and update the directory. 3.2.2 - Adopt a "Housing First" Approach Decades of research have found that helping homeless people move off the street and into a home of their own is the most effective way to reduce long-term (chronic) homelessness for the 48 "Homelessness — Common Questions & Answers." Washington State Department of Commerce. January 2019. https://www.skagitcounty.net/HumanServices/Documents/Housing/Homelessness`/`20FAQs`/*2001-2019.pdf 49 "Homelessness is a Housing Problem." Greg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/ so "How COVID-19 Could Aggravate the Homelessness Crisis?" August 2020. United States Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/blog/how-covid-19-could-aggravate-homelessness-crisis 51 Kitsap County Point In Time Count. https://www.kitsapoov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.asix Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 46 most vulnerable people.52 This is because it is extremely difficult or impossible to address the personal, financial, mental, or physical problems that underlie homelessness while simply trying to stay alive. The "housing first" approach eliminates bureaucratic steps and places no criteria on sobriety, employment, criminal history, or completing a religious program before individuals are moved into a home. When someone is drowning, it doesn't help if a rescuer insists the victim learn to swim before bringing them to shore. They can address their issues once they are on solid ground with private space, a stable address, and the dignity of meeting basic needs like food, warmth, and bathing. This approach is less costly to taxpayers than the combined costs of roving service contacts, emergency room visits, jail and shelter stays, towed vehicles, and maintenance of public spaces. Success stories and lessons abound from places as varied as Houston, TX, Columbus, OH and Salt Lake City, UT. The provision of homes can be done indirectly through vouchers, in which public funding directly subsidizes the cost of a market -rate rental unit, or directly through publicly owned housing. The type of housing is oftentimes and preferably in the form of apartments which are the cheapest type of housing to build and operate per unit. Sometimes existing apartment or motels are purchased, or a warehouse can be renovated for residential use. "Tiny home villages", which are rapidly constructed on vacant sites or parking lots, may be appropriate but only on a temporary basis since they are not as durable, weather-proof, or livable as permanent structures. "Housing first" includes intensive wraparound social services and case management for the residents, either on -site or off -site. These services usually include support for people living with complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health conditions, addiction treatment, and employment assistance. Research has found that an overwhelming majority of permanent supportive housing residents eventually stabilize their lives and health enough to move to market -rate housing. The "housing first" policy has its limitations. It can only work if housing and service providers agree on the approach, if there is enough supply of housing available to work with at different income levels, and there is adequate long-term funding. All three requirements will require strategic planning and time to develop. To that end, this HAP recommends the following: • Convene a meeting of all relevant homelessness stakeholders to discuss the "housing first" approach • Adopt a "housing first" policy in the Comprehensive Plan • Regularly survey and monitor the scale of the homeless population • Provide or seek new funding for supportive housing such as rent vouchers or a City - owned supportive housing development • Study alternatives for providing supportive housing with City funding or grant funding 52 "Homelessness research: A guide for economists (and friends)." 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/Sl 051137718302109 DRAFT — MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 Inventory hotels/motels which could be candidates for purchase and conversion to permanent supportive housing • Explore programs and partnerships that could enable more social, health, and human care services to establish branch locations in Port Orchard. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 48 3.3 - Support Staffing Needs Action: Fund, recruit, and hire a housing coordinator to help implement this Housing Action Plan, connect and collaborate with housing stakeholders, and promote more market -rate and affordable housing development in Port Orchard. A housing coordinator would be a specialized position in the Community Development Department that promotes implementation of the Housing Action Plan and provides long-term policy support and relationship -building among Port Orchard's residents, landlords, developers, human service providers, and City staff. This could be a permanent position or, at a minimum, a two year position focused on implementing the Housing Action Plan. Key responsibilities for the position should include: • Implement the actions and strategies of the Housing Action Plan • Plan, organize, coordinate, and implement the work plan and policies related to the City's housing policies, projects, and programs. Study, evaluate, and recommend housing policies and procedures. • Serve as the City liaison to other departments and advisory boards on housing issues related to housing policy and provide citywide leadership and coordination on housing policy issues. • Apply for housing grants including from County sales tax housing set asides and Community Development Block Grant funds and manage grant implementation. Monitor other state funding and grant opportunities and write applications for funding, including joint applications with partner agencies. • Administer and monitor the MFTE program and provide guidance for property owners • Monitor housing production, the number and location of affordable housing units, and the number of unhoused people in Port Orchard and support department reports on housing and demographic trends • Build relationships with community partners in the non-profit, public, and private sectors, including acting as liaison to Housing Kitsap, Habitat for Humanity, and others. • Market Port Orchard to the residential real estate industry and manage inquiries, with a focus on promoting the qualities of the town, economic development opportunities, the friendly regulatory environment, and any financial incentives available • Recruit human service providers and senior housing developers to locate and build facilities in Port Orchard • Connect businesses and prospective residents to housing listings and providers • Connect tenants and landlords to resources help resolve disputes • Educate property owners and developers on development regulations and site -specific opportunities and share resources such as case studies, best practices, property maintenance standards, and property tax resources Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT —MAY 24, 2023 Page 49 Monitor changes to the Growth Management Act and related state laws on housing Qualifications for the position should include: • Bachelor's degree in planning, real estate, public administration, finance, economics, business, or other fields where the knowledge and skills can translate to the responsibilities of the position. • Considerable (3-5 years) experience in program management, affordable housing policy, community planning, public policy, real estate finance or development, business administration, or economic development. • Proficiency with Microsoft Office and other software related to planning operations. The ideal candidate will: • Have a creative, open-minded, and pragmatic attitude. • Thrive in a fast -paced, team -based environment while also being able to work independently. • Clearly communicate ideas and concepts. • Have strong organizational and data analysis skills. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 50 4 - Citywide Planning Strategies These actions relate to the City's budget and updating the Comprehensive Plan. 4.1 - Housing Element Updates Action: In the next Comprehensive Plan update, update the Housing Element to support the actions of this Housing Action Plan and integrate new provisions required by state law. Recent updates to the Growth Management Act require some updates on data and goals/policies for the Comprehensive Plan's Housing element. Many of these required updates overlap with the data and objectives provided in this Housing Action Plan, though some additional work may be needed. In addition to statements of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, updated RCW 36.70A.070(2) (2021) now requires: • An inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth including: o Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households o Emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing • Goals and policies for moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes • Identify sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to, government - assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and consideration of duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes • Makes adequate provisions for all economic segments of the community, including: o Low, very low, extremely low, and moderate -income households o Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations o Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment location o Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs • Identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing, including: o Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect o Disinvestment o Infrastructure availability Identify and implement policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and actions Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 51 • Identify areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital investments; and • Establish anti -displacement policies, with consideration given to the preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low, very low, extremely low, and moderate -income housing; equitable development initiatives; inclusionary zoning; community planning requirements; tenant protections; land disposition policies; and consideration of land that may be used for affordable housing. In the annual amendment cycle or the next major update (due in 2024), the Housing Element could be updated with specific policies relating to the many strategies and actions of this Housing Action Plan. Relevant HAP actions to acknowledge at the comprehensive planning level may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Development regulation streamlining that provides more housing options • Guidance on homelessness reduction and prevention • Support for a multifamily tax exemption program, tax increment financing for infrastructure and affordable housing, and transit funding to support housing and economic development • Policies for the acquisition and disposition of surplus public land for affordable housing (see Strategy 4.4), especially City -owned land in downtown. • Support for new anti -displacement policies 4.2 - Land Use Element Updates The Comprehensive Plan Land Use element should be reviewed for potential updates on these issues. 4.1.1 - Corridor Zoning Action: In the next major Comprehensive Plan Update, review the balance between residential and commercial land capacity and adjust the future land use map. Some of Port Orchard's major transportation corridors are targeted for transit investments by Kitsap Transit. The Comprehensive Plan update should consider whether land use regulations and infrastructure plans are supportive of transit -oriented development, particularly in designated centers. The City's primary commercial corridor (also consisting of several designated centers), Bethel Road, is planned to have an upgraded roadway with roundabouts and bike and pedestrian infrastructure in the next few years. At the same time, Kitsap Transit plans a bus rapid transit route in the corridor (between Downtown and approximately Sedgwick Road)." However, there is room for improvement in land use and amenities in the transit walkshed (a quarter to half mile walking distance). The corridor has a patchwork of zoning with few clear patterns and low building height limits, including low -density residential zoning both inside and 53 "Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-2042." Kitsap Transit. December 2022. https://www.kitsaptransit.com/aaency- information/plannina/lap Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 52 outside the city limits. Existing development is largely not pedestrian -oriented, being characterized by large parking lots, low -scale commercial buildings, residential cul-de-sacs, and a discontinuous street grid. The Commercial Heavy zone does not allow general residential development, potentially locking in suburban -style strip malls and shopping centers on large parcels. There are no public parks, schools, community centers, or other civic amenities in the corridor that can help attract residential development and serve affordable housing residents. Opportunities for infill and mixed -use redevelopment, including affordable housing, should be explored in the Comprehensive Plan and a future Bethel subarea plan. The Mile Hill corridor has similar challenges but at a smaller scale. Incentives could be adjusted to support redevelopment of strategic sites like self -storage facilities and infilling underutilized parking lots. Explorations should consider the proximity to Downtown, South Kitsap High School, and Blackjack Creek. The Tremont, Pottery, and Sidney corridors are generally characterized by R2 or BPMU zoning and proximity to parks and schools. Kitsap Transit plans transit service enhancements in some of these areas. Upzones to allow at least moderate -scale multifamily development in more areas should be considered. The Lund and Jackson corridors in the unincorporated urban growth area could also be explored for near -term annexation and subsequent zoning that incentivizes infill middle housing and multifamily housing which helps pay for infrastructure and services. These areas are mostly developed with a mix of low -to -medium density housing and have an identity linked to Port Orchard. Proximity to South Kitsap Regional Park and several schools is an asset to be leveraged. 4.2.2 — Neighborhood Commercial Uses Action: Review the opportunity for allowing small neighborhood commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Residential zones are not permitted to have restaurants, cafes, convenience stores, or other types of small commercial uses. The City uses the NMU zone for this purpose, which allows the shopfront house building type (also see Strategy 2.2.6) but not single -purpose apartment buildings. Consider adding more nodes of NMU zoning in residential neighborhoods, particularly on corner lots. Forest Park Grocery and Deli near the intersection of West Avenue and South Street is a good example of the types of development that may occur with this zoning over time, providing more neighborhood services within walking distance of housing. Review other NMU zoning standards to ensure commercial uses are well -integrated into residential neighborhoods. This could include limitations on the size of commercial uses (e.g. 1,000 to 2,500 square feet, with clarity on gross or net), reduced or eliminated off-street parking requirements for businesses, and prohibiting incompatible activities such as outdoor storage. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 53 4.2.3 - Park -Oriented Development Action: Consider increasing zoning capacity around Port Orchard's major parks. Port Orchard's parks are major assets of the community, and access to outdoor recreation is important for public health and well-being. Allowing more housing near major parks and recreation uses (such as within a quarter -mile) can have several benefits, including allowing more people to walk and bike to parks for healthy recreation and encouraging a long-term increase in park users and community ownership of parks. Park access is particularly important for families with children. Notable rezoning opportunities are in the areas around Givens Playfield (which is also adjacent to a community center), McCormick Village Park, and Clayton Park. Most parks are also near transit stops. Part of the area north of Givens Playfield is also near the Kitsap County campus and zoned BPMU. This area consists mostly of detached homes and some vacant lots. The zoning encourages a transition to commercial uses over time, though little such activity has occurred. Rezoning this area for park -oriented development could also have the dual benefits of increasing the feasibility of mixed -use development with commercial space and multifamily housing. t r:, w ILn h 3. T I& Figure 17. The vicinity of Givens Playfieid (Google Maps) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Another large park which Port Orchard residents utilize is South Kitsap Regional Park. This is currently outside the city limits but contained in the urban growth area. When this area is annexed the City should consider park -oriented zoning that allows for a wider range of housing types near the park. Recently adopted development regulations for the area near the planned west entrance to McCormick Village Park allow middle housing development and a proposed mixed housing neighborhood is in permitting review. However, there are other unentitled properties near McCormick Village Park and the golf course clubhouse that may be candidates for multifamily and middle housing uses. These changes would ensure that all areas of the city provide opportunities for people of different economic means with the opportunity to live and work (see further discussion in the introduction to Strategy 2.1). i An -r r.� ■, � � ■rrnr'■rr■■ ■rr� t� * oil'A Figure 18. A concept for a mix of housing including middle housing from the recently adopted McCormick Village Subarea Plan in a location adjacent to McCormick Village Park. Ar ZZXW� Figure 19. Examples of parcels highlighted in green that could be zoned for multifamily or middle housing due to their proximity to parks and recreation amenities. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 55 4.2.4- Parking Action: In the next major Comprehensive Plan Update, review the need for minimum parking requirements citywide and review national case studies for best practices. Parking is an issue that should be revisited in the next Comprehensive Plan update. Consider policy support for removing minimum requirements entirely, as is increasingly being done in cities and states across the country and called for by professional planning and engineering organizations.sa, ss A related option is to add maximum parking requirements, especially for the most intense uses such as retail." Removing parking requirements does not have any immediate effect on housing supply or prices or neighborhood design. Related requirements such as parking lot landscaping and stormwater treatment for impervious surfaces would remain. Over time, it gives the power of parking design back to property owners and businesses to decide how much parking they need to attract tenants and customers.51 New development will still include parking spaces, but the number of spaces will be decided based on what owners need based on their experience and budget rather than government rules." Removing the minimum requirement can also ease the renovation of older vacant buildings and allow new small businesses to open in commercial spaces where they couldn't before. Removing parking requirements significantly reduces the red tape and studies that are required to justify modifications, reductions, or cooperative parking agreements, the costs of which may exceed the budgets of local property owners or small investors. Starter homes like townhomes and condos may become easier to build and improve homeownership opportunities. Removing parking standards would complement increased transit service, as discussed in Strategy 5.6. At the minimum, new state law adopted in 2023 (House Bill 1110) sets maximum limits on the minimum parking spaces for middle housing (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing). This preemption must be codified within six months of the major Comprehensive Plan update being adopted. Up to one parking space per unit may be required on lots smaller than 6,000 SF (before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits) and up to two 2 spaces per unit may be required on larger lots. 54 "Parking Reform Network." https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map/ 55 "Rethinking Parking Minimums." Institute of Transportation Engineers. February 2019. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1 becvgm8ebznwj2/ITE°/o20journal.pdf?dl=0 56 "Parking Maximums." Sustainable Development Code. https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/parking-maximums-7/ 57 "End Parking Mandates & Subsidies." Strong Towns. https://www.strongtowns.org/parking 58 "Save Anchorage from Parking Mandates." Sightline. September 2022. https://www.sightline.org/2022/09/30/save-anchorage-from-parking-mandates/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 56 4.3 - Public Land for Affordable Housing Actions: Consider rezonings, environmental assessments, pre -development activities, and partnerships to promote use of surplus public land for affordable housing. The City has a modest amount of surplus publicly -owned land. Some of it is well -located or positioned to merit consideration for housing development. Considerations for key properties and strategies are described in this section. Other public lands (such as those owned by Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and other agencies) could be reviewed in the future. 4.3.1 - Disposition Policy Formally adopt a surplus land disposition policy that gives the right -of -first -refusal to affordable housing developers or other community -determined uses, consistent with the allowances of RCW 39.33.015 (note that some modifications to the affordability provisions of the statue were made in 2023 under House Bill 1695). The policy could be adopted by City Council resolution and embedded within the Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element (also see Strategy 4.2). 4.3.2 - Land Acquisition The cost of land can be a major cost for any housing development, and providing a discounted land lease or sale can help some projects become economically viable. Since the City does not have much surplus land, the City can identify and purchase underutilized or vacant properties that can be developed as affordable housing. Land assembly can be a powerful tool for putting together larger sites that can be redeveloped at a more economically feasible scale. This strategy could be focused on close -in locations (e.g. Downtown and the Bethel Avenue and Mile Hill Drive corridors) where land ownership is fragmented. Port Orchard may also focus on vacant, abandoned, or tax -delinquent properties. These sites usually have negative impacts on surrounding properties and the City's role would include resolving ownership issues and/or addressing tax liens or land encumbrances that otherwise deter developers from pursuing these properties.59 Once acquired and assembled, Port Orchard would lease or sell the land for affordable housing. See the related need for a land disposition policy in Strategy 4.4.1 4.3.3 - Tremont/Pottery Roundabout Property (Parcel 342401-4-016-2001 & 342401- 4-015-2002) This is a one -acre vacant site within the Tremont Center and zoned Commercial Mixed Use. The site could be viable for townhomes or multifamily development with a small commercial component, potentially leveraging new single stair provisions (see Strategy 2.4.7). It is eligible for the Type 1 and Type 3 MFTE programs, which could improve the feasibility of affordable housing on the site. While Tremont Street is newly rebuilt with pedestrian and bike infrastructure, the general area is not walkable to services besides gas stations, medical offices, and schools. This and parking 59 "Support the Reuse of Abandoned, Vacant, & Delinquent Properties." Family Housing Fund. https://www.fhfund.org/report/reuse-of-abandoned-properties/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 57 requirements will require a significant portion of the site be dedicated to surface parking, limiting the housing capacity of the site. Some amount of structured parking might be economically feasible with the savings from a discounted land transfer, though the site's irregular shape could make efficient parking layouts a challenge. Parking could potentially be shared with the healthcare facility directly behind the site to the north. Development could fully or partially vacate Alder Lane, which is City right-of-way and does not serve any other properties (any utilities may need to be relocated). The site could also potentially expand by acquiring part of the adjacent healthcare facility site if there is underutilized parking there; that site is zoned as Public Facilities which does not allow any residential land uses. Figure 20. City owned property at the Tremont and Pottery Roundabout 4.3.4 - Mitchell Avenue Pronerty (Parcel 252401-3-045-2009) This is a 1.7 acre forested site within the Lower Mile Hill Center and it is zoned R4, which allows up to four-story buildings. The site boundary has a small cutout of R3 zoning where there is a cell phone tower. The site could be viable for townhomes or multifamily development. The site is across the street from South Kitsap High School and could be an ideal location for family housing (units with two or more bedrooms). It is eligible for the Type 1 MFTE program, which could improve the feasibility of affordable housing on the site. The site is moderately sloped, with a 70 feet elevation difference between the top and bottom of the property (a horizontal distance of 240 feet). Significant tree standards and topography may add construction costs and reduce housing capacity, but the economic feasibility may also be DRAFT — MAY 24, 2023 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 0 1 Page 58 improved with the savings from a discounted land transfer. A recent study by Portland State University suggested an increase of 40-50% in development costs for affordable housing built on sites of 20% slope or more.60 The site could potentially be configured with two separate clusters of buildings at the top and bottom of the hill. The site is bordered to the west and north by strips of undeveloped City right-of-way, which could be vacated to expand the site and/or provide access solutions. The site could also potentially expand by acquiring one or more of the adjacent parcels, particularly off Bethel Avenue, to increase circulation options and improve economies of scale. The adjacent commercial properties are either vacant or have low -value improvements, they are zoned Gateway Mixed Use, and they are within the Downtown Height Overlay District 5 which allows up to five -story buildings. 0 1 � Figure 21. City owned property off of Mitchell Avenue 60"Impact of Slope on Housing Development Costs." Portland State University. 2010. https://www.pdx.edu/realestate/sites/g/files/znldhr3251 /files/2020- 10/01 _impact_of_slope_ on_development_SU20_p2.pdf Note: This study also has other useful data on the impact of slope on development costs for various building types Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 59 4.4 — McCormick East Future Neighborhood Planning Action: In the next Comprehensive Plan update, identify the McCormick East area as a future mixed housing and commercial area and/or local center. Develop a subarea plan to shape this area as a mixed housing and mixed income development. 4.4.1 - McCormick East Overview The McCormick East area is a large unentitled area located in the southwest area of Port Orchard near the intersection of Glenwood Road and McCormick Woods Drive. The area is currently zoned R2. Figure 22. Location of McCormick East. 4.4.2 - 1%mick East Summary The McCormick East area was annexed by the City of Port Orchard during the Great Recession. Unlike other areas of west Port Orchard such as McCormick Woods, McCormick Trails, and McCormick Village, McCormick East remains unentitled. It is also identified as a future planning area in the City's utility plans. As described in Section 1.3 regarding geographic equity and the introduction to Strategy 2.1 for allowed uses, the City must be cognizant of the geographic inequities located in areas east and west of SR-16. The McCormick East area includes approximately 108 acres of recently logged undeveloped land with relatively few critical areas. The recent logging that took place means that there are few significant trees present and that the site is a blank slate for development. Under the current zoning, it is likely that this property would develop with detached homes. Some ADUs or duplexes would be possible in this area but are unlikely. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 60 Due to the previous entitlements and development agreements governing the development of most other areas in McCormick Woods, McCormick Trails, and McCormick Village, there are few opportunities to increase the presence of affordable housing types west of SR-16. Kitsap Transit is planning a large park -and -ride facility in the nearby Ruby Creek Neighborhood. This transit investment along with planned transit routes makes McCormick East ripe for a new master plan. 4.4.3 - McCormicK Last Recommenaation: The City should work to develop a subarea plan to guide the development of the McCormick East area. This plan should seek to provide zoning to allow a mix of commercial development and middle housing. The area could be designated as a local or countywide center and should be designed to promote transit access. The timing of a McCormick East subarea plan is likely not feasible until after the City's 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 61 5 - Funding Strategies These actions relate to the financing and funding of affordable housing and related issues like taxes, fees, and state law. 5.1- Multifamily Tax Exemption Program Action: Update the MFTE program based on increased developer interest in multifamily and mixed -use projects to streamline requirements, balance affordability and foregone tax revenue, and take advantage of increased flexibility in statewide legislation. 5.1.1 - MFTE Overview A multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is authorized by a 1995 state law, RCW 84.14. Cities can grant an 8-year property tax exemption for any multifamily development or a 12-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 20 percent of units for low- and moderate -income households. The state made several changes to the MFTE program in 2021. The 12-year tax exemption and affordability covenants can now be renewed for 12 more years if the property owner continues to provide units affordable to low-income families. Cities may now also offer a 20-year tax exemption for ownership units if at least 25 percent of these condominium units are sold as permanently affordable ownership housing.61 A MFTE program can be used for new buildings or existing buildings that require major rehabilitation. For cities under 20,000 residents, both the 12-year and the 20-year programs require the development to be in a zone that allows at least 15 dwelling units per acre. Land, existing site improvements, and non-residential improvements are not exempt and are subject to normal property taxes. At the local government's discretion, the exemption's basis may be limited to the value of affordable units or other criteria. The local government has latitude in many aspects. It can require certain public benefits, change what types of development apply, and can map specific areas where the exemption is available. Cities can also set lower maximum rent prices than the statute allows and other lease stipulations such as requiring the participating units to be pet -friendly. The MFTE program can have complex fiscal implications due to Washington's "levy lid" restrictions which limit the rate of increase of total regular property tax revenue to 1 % per year for communities of 10,000 or more. In theory, the value of the tax exemption granted to developers would represent foregone revenue for the city. However, the reality is more complicated. Construction of MFTE projects often takes place over multiple years and county assessors are required to factor in the portion of new projects which are completed by July 31 each year. However, the tax exemption itself does not take effect until January 1 after the year in which the project is completed. Theoretically, the assessor should remove the value of the partially -constructed MFTE properties which were previously added at this point, however, in 61 "Overview of 2021 Changes to the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption Program." Washington State Department of Commerce. https://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkf05.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 62 reality this happens inconsistently. As a result, the value of the portion of the property which was completed in years prior to the final year of construction can result in a "tax shift" where taxes on that portion of the project's property value are shifted to the citywide tax base if that portion is not removed from the assessor's table of total taxable property value.62 This complex situation can obfuscate whether the tax exemption results in foregone revenue to the city or whether it merely shifts taxes to the citywide tax base. In most cases, both are occurring to some degree. The Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee's 2019 audit of the MFTE program found that they could not determine the amount of local tax savings which was shifted to other taxpayers as a result of the complex situation around the "levy lid."63 5.1.2 - Port Orchard MFTE Summary Port Orchard has had an MFTE program in place since 2016, which is codified under Chapter 3.48 POMC, and which provides three types of exemptions. The "Type 1" program is a 12-year exemption available to properties zoned for multifamily or mixed -use near transit or ferry and requires 20 percent of units to be rented at affordable rates based on HUDs fair market rent. The "Type 2" program is an 8-year exemption available to abandoned or underutilized properties within local centers of importance which are encouraged to redevelop. The "Type 3" program is an 8-year exemption available to properties within local centers of importance and zoned for multifamily or mixed -use with requirements for denser, "urban" style development: a minimum density of 50 units per acre and at least 50 percent structured parking, shopfronts equal to 40 percent of all building footprints, or additional height purchased through the city's transfer of development rights program. A total of four projects totaling 332 units (including 20 affordable units) have been built using Port Orchard's MFTE program, and four more projects totaling 427 more units (including 45 affordable units) are currently in progress. For a full summary of Port Orchard's MFTE program, see Section 5 of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report in the Appendix. Port Orchard's method of setting subsidized rents in MFTE projects at 10 percent below HUD fair market rents is unusual, as most jurisdictions in Washington rent subsidized MFTE units to families earning between 80 and 115 percent of HUD's MFI for their area, and cap the rent at 30 percent of the household's income, adjusted for household size. 64 However, Port Orchard's system meets legal state requirements and, based on a preliminary analysis, seems to result in rents which are lower than those based on the larger Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD MFI. 5.1.2 - Recommendations Port Orchard has seen an increase in proposed downtown residential -commercial mixed -use projects in recent years. Since these types of projects would be eligible for MFTE funding, it is important to revisit and potentially update some aspects of the program to balance the benefit 62 This concept is very complex and more information can be found in Commerce's "What is Tax Shift?" guidesheet here https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/9jg7p2ebm467ddpmb1 c5u3d4ei22cs1 n as well as starting on p. 37 of Commerce's MFTE guidebook here: https://deptofcommerce.a pp.box.com/s/i05o80ne5e1740mmh6u05grjk047g3cw 63 The JLARC audit's findings can be found at: https://leg.wa.gov/mlarc/taxReports/2019/MFTE/f_ii/default.html 64 Following HUD's definition of a "cost -burdened" household Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 63 and foregone tax revenue of affordable units to ensure the program's goals are being met and to address recent changes in the program allowed under state law.es Clarify map and zoning of areas of MFTE eligibility. MFTE projects must be in urban centers as defined by RCW 84.14.010, which describes compact districts with a variety of shops, a mix of uses, and public facilities. Port Orchard's municipal code contains maps of parcels eligible for MFTE funding, but they are difficult to read and are not updated with the latest parcel lines, as shown below in Error! Reference source not found.. An improved map which shows both the c ity's established "centers" and the outline of areas eligible for MFTE development at a larger scale would streamline the process for potential developers. Figure 23. Maps of parcels currently eligible for the Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 MFTE programs. Source: City of Port Orchard Municipal Code Correct definition of underutilized buildings. POMC 3.48.040(2)(a)(iii) states that underutilized buildings have an "assessed building value to land ratio of two -to -one or more." This appears to be backwards, as underutilized buildings are defined by a low building to land -value ratio. The code should be revised to state "building value to land ratio of two -to -one or less," or land value to building value ratio of two -to -one or more." Add minimum density in units per acre to multifamily and mixed -use zones. State law requires that 12-year and 20-year MFTE programs which contain affordable rental or homeownership units be located in areas zoned for a minimum average density of 15 units per acre in cities with populations under 20,000. Port Orchard does not currently define minimum unit densities in its code, although the allowed zoning in MFTE areas likely meets this threshold based on allowed height, setbacks, FAR, etc. However, to better comply with state law, considering quantifying minimum densities in the zoning code for mixed -use and multifamily zones. See Section 2.3.3 for considerations. Consider changes to the method of income calculations for affordable units and conduct an audit of the program. Port Orchard's program is unusual in that it uses HUD fair market rent to calculate rents for subsidized units. Although the system seems to be working and is allowed under state law, it may be more complex for developers or property managers who are accustomed to methods used in most other cities where MFTE programs are tied to the HUD median family income. If the City wishes to ensure a deeper level of affordability compared to the MFI, the program could be calibrated to a lower level (such as 60 percent rather than 80 es A comprehensive list of 2021 legislative changes to the MFTE program can be found here: https://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkf05.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 64 percent MFI). Regardless of the method used, the city should audit the MFTE program annually to ensure that the cumulative benefit to income -restricted residents is greater than the foregone revenue from the tax exemption. This audit should be conducted by the Community Development or Finance department and should result in an annual report presented to city council. Additionally, consider partnering with Housing Kitsap for MFTE administration and to reduce city staff's workload when verifying incomes of subsidized unit residents, since housing authorities have infrastructure and skills in place to conduct such income verifications. Consider removing transit proximity for affordable units. Port Orchard's Type 1 program currently requires projects to be within 'h mile of a transit stop or ferry terminal. Although this provides benefits to lower -income residents who do not own vehicles, the quality and availability of transit service in Port Orchard is low and is a recent study by WSDOT indicates that transit in the city is not at the level or frequency which encourages residents to own fewer vehicles." It is also not clear that transit proximity has any practical effect, since the maps for the Type 1 and Type 3 programs are nearly identical. Removing this requirement could expand eligible projects and the distribution of affordable units across the city. Consider a height bonus for MFTE developments. Currently Port Orchard allows a height bonus for Type 3 MFTE developments through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Such programs are rarely used. Numerous cities in Washington, including Port Angeles and Kirkland, allow height bonuses in exchange for the provision of affordable units in their MFTE programs. Consider adding such a bonus to the MFTE to improve development feasibility. Such a program could have separate height bonus allowances based on zoning and MFTE program type. See Strategy 2.3.2 for more details. Streamline requirements for Type 3 program. The Type 3 program currently has somewhat stringent requirements to create denser, urban -style buildings through various criteria. Although the intention to stimulate higher density development in centers is an important component of the program, recent projects suggest that the share of structured parking, density, and commercial square footage required may be disincentivizing use. Each of the three requirements could be streamlined to increase viability of participating in the program: The requirement for 50 percent structured parking combined with 50 units per acre of density may be redundant since the only way to achieve higher densities is by putting parking into structures. Eliminating the structured parking requirement but retaining a relatively high -density requirement (40-50 units per acre) would effectively require that the project either include structured parking or that surface parking ratios are relatively low. Reducing the requirement for 40 percent of all building footprints to contain commercial use or replacing this requirement with a required minimum percentage of the frontage being commercial would be appropriate given the exiting amount of 66 "Frequent Transit Service Study." Washington State Department of Transportation. https://enciacie.wsdot.wa.gov/frequent-transit-service-studV Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 65 commercial zoning in Port Orchard. The design requirements in the MFTE ordinance may also be superfluous given the existing block frontage standards in POMC 20.127. • Finally, an overall height bonus for MFTE developments as discussed above may be more effective than the TDR height bonus option currently in the Type 3 program. Reduce minimum number of units required for participation. Port Orchard's program currently requires a minimum of 10 units in a project to qualify for the MFTE program. State law only requires a minimum of four units. Updating the Port Orchard program to require a minimum of four units would bring the program in line with statewide standards as well as potentially providing added feasibility for smaller "missing middle" housing types. Consider adding a requirement for affordable units to be distributed within a development/building. This promotes principles of mixed -income communities and avoids real or perceived concentrations of pover Consider adding a 20-year MFTE program. Since 2021, cities under 20,000 residents such as Port Orchard can add a 20-year ownership MFTE program under RCW 84.14.021(1)(b) where at least 25 percent of units must be sold to a qualified nonprofit or local government partner that will ensure permanent affordable homeownership. Providing affordable homeownership opportunities to low- and moderate -income households can help build wealth for households which otherwise could not afford to own a home. Allow a 12-year extension for Type 1 participating property owners. Since 2021, cities are allowed to grant a 12-year extension to existing MFTE programs within 18 months of expiration. Multifamily housing approved for a 12-year extension must maintain 20% of units as affordable for low-income households (during the extension period moderate -income households are no longer included in the affordable unit counts). Tenant notice and relocation assistance are required in the 10t" and 11t" years of projects receiving a 12-year extension (see more detail below). Port Orchard should consider adding this provision to its MFTE program to ensure continued affordability of units created through this program. Require relocation assistance for low-income tenants whose rent subsidy is expiring. The 2021 changes to the MFTE program which allow the 12-year extension described above also require that landlords provide notice in the 10t" and 11t" years of the program that it will expire in the 1211 year and provide one month's rent as relocation assistance to qualified tenants in their final month of tenancy. Best practices in line with the anti -displacement strategies in Strategy 3.1 would also extend these tenant protections to any Type 1 property, regardless of whether it is an extension or not. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 66 5.2 - Development Fee Adjustments Action: Consider adjusting development fees for 2-4 unit buildings and some fee discounts for affordable housing while continuing to offer sewer and water exemptions for small ADUs. Some adjustments may be needed to impact fee structure to comply with 2023 state legislative changes. Port Orchard, like many municipalities, levies impact and development fees on new construction to fund improvements in infrastructure for schools, parks, and other services, as well as hookup and general facilities charges for water and sewer connections to new developments. Stakeholders interviewed by the HAP project team in 2022 indicated that Port Orchard's fees are considered to be high, particularly in relation to Kitsap County's fees and other nearby jurisdictions. A full breakdown of Port Orchard's impact fees can be found in the appendices of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. Water and sewer hookup fees and general facilities charges are difficult to compare due to different structures across municipalities, but Port Orchard's fees seem to be at the higher end of the Kitsap region, at $11,571 per water hookup and $12,788 per sewer hookup per ERU (defined in the code as one single-family dwelling unit of any type, attached or detached). By comparison, Bremerton charges $4,245 for water hookups and Poulsbo charges $5,065 for water hookups and $11,211 for sewer hookups per ERU. Port Orchard does prorate its impact fees by unit type. This is a best practice in encouraging a diversity of housing types and sizes. However, the margins of discount for 2-4 unit buildings could be increased to incentivize more "middle housing" development. Senate Bill 5258, adopted in 2023 and codified in RCW 82.02.060, now requires that impact fees for residential development have proportionally lower fees for smaller housing units. The method of calculating the proportional impact fees must be "based on the square footage, number of bedrooms, or trips generated" by the new housing unit. The new legislation takes the best practice of prorating impact fees by housing unit type and size, and makes it a requirement across the State. Port Orchard will need to study its impact fee structure and potentially make adjustments or demonstrate that the existing fees comply with this new legislation. In addition, some cities reduce impact fees for affordable housing units and are allowed to reduce such fees by up to 80% under RCW 82.02.060. Port Orchard could consider some reductions for affordable housing units to incentivize more development of subsidized units. House Bill 1326, passed in 2023, now also authorizes waivers for utility connection charges for nonprofits and housing authorities building affordable housing. Finally, Port Orchard currently exempts small ADUs from sewer and water hookup fees as discussed in Section 5.4, another best practice in encouraging infill housing. Any reduction in impact or hookup fees or GFCs would need to be rebalanced elsewhere for market -rate development. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 67 5.3 - Local Bank Funding Action: Encourage local banks to create a fund for affordable housing finance Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), banks are required to meet the credit needs of low- and moderate -income households in communities in which they operate. Many banks meet their CRA requirements by investing in Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), providing capital to nonprofit affordable housing providers who use the capital to build regulated affordable housing, usually for households earning under 60-80 percent of the AMI. Outside of LIHTC, some banks are also working with cities across the country to fund other types of affordable housing, including "workforce" housing for households earning between 80 and 120 percent AMI, through non -tax credit programs. 67 For example, the Charlotte Housing Opportunity Fund combines city bond money with private investment from banks to provide gap funding for affordable housing projects. The fund has doubled the city's affordable housing finance pool since 2019, creating or preserving 1,047 housing units in the city.68 The Washington Housing Initiative Impact Pool is a similar nonprofit -run fund which targets housing for low- and moderate -income African American residents of Washington D.C.69 Port Orchard could consider working with local banks to create a such housing fund which could be used for gap financing of affordable housing projects and which would encourage local banks to invest in the Port Orchard community. Outreach to and coordination with the local lending community could be part of the work of the housing coordinator position described in section 3.3. 5.4 - Tax Increment Financing Action: Explore the potential to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for identified sites and projects in the Downtown and Waterfront areas. In 2021, Washington State granted new powers of tax increment financing (TIF) to the state's cities, counties, and port districts.70 This funding mechanism allows municipalities to establish a geographic district (called the increment area) that is expected to benefit the most from a proposed new infrastructure investment. Typically, bonds are issued at the outset and the additional tax revenue resulting from the increased land and property values are then captured to pay for the new infrastructure and pay off the bonds. TIF is widely used in other states across the country, but Washington's new program has some specific guidelines which differ from other states. In Washington, the state school levy and some other local taxes used to repay general obligation bonds are exempt. Additionally, TIF financing can only be used for specific authorized public improvements which are expected to 67 Mattson-Teig, Beth. "Banks Focus CRA Dollars on Affordable Housing." Wealth Management.com, Jan 2, 2020. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/finance-lending/banks-focus-cra-dollars-affordable-housing 68 "Charlotte Housing Opportunity Investment Fund creates affordablew housing and model for the future." LISC Strategic Investments, June 14, 2022. https://www.liscstrategicinvestments.ora/post/choif-three-year-impact-report 69 "Washington Housing Initiative Impact Pool: 2021 Impact Report." JBG Smith. hitps://www.washingtonhousinginitiative.com/-files/ugd/36926a-1 82d6b3b6e814466a17bf33ec1616407. pdf 70 "Tax Increment Financing (TIF)". Municipal Research Service Center. https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore- Topics/Economic-Development/Financing-Economic-Development/Tax-Increment-Financi ng.aspxx Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 68 encourage private development and increased assessed valuation which would not otherwise happen without the improvements. These improvements may be located inside or outside the increment area and include streets, water and sewer systems, sidewalks, streetlights, parking facilities, parks and recreational areas, broadband service, or brownfield mitigation. TIF can also be used to pay for long-term affordable housing, childcare service, providing maintenance and security for public improvements, and acquiring property for historic preservation. Unlike in other states, TIF funding in Washington can only be used for the specified projects or improvements set forth in the initial application, and project lists cannot be modified later. Thus, TIF is only applicable to existing and well-defined projects with specific infrastructure needs. The TIF district must have a maximum sunset date of 25 years and not have an assessed valuation greater than $20 million, and each city may not have more than two districts.71 Explore the possibility of using TIF in Downtown to continue to catalyze redevelopment projects, street or active transportation investments. TIF could support infrastructure or utility investments to support denser mixed -use developments such as the proposed development at 640 Bay Street72 could help support increasing housing supply downtown. TIF funds could also be used for identified projects in the Downtown Subarea Plan such as a concept plan to "break down the scale of existing large scale sites to provide a more walkable land -use pattern", or for streetscape and pedestrian improvements to enhance livability of potential waterfront or downtown redevelopment sites, particularly if or when such sites have development proposals. 73 TIF funding could also be considered for the Bethel/Sedgewick Corridor, which was the subject of a corridor study in 2018 recommending changes to the road design which could be financed through this funding mechanism. 71 "Washington State's Expanded TIF Authority Creates Powerful Catalyst for Public -Private Partnerships." Denis Wright Tremaine. May 2022. https://www.dwt.com/insights/2021/05/washington-state-tax-increment-financing- law 72 Detailed in the "Project Spotlights: Downtown Mixed Use" section of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. 73 City of Port Orchard. "Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan." https://storage.000aleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2021 /07/FINAL-ADOPTED-Downtown-Subarea- Plan-and-Regs-reduced.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 69 5.5 - Funding for ADU Development Action: Explore the possibility of partially financing or streamlining ADU development and permitting processes, particularly for lower -income homeowners. Cities across the U.S. have adopted a variety of programs designed to reduce the cost of ADU development for homeowners, including minimizing design review, waiving permit or utility fees, providing technical assistance, and providing sources of financing.74 Port Orchard currently allows ADUs of less than 1,000 square feet to be served by the same water and sewer connections as the primary residence, a significant savings.75 In addition, Port Orchard amended its ADU standards with Ordinance 038-22 in October 2022 which removes owner occupancy and parking requirements for ADUs, two of the most common barriers to ADU construction and feasibility. Numerous municipalities including Boston, Los Angeles, Montpelier, VT, and Santa Cruz County, CA have established programs which incorporate equity and loan assistance as well as technical assistance and simplified permitting processes.76 Funding sources for these programs include Community Development Block Grants, cities, philanthropists, and partnerships with nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity. Many of these programs are targeted at lower -income renters, requiring either that the ADU be made available to households earning 80% AMI or lower, or to households using Housing Choice (Section 8) Vouchers. Onerous income reporting requirements can be a disincentive. In some cases, these programs have been targeted at lower -income homeowners as well, such as the Small Homes Northwest community ADU demonstration project implemented by Hacienda CDC in Portland and funded by the Oregon legislature, which helps income eligible homeowners develop ADUs in neighborhoods at risk of gentrification. 74 Chapple, Karen, Wegmann, Jake, Mashood Farzad, and Coleman, Rebecca. "Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units." Urban land Institute. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp- content/uploads/pdfs/Jumpstarting_the_Market_--_U Ll.pdf 75 Port Orchard Municipal Code 13.04.030(1)(e)(i),13.04.040(1)(e)(i) 76 ADU Aid Programs Across the U.S." Villa. https://viIIahomes.com/blog/adu-aid-programs/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —June 2023 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 70 5.6 - State Advocacy Action: Advocate for additional state investment in the Housing Trust Fund, condominium law reform, and Growth Management Act updates. Surveying done for this HAP found strong community support for "City advocacy for more county, state, or federal funding for affordable housing projects." Primarily, this should involve lobbying the Legislature for more funds in the state's Housing Trust Fund, which provides capital funding." The trust has helped build or preserve more than 50,000 affordable housing units statewide since 1986. The Legislature appropriates funding to the trust every biennium. More money in the trust would help smaller communities like Port Orchard (and the affordable housing providers who work in Port Orchard) have a greater chance of receiving funding. Port Orchard could also update its legislative agenda with condominium legislation reform. Condos are a highly in -demand type of ownership housing, especially for first-time homebuyers and seniors seeking to downgrade, but they are rarely built in Washington State due to the liabilities placed on developers under state law .71, 79 The main barriers are a requirement for a 10-year warranty against construction defects and additional building code and inspection requirements that do not apply to rental apartments. The City may comment on reform to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which can add significant delay and complications to approval of residential development. Advocacy might involve exempting all residential development from SEPA review if the development intensity is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City may comment on updates to state law that affect land use, housing, zoning, and transportation (as noted in Section 1.6). The City should provide input on proposals that affect the implementation of the Housing Action Plan, either independently or through its involvement in statewide organizations like the Association of Washington Cities. Continued coordination and involvement with regional partners (such as Kitsap County) and the federal government is also recommended to promote and fund affordable housing. 77 "Housing Trust Fund." Washington State Department of Commerce. hUps://www.commerce.wa.aov/building- infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-fund/ 78 "Washington state's condo law changes could ease restrictions." Spokane Journal of Business, November 2021. https://www.spokane*ournal.com/special-report/washington-states-condo-law-changes-could-ease-restrictions/ 79 "As Gen X and Boomers Age, They Confront Living Alone." The New York Times. November 2022. https://www.n)aimes.com/2022/11/27/us/living-alone-aaina.html Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 71 6 - Implementation The planning matrix below organizes the actions of this Housing Action Plan. The City Council and Mayor will be involved in most or all action implementation through ordinances, resolutions, budgeting, and partnerships with other agencies. This matrix should be used as a framework for regular progress reports on implementation and could be a live document on the City website. DepartmentLead # Description Priority .. Regulatory Strategies 2.1 Expand the allowed High Planning 0-6 $ Development uses Services months regulation ordinances 2.2 Streamline the building Medium Planning 0-6 $ Development type standards Services months regulation ordinances 2.3 Adjust form and High Planning 0-6 $ Development intensity standards Services months regulation ordinances 2.4 Adjust other standards Medium Planning 0-6 $ Development Services months regulation ordinances Programmatic Strategies 3.1 Anti -displacement Medium City Council Ongoing $$ Tenant Protection strategies Ordinance and future amendments as needed Other strategies: Further study, City budget, and future ordinances 3.2 Homelessness High City Council Ongoing $$ Intermediate actions strategies Other actions: Further study and City Budget 3.3 Hire a housing Medium City Council 0-6 $$ City Budget coordinator months Citywide Planning Strategies 4.1 Housing Element Medium Planning 12-24 $$ Comprehensive Plan updates Services months annual amendment and major periodic update 4.2 Land Use Element High Planning 12-24 $$ Comprehensive Plan updates Services months annual amendment and major periodic update 4.3 Public land for Low City Council Ongoing $$$ Partnerships, City affordable housing (with Planning budget, policy in Services) resolution or Comprehensive Plan, Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 72 Lead Description Priority•. . •• and future ordinances 4.4 McCormick East Medium Planning 12-24 $$ Comprehensive Plan Future Neighborhood Services months major periodic Planning update Funding Strategies 5.1 Adjust the multifamily High Planning 0-6 $ MFTE ordinances tax exemption Services (with months program City Treasurer and City Council) 5.2 Development fee Low Planning 0-6 $ Fee schedule adjustments Services months updates 5.3 Local bank funding Low City Council Ongoing $ Partnerships (with Planning Services) 5.4 Tax increment Medium Planning 6-12 $ Further study and financing Services (with months future ordinance City Treasurer) 5.5 Funding for ADU Medium Planning 6-12 $$ City Budget development Services (with months City Treasurer) 5.6 State advocacy Low City Council Ongoing $ Legislative agenda and engagement with American Planning Association WA and Association of Washington Cities Figure 24. Implementation matrix 6.1 — High Priority Implementation Given the limited resources of government, it is important to set priorities. The following items are high priority for implementation within the next 12 months. • Adjust the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program • Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing element updates • Development regulation updates 6.2 — Monitoring The only way to know if housing actions are successful is to measure and report on outcomes. By developing a monitoring program, Port Orchard can track progress toward achieving housing goals and identify where more work or changes are needed. Interviews with housing developers one year after HAP adoption (or at other regular intervals) can also be helpful to get feedback on what HAP actions are working well and where there may still be barriers. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 1 DRAFT -MAY 24, 2023 Page 73 Monitoring will be a key role of the new Housing Coordinator staff position. Even so, integrating monitoring into existing work and activities could help preserve limited staff time. Monitoring the HAP implementation could be merged into: • DCD's annual or monthly reports to the City Council • Monitoring of population growth and development permits • Comprehensive plan monitoring • Buildable lands reports Potential performance metrics based on the HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report are listed below. - Objective Greater housing diversity Number of duplex, triplex, fourplex, ADUs, 10-20% of new housing units are in with a greater variety of and small apartment units permitted projects with 2-20 units housing types accessible Number of mixed -use and urban style One development every two years to a greater variety of apartment with structured parking incomes, for both rental permitted and homeownership opportunities Slow down and stabilize Home price increases Annual median home price increases the rise in housing prices are lower than regional, state, or national increases Rental price increases Annual median rental price increases are lower than regional, state, or national increases Vacancy rate Rental unit vacancy rates reach 6-8% Refine regulatory Overall housing production Average annual production rate within standards to reduce ± 20% of that needed to meet the barriers to housing Comprehensive Plan 20-year target development Housing diversity 10-20% of new housing units are in projects with 2-20 units Adopt new financial tools Affordable housing production for cost- Average annual production rate within to support and promote burdened low-income households (80% ± 20% of that needed to meet the development of affordable AMI and below) Comprehensive Plan income -based 20- housing year targets MFTE program participation 25-50 new affordable units per year added from MFTE projects Figure 25. Monitoring matrix DRAFT - APRIL 25, 2023 Appendix A Downtown Height Limit Considerations There is a long history of protecting views in the Downtown area. However, Downtown is also one of the most favorable locations for affordable mixed -use and infill housing due to its transit connections and walkability. This creates a conflict between the objectives of view protection and Comprehensive Plan goals for expanded housing affordability and choice. The compromise currently in place is the Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD), which provides greater height limits than the underlying Downtown zoning (Downtown Mixed Use and Gateway Mixed Use). The DHOD is divided into three sub -zones, and there were slightly modified with adoption of the 2021 Downtown Subarea Plan.80 Zone Height Limits_ Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) 38 feet, three stories Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) 38 feet, three stories Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) DHOD 3: 48 feet, three stories DHOD 4: 58 feet, four stories DHOD 5: 68 feet, five stories Figure 26. Height limits in Downtown While Downtown would also be an ideal location for affordable (subsidized) housing under the MFTE program, no height limit changes or bonus incentive is proposed in Downtown zones to avoid conflict with the existing 10-feet bonus height available for a mixed -used development which includes a grocery store (PAC 20.38.640). Locating a grocery in Downtown has also been a longstanding objective; however, it is only likely to occur when the market demand for such a store is stimulated by a larger Downtown resident population, which can be enabled through more housing development. Further, the benefits of a height bonus would accrue to the developer, not the grocery tenant, which creates development risk of a grocer expecting a rent subsidy and the City not allowing any other tenants if the original grocer leaves. In any case, a grocery tenant is not likely to locate in Downtown until there is a strong enough market. These are additional tradeoffs to consider. The View Protection Overlay District (VPOD), which covers several blocks uphill from Bay Street, has current height limits of 15 and 27 feet. Uniquely, in the VPOD these height limits are measured from the uphill property line, so these relatively low limits could still allow relatively large multi -story buildings that are built into the hillside. Further modifications to the VPOD could consider that private view easements are an alternative mechanism for property owners to preserve views. 80 Downtown Subarea Plan, City of Port Orchard. https://portorchardwa.gov/downtown-subarea-plan/ Appendix B Existing Conditions Report & Housing Needs Analysis Port Orchard Housing Action Plan Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report April 14, 2023 Introduction The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) defines strategies and implementing actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. The process to develop the HAP included a review of Port Orchard's system of policies, programs, and regulations which shape opportunities for housing development. The purpose of this effort is to define strategies and actions that promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and access to opportunity for residents of all income levels. The HAP is intended to inform updates to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (most notably the Land Use and Housing elements) and to guide implementation strategies such as development regulations, housing programs, fee structures, and infrastructure spending priorities. Table of Contents Introduction Section 1 - Community Profile Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends Section 3 - Cost Trends .......................................... Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs ................ Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools Section 6 - Housing Policies .................................. 3 3 ......32 ......37 ......43 ......48 Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis.....................................................................................65 Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies M9 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 1 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 2 Abbreviations ACS. American Community Survey, an annual product of the U.S. Census Bureau. AMI. Area median income. BIPOC. Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color. CHAS. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a product of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. GIS. Geographic Information System. HAP. Housing Action Plan. HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. LEHD. Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, a product of the U.S. Census Bureau. MFI. Medium family income. MFTE. Multifamily tax exemption program. MHI. Medium household income. MSA. Metropolitan Statistical Area. POMC. Port Orchard Municipal Code (city law). OFM. Washington State Office of Financial Management. RCW. Revised Code of Washington (state law). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 3 Section 1- Community Profile The Community Profile discusses Port Orchard's current and future population and the age, race, and ethnicity of residents. It also discusses the size, income, and characteristics of the City's households, as well as households with specific needs and risks such as cost -burdened households, older adults, and adults with disabilities. These demographic and household characteristics provide background and context for the types of housing required to better serve all of Port Orchard's residents. Population and Demographics Historic and Future Population Port Orchard's population in 2020 was 15,587 according to the U.S. Census. The Washington Office of Financial Management Postcensal 2022 population estimate for the city is 16,400. Figure 1 shows the city's population trends since 1960, average annual growth rates by decade, and the latest Port Orchard 2044 population target of 26,087 residents as detailed in the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update. Port Orchard is a fast-growing community that has historically grown more rapidly than national and statewide averages. The city grew at an average annual rate of about 2.8 percent since 1960, but growth accelerated around 2000. Since 2000 the city has grown on average 4.0 percent annually, an increase of 9,442 residents. By comparison, Kitsap County grew at a rate of 0.9 percent per year over the same period and national population growth was 0.7 percent in the 2000-2020 period. The 2020 census and 2044 population target represent an expected annual growth rate of 2.2 percent per year, though recent trends have suggested higher growth rates closer to 3 percent indicating that Port Orchard may exceed its planning target. 30,000 25,000 20,000 c 0 15,000 Q 0 a 10,000 5,000 � Population Annual Growth Rate ■ 1960 1970 1980 6% 5% �a 2% c 1% 0% 1990 2000 2010 2020 2044 Figure 1. Port Orchard Population, Historic Through 2020 and Projected Through 2044 with Annual Growth Rates. Sources: WA OFM (Historic Population), Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policy Update 101412022 (Projections) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 4 The City of Port Orchard annexed a large amount of acreage between 2010 and 2012, which contributed to the comparatively rapid population growth in the 2010s. During this period, the City annexed 1,400 acres comprising 515 parcels. Together, the newly annexed areas make up 19.5% of Port Orchard's total acreage. Without granular population numbers at a parcel level, it is difficult to assess exactly how many new residents are represented by this area, but these annexations have certainly affected the rapid growth rates seen over the past 20 years. Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Language Figure 2 shows the racial and ethnic breakdown of the Port Orchard and Kitsap County populations. Port Orchard is about 67 percent White, compared with 76 percent in Kitsap County. The city has a higher share of Hispanic/Latino and mixed -race residents than the county and similar shares of Asian and Black/African-American residents. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County ■ Hispanic / Latino ■ Other / Two or More Races ■ Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander Asian American Indian / Alaska Native ■ Black / African American ■ White Figure 2. Racial and Ethnic Distribution in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 The Port Orchard population is somewhat younger than regional and statewide populations, as shown in Figure 3. Over half the population is under 35 years old, and 14 percent of residents are over 65, compared with 18 percent countywide. This younger population suggests a current need for smaller or more affordable housing units, and the potential for larger units as younger residents age and form households in coming decades. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 5 100% 90% 80% 11% 13% 14°i° 70% 11 % ■ 65 and older 12%12%60% 12% ■ 55 to 64 50% 12% 13% ■ 45 to 54 40% ° _ ■ 35 to 44 30% 220/, ■ 20 to 34 20°i° ■ 19 and younger 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington Figure 3. Age Distribution in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 The chart below shows the age distribution of Port Orchard residents by sex. Generally, there are more males in the 25 to 54 age group and more females in older age cohorts. 85 years and over 75 to 84 years 65 to 74 years 60 to 64 years 55 to 59 years 45 to 54 years 35 to 44 years 25 to 34 years 20 to 24 years 15 to 19 years 10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years ■ Male Female -1,400 -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Figure 4. Age Distribution by Sex in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey, Table SO101 Most Port Orchard residents are citizens born in the United States. About a third of Port Orchard's residents were born in the state of Washington. About half were born in another state (including U.S. territories). Almost five percent were born in Asia, with small numbers born in other regions of the world, as seen in Figure 5. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 6 Place of Birth USA (same state) Percent 37.0% Total 5,292 USA (other state) 52.3% 7,480 Europe 0.6% 79 Asia 4.8% 685 Africa 0.0% 0 Oceania 0.1 % 20 Latin America 1.3% 188 Northern America 0.4% 59 Figure 5. Port Orchard Residents Place of Birth, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table CP02 Most Port Orchard households speak English as a first language. Almost six percent, or 815 households, speak an Asian or Pacific Island language, and about two percent, or 272 households, speak Spanish at home. Census data on English language proficiency is not available at the geographic scale of Port Orchard, but across all of Kitsap County, about 29 percent of Spanish speakers and 39 percent of Asian or Pacific Island language speakers do not speak English "very well." Limited English proficiency can have implications for housing security if materials are not translated or there is confusion over contracts, expectations, or tenant rights. Language English 91.8% 13,130 Spanish 1.9% 272 Indo-European languages 0.6% 86 Asian/ Pacific Island languages 5.7% 815 Other languages 0.1 % 14 Figure 6. Language Spoken at Home, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601 Household Characteristics Household Size, Type, and Tenure The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as "all the people who occupy a housing unit." Households can be comprised of any combination of related family members, unrelated people, or individuals.' The 2020 American Community Survey estimated about 5,517 total households in Port Orchard, up from about 4,316 households in 2010—an increase of about 28 percent, or 2.5 percent per year. Figure 7 shows total households, occupied households, and the vacancy rate over the past decade. The vacancy rate compares the total number of occupied versus unoccupied units. This accounts for all "natural vacancies" due to units on the market being available for sale or rent, second homes and seasonal homes, vacation rentals, and any other type of unoccupied housing. See Section 2 for more information on market -based vacancy rates. 1 U.S. Census Bureau: Subject Definitions. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 7 The vacancy rate has fluctuated from seven percent in 2010 to as high as 14 percent in 2015 but has decreased to 5.6 percent in 2020.This decreasing vacancy rate suggests increased demand for housing in the city. Vacancy Rate Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units 7,000 16% 6,000 14% 5,000 12% m 10% o 4,000 8% 73 3,000 M 0 6% � 2,000 4 � °i° 1,000 2% 0 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Figure 7. Vacancy Rates and Housing Unit Occupancy, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25002 The following table shows household composition in Port Orchard and Kitsap County. Overall, the shares of family and non -family households are very similar to county averages, with nearly 70 percent of households classified as family households, about half of which are married couples. Twenty-two percent of Port Orchard residents live alone, and about half of those residents are over 65 years old. Household composition data can provide insight into the various types and sizes of housing to best meet the needs of the city's residents. Household TyPercent pe otal Households Port Orchard Total 5,517 100% Total 105,758 Percent 100% Family households 3,819 69% 71,415 68% Married -couple family 2,995 54% 56,388 53% Other family 824 15% 15,027 14% Nonfamily households 1,698 31 % 34.343 32% Householder living alone 1,214 22% 25,787 24% Householder 65 years and over 601 11 % 11,396 11 % Figure B. Household Composition in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501 Figure 9 shows tenure in Port Orchard. About 60 percent of households are homeowners and 40 percent are renters. This is broadly similar to statewide averages though a higher share of renter households than in Kitsap County, likely owing to the large number of apartments in Port Orchard compared to the rest of the county. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 8 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% ■ Renter -occupied 40% ■ Owner -occupied 30% .•' 20% 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington Figure 9. Tenure in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501 Renters can face increased housing instability due to evictions and rent increases not faced by homeowners. In addition, renters are more likely to be BIPOC and lower -income households, compounding the effects of these housing challenges. As shown below in Figure 10, about 86 percent of ownership households in Port Orchard have a householder who identifies as White, compared with 64 percent of renter households. Nationally, Black households had the highest renter rate in 2022 at 55 percent, and Hispanic households were at 51 percent, compared to 26 percent for white households.2 Additionally, as discussed below under "Income" and shown in Figure 14, renters in Port Orchard earn less than homeowners, with a median household income for renter households of $46,209 in 2020 compared to $97,504 for ownership households. Race of Householder One Race Ownership Households Renter Households White 89.4% 71.5% Black or African -American 2.2% 4.5% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.3% 0.0% Asian 3.0% 4.3% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.8% 8.8% Some Other Race 0.5% 3.2% Two or More Races 3.8% 7.8% Hispanic or Latino Origin 6.2% 12.9% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 86.4% 64.4% All Households 60.1 % 39.9% Figure 10. Tenure by Race in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2502 2 Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, "The State of the Nation's Housing 2022" Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 9 Figure 11 shows the breakdown of Port Orchard's households by tenure and household size. About 34 percent of households are two -person households, and 27 percent have four or more members. Renters make up a slightly larger share of smaller households, although 11 percent of four -or -more -person households are also renters. 4-or-more-person household 3-person household 2-person household 1-person household 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 ■ Ownership Households ■ Renter Households Figure 11. Port Orchard Tenure by Household Size, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501 The average household size in Port Orchard is 2.4 people per household3. There is a mismatch between housing size and household size in Port Orchard. Fifty-six percent of households are made up of one or two people, whereas only 37 percent of housing units are studio, one- or two -bedroom units, as shown below in Figure 11. Although smaller households may prefer to live in larger units, this type of mismatch can cause housing affordability issues if smaller households are forced to rent more expensive larger units due to supply constraints. 3 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 10 Household Size 3-person household 16°i° 2-person household 34% Housing Unit Size 3 bedrooms 41% Studio / 1 bedroom 10% bedrooms Figure 12. Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, DP04 When analyzed by tenure, there are more significant disparities in household size and housing unit size for homeowners, as shown below in Figure 12. Only 2 percent of ownership housing units are studio or one -bedroom units, whereas 53 percent of ownership households are one- or two -person households. The rental housing stock is more closely matched with renters' household sizes in the city. This shows that residents in smaller households seeking to purchase housing may face difficulties and higher costs due to lack of availability of small ownership units. Household Size ■ 1 person HH ■ 2 person HH 3 person HH ■ 4+ person HH 100% 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% � 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Owners Renters Housing Unit Size ■ 0-1 bedroom ■ 2-3 bedrooms ■ 4+ bedrooms Owners Renters Figure 13. Household Size and Housing Unit Size by Tenure in Port Orchard, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S2501, S2504 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 11 Income The median household income (MHI) in Port Orchard was $71,719 in 2020, $7,250 less than the Kitsap County MHI and $5,287 less than the statewide average. The Port Orchard MFI increasec 21 percent since 2010, when adjusted for inflation. This is significantly higher than the 12 percent increase in Kitsap County and 14 percent increase across Washington during the same timeframe, as shown in Figure 13. $97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020 $75,600 $78,969 $77,006 $71,719 $70,268 $67,548 $59,325 $44,074 $46,209 Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington (All Households) (Ownership Households)(Renter Households) Figure 14. Inflation -Adjusted Median Household Income in Port Orchard and Region, 2010-2020. Source: 2010-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, CPI Inflation Index Renters in Port Orchard earn considerably less than homeowners. In 2020, the MHI for ownership households was $97,524, compared to only $46,209 for renter households. In addition, renters in Port Orchard have seen only a five percent increase in incomes between 2010 and 2020, compared to a 29 percent increase in incomes of ownership households, when adjusted for inflation. Rental households' lower incomes and slower income growth compared with ownership households raises concerns over the ability of renters to keep up with rising housing costs or to move into homeownership, particularly given that wealthier ownership households may be able to pay more for housing. For the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the 2022 median family income (MFI) is $102,500 and the 2020 MFI was $91,700. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 12 When broken down across income levels, the largest share of Port Orchard households earn between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, as shown in Figure 14. Port Orchard has smaller shares of high -income earners making over $150,000 per year than Kitsap County, and a much larger share of the lowest -income households earning less than $10,000 per year than countywide averages. This shows a high level of need for subsidized affordable housing, discussed further in Section 2 under "Affordable Housing." 20% 18% 16% ■Port Orchard 14% OKitsap County 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% O O O C) C) CD Ln CD Ln O N ODCD b4 Y M CD b4 b4 to b4 (V O b4 tH b4 11 4 O V IN O O O O O O Y N M Ln QO ul O Ln O b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 I� O N l2 b4 to b4 b4 Figure 15. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table 819001 Figure 16 below is from HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data' for 2019 and shows a breakdown of Port Orchard's households by income level and tenure. Almost half of Port Orchard residents (46 percent) earn less than 80 percent of the AMI, a common threshold for subsidized housing eligibility. About 69 percent of renter -occupied households earn less than 80 percent AMI, while 30 percent of owner - occupied households earn less than 80 percent AMI. Additionally, over a quarter (28 percent) of renters earn under 30 percent of the AMI, or $27,500 for a family of four, demonstrating the need for more subsidized affordable housing in Port Orchard, which is typically the only type of housing that can meet these deep affordability levels. Stakeholders described over 1,000 people are on the waiting list for housing vouchers at the Kitsap Housing Authority, which manages vouchers in both Bremerton and Port Orchard. 4 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, a HUD dataset based on calculations from the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates that provides a series of tables demonstrating housing problems and needs. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 13 100%+AMI 80-100% AM I 50-80% AMI 30-50% AMI ■ Owner ■ Renter < 30% AMI 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Figure 16. Port Orchard Households by Income Level and Tenure. Source: 2015-2019 HUD CHAS data Vehicle Ownership Figure 16 shows number of vehicles available to Port Orchard households by the tenure of unit. Owner -occupied units are more likely to have two or three vehicles, while renter -occupied units are more likely to have one to two vehicles. Also of note,14 percent of renter households have no access to a vehicle. These vehicle ownership ratios are similar to statewide averages, although ownership households are slightly more likely to have two vehicles in Port Orchard than statewide. 60% ■ Owner ■ Renter 50% � 40% 30% � 20% 10% 0% � No vehicle 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 or more vehicles available available available available available Figure 17. Vehicle Ownership by Tenure of Unit, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25044 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 14 Employment Trends Understanding workforce and employment trends is essential for housing planning. A growing, shrinking, or shifting economy can affect residents' ability to afford housing and limit or expand their housing choices. Strong economies in nearby communities can also affect commuting and residential patterns. Figure 18 shows changes in Port Orchard's top employment sectors from 2009 to 2019, the year of the most recent Census employment data. Retail jobs have increased significantly, and health care and food service jobs have also seen growth since the 2008 recession. The large number of public administration jobs reflect county offices within Port Orchard, the county seat. 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 f� 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 & 00 RR 00 OHO 01 00 O°' .�O NN ,�`L Nrb NIX '�h NO NA NO Nq �O �O �O If, If, If, �O rf, rO If, If, I_fI rf, rf, 1O If, If, rf, Retail Trade Public Administration Health Care / Social Assistance Accommodation / Food Construction Professional Services Figure 18. Job Trends by Top Sectors in Port Orchard, 2009-2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND) via Census OnTheMap Figure 19 shows the top job sectors in the city and the top job sectors worked by Port Orchard residents. Many of the employees in the top sectors, particularly retail and public administration, are not Port Orchard residents. On the other hand, there are larger shares of residents who work in professional services, education, and manufacturing than jobs in the city. This reflects a variety of scenarios, including technology/knowledge workers employed in Seattle, regional educators at schools in nearby cities, and industrial employees in surrounding areas, potentially connected to the Naval shipyard in Bremerton. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 15 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 lilliddom 0 mijoi aae `°� aye &``A `°" G°5 `°" Goe ��` ae - o� "J a�G'oK Q GPaca 1 o°a\ G �y\oa Pam or \�� r°tee a Ge\ lac QJ•Q\` � ■ Jobs in Port Orchard ■ Jobs Worked by Port Orchard Residents Figure 19. Top Job Sectors in Port Orchard and Jobs Worked by Port Orchard Residents, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) via Census OnTheMap The map below shows commuting patterns of Port Orchard workers as of 2019, the year of the most recent Census commuter data. About 585 workers, or 11.7 percent of Port Orchard employees, both lived and worked in the city. 6,540 workers lived outside of the city and commute in for work, and 4,396 workers lived in the city but commuted to work elsewhere. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 16 Employed and Live in Selection Area Employed in Selection Area, Live Outside Live in Selection Area, Employed Outside -. Bremerton Navy Yard City 304 T Parkwood Port Orchard Soreast �ea9Wij Figure 20. Port Orchard Commuting Inflow and Outflow, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD (Longitudial Employer -Household Dynamics) via Census OnTheMap tool. As shown below in Figure 21, a similar amount of Port Orchard residents were working in Seattle, Port Orchard, and Bremerton in 2019. Smaller shares of residents were working in other nearby locales, including unincorporated East Port Orchard. This data is not yet available for more recent years but monitoring these commuting trends will be important due to the changes in workplace dynamics and remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. Work Location Seattle city, WA Percent 12.3% Port Orchard city, WA 11.7% Bremerton city, WA 10.8% Silverdale CDP, WA 5.0% East Port Orchard CDP, WA 4.7% Tacoma city, WA 4.3% Gig Harbor city, WA 4.0% Bellevue city, WA 2.2% Kent city, WA 1.7% Poulsbo city, WA 1.5% All Other Locations 41.6% Figure 21. Port Orchard Commuting Locations, 2019. Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD (Longitudial Employer -Household Dynamics) via Census OnTheMap tool. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 17 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton is part of Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), a large military installation across multiple sites in Kitsap County. The military is a significant contributor to the economy of the region. As of 2017, NBK contributed $4 billion to the regional economy, including $1.1 billion in payroll, $792 million in operations and contracts, $14 million in visitor spending, and $2.1 billion in direct military and civilian payroll to residents residing in Kitsap, Jefferson, and Mason counties The installation as a whole has 45,532 employees, including 31,585 military and civilian personnel residing in the same counties.s Average salaries of enlisted personnel were $33,400, plus an annual housing allowance of $12,000 - $25,000, and average salaries of civilian employees were $74,000 as of 2014.E Data provided by the Navy for all civilian employees across Kitsap County shows a total workforce of 19,184, an average age of 42, and a median income of $84,181. Nearly half of civilian employees have an educational attainment of high school level or below, and about 30 percent have a Bachelors' degree or higher. Note that this data does not include military personnel or contractors, whose numbers fluctuate significantly. This fluctuating employment base can reflect the need for short- or medium -term housing heard during stakeholder interviews for this planning process. However, this data does provide a picture of the average civilian employee of the larger Naval Base Kitsap operation. This data demonstrates the overall importance of the military to the economy of the Kitsap Peninsula. Port Orchard's proximity to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard results in housing demand in the city from shipyard employees. Detailed demographics of shipyard employees were not available for this study, but interviews with stakeholders, city council, and community members in Port Orchard suggest that Navy employees contribute significantly to housing demand in the city, particularly for smaller units and shorter -term housing options due to the nature of military operations. The Kitsap Economic Development Alliance notes that the shipyard is anticipated to see significant investment through the Navy's 21-year, $20 billion Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP), suggesting continued economic and housing impacts in the region.' 5 Naval Base Kitsap. "Naval Base Kitsap Operations and Economic Contributions." http://www2.economicgateway.com/media/userfiles/subsite_197/files/nbk-economic-impact-factsheets.pdf 6 Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Magazine Indian Island Joint Land Use Study, September 2015. http://compplan.kitsapaov.com/Documents/KIIJLUS_Full.pdf. Note that More recent wage and Bremerton -specific employee data from the Navy was not available as of February 2023. 7 Kitsap Economic Development Alliance. "Kitsap is a Leader in the States and Nation's Defense Industry." htips://www.kitsapeda.org/key-industries/defense Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 18 Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends This section discusses the type and age of Port Orchard's existing housing stock and current and future housing production. It also identifies special housing types in Port Orchard such as subsidized affordable units and senior housing. An inventory of existing housing creates a baseline for future housing planning and identifies market trends. Total Housing Units Port Orchard's 5,577 housing units account for approximately five percent of Kitsap County's housing units. The breakdown of unit types is shown below in Figure 22. Sixty-three percent of units are single-family detached units, somewhat less than the county. Port Orchard has a noticeably higher share of buildings with 5-19 units than the county, and an overall higher share of multifamily units. 100°i° 3% 5% 90% 6% 80% 7% 5% 70% 3% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Port Orchard 3% Kitsap County Mobile home ■ 20 or more units ■ 10 to 19 units ■ 5 to 9 units ■ 3 or 4 units ■ 2 units ■ 1-unit, attached ■ 1-unit, detached Figure 22. Housing Unit Type in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 19 Housing Age and Production Figure 23 shows the age of housing stock in Port Orchard as of 2020. The city has a considerably younger housing stock than Kitsap County overall, with 57 percent of housing built since 1990, compared with 40 percent countywide. However, Port Orchard also contains a slightly larger share of older buildings constructed before 1950 than the county, at 23 percent. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 12% 5% 7% Port Orchard 5% 14% 18% 7% 4% Kitsap County ■ 2010 or later ■ 2000-2009 ■ 1990-1999 ■ 1980-1989 ■ 1970-1979 ■ 1960-1969 ■ 1950-1959 ■ 1940-1949 ■ 1939 or earlier Figure 23. Age of Housing in Port Orchard and Kitsap County, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. Building permit issuance data shown below in Figure 20 corroberates this data on housing age. A significant number of multifamily housing permits were issued in the 1990s, and multifamily permitting has accelerated in the past decade, as have single-family housing permits. This data shows issued permits, not completions, so much of the housing shown in the past several years has not yet been occupied but is in the pipeline. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 20 600 500 Single -Family Duplex Triplex / 4-Plex ■ 5+ Unit Multifamily 400 300 200 ' 100 ' 0 1§0 %101 O O1` � 00 00 Oc0 l, C51X 0 qOff' O 00 O� � Figure 24. Port Orchard Building Permits Issued by Unit Type, 1980-2022 (to date). Source: HUD State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) Figure 25 shows expected dates when certificates of occupancy will be granted for permitted housing in the pipeline. In total, 5,198 units are permitted and expected to be completed in Port Orchard in the coming years, and 2,482 of those units are planned to be completed between 2022 and 2024, of which 45 percent will be multifamily units. This high rate of housing production will nearly double the city's housing inventory within the next several years. 3000 2500 2000 ■Mixed -Use Development 1500 ■ 5+ Unit Apartment 4-Plex 1000 Townhouse Single Family & Townhouse 500 Single Family 0 2022 2023 2024 Permitting Initiated, Timeline Uncertain Figure 25. Number of Units Permitted with Certificates of Occupancy Expected 2022 and Later by Unit Type. Source: City of Port Orchard. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 21 Interviews with developers and stakeholders conducted by the project team in summer 2022 confirmed a large amount of single-family and apartment construction both underway and planned. In particular, the McCormick Woods development, a large master planned community in the western part of the city, has been in development since the 1980s and will significantly increase the city's housing stock, as well as representing a portion of the newly annexed land previously discussed. City permitting data indicates 2,729 units at McCormick Woods either permitted or currently in the permitting process. The multifamily developments built in Port Orchard to date have been walk-up apartments. Some developers indicated that there may be a market for denser podium -style development in the 10-20 year time horizon, and at least one such project has recently been proposed (see the project spotlights later in this section). Vacancy Rates Port Orchard's vacancy rates for rental and ownership properties are shown in Figure 26. In 2020, the Census -reported rental vacancy rate was 5.8 percent and the ownership vacancy rate was 1.4 percent. Both vacancy rates have decreased over the past decade as shown below, and the 5.8 percent rental vacancy rate reflects the large amount of rental apartment construction which has taken place in Port Orchard in recent years. Note that this vacancy rate is based only on dwelling units that are available on the market for sale or rent. It is different from the total number of unoccupied units discussed in Section 1. 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ownership Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate Figure 26. Vacancy Rates in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04 In contrast with the relatively high census -reported rental vacancy rates shown above, CoStar, a commercial real estate database, estimates vacancy rates for multifamily apartments in Port orchard at about 3.5 percent as of mid-2022, as shown below in Figure 27, which shows the stabilized (accounting for new development coming onto the market) vacancy rates in the city over the past decade. This lower vacancy rate reported by the real estate industry may be more representative of the strong demand for apartments in the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 22 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 27. Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate in Port Orchard, 2012-2022. Source: Costar Vacation Housing Census data shows there are zero seasonal and recreational housing units in Port Orchard. Short -Term Rentals Short-term rentals, also known as vacation rentals, are considered stays of 30 days or less in a residential dwelling. Looking at listings on Airbnb, VRBO, and Vacasa for the December to January 2022/2023 holiday season, there are 15 short-term rentals in Port Orchard. Most of the short-term rentals are in the downtown area, with proximity to the water and Bay Street. Rentals range from a private room up to five bedrooms. The average cost per night for a private room or one bedroom is $114, $194 per night for two- and three -bedroom listings, and $292 per night for four- and five -bedroom listings. City staff report that many short-term rentals are not paying the required lodging tax. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 23 Affordable Housing Affordable housing is housing reserved for people earning below a certain income and who cannot afford market -rate costs (other interrelated terms include low-income housing, subsidized housing, public housing, or rent -restricted housing). Affordable housing properties may be reserved for people meeting other criteria such as families with children, seniors, people with physical or intellectual disabilities, or people with substance abuse disorders. Affordable housing is important to support community members who face barriers in the private housing market, especially those who are on the edge of or transitioning out of homelessness. This type housing is subsidized and mostly operated by government or non- profit organizations. The main affordable housing provider in Port Orchard is Housing Kitsap, a government agency that provides housing assistance for families who need affordable alternatives to the private market. Housing Kitsap operates countywide. In and near Port Orchard, Housing Kitsap's portfolio includes 375 units across six properties and 109 "Section 8" vouchers (which pays rents for voucher recipients). In addition, Housing Kitsap has a Mutual Self -Help Housing program where homeowners put in sweat equity to build their home and purchase it at an affordable price point. Housing Kitsap also has a Home Rehabilitation Program that assists with home repairs. According to Housing Kitsap staff, approximately 500 homes in Port Orchard have benefited from the two programs since the 1970's. Under Port Orchard's multifamily tax exemption program, 20 privately -owned units are being rented at affordable rates. See more information under Section 5. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 24 Property Housing Kitsap Rental Housing Heritage Apartments R3 56 Multifamily Section 8; families or people with disabilities Orchard Bluff R2 89 Mobile Home Park Low income & head of household 55 or older Port Orchard Vista R4 42 Multifamily (senior) Low income & 62 or older Conifer Woods Apartments (outside city limits) UGA 72 Multifamily Low income Viewmont East Apartments (outside city limits) UGA 76 Multifamily Section 8; families or people with disabilities Madrona Manor (outside city limits) UGA 40 Multifamily (senior) Low income & head of household 55 or older Housing Kitsap Homeownership Mutual Self -Help Housing Sherman Ridge R2 27 Single-family 80% AMI or less Riverstone R3 & R2 39 Single-family 80% AMI or less Multifamily Tax Exemption Sites (Private Rental Housing) The Overlook R3 8 affordable (39 total) Multifamily MFTE Type 1 (12 year affordability) Plisko Apartments CMU 12 affordable (58 total) Multifamily MFTE Type I (12 year affordability) Figure 28. Port Orchard affordable housing inventory (Housing Kitsap and City of Port Orchard) Figure 29. Affordable housing sites in Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 25 Public Land Surplus public land is sometimes used for affordable housing. State law enacted in 2018 (RCW 39.33.015) allows local governments to transfer, lease, or dispose of surplus property at low or no cost to developers for affordable housing projects. Port Orchard has a large number of City - owned lands, and most are actively used for utility purposes or other public works, parks, and administrative functions. Some lands are also in greenbelts, wetlands, or ravines which are undevelopable. Discussion with City staff yielded the following sites to consider in the Housing Action Plan. Other public lands (such as those owned by Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and other agencies) could be reviewed in the future. Map Key 1 Parcel # 342401-4-016-2001 & Zoning CMU Area 1.0 acres Considerations Surplus property from the construction of the 342401-4-015-2002 roundabout at Tremont/Pottery. Considerable size and has appropriate zoning for affordable housing. 2 252401-3-045-2009 R4 1.7 acres Sloped site near the high school on Mitchell Avenue. Considerable size, ideally located, and has appropriate zoning for affordable housing. 3 4062-003-005-0006 R1 0.86 Vacant parcel owned by the water utility; it would need to be purchased from the enterprise fund. Considerable size and good location. Would likely need to be rezoned. 4 4650-009-006-0208 DMU 0.25 acres 640 Bay Street (see Project Spotlights). This site is planned for a housing project by a private developer. 5 4538-009-007-0007 UGA 0.21 acres Vacant property just outside city limits in the Annapolis neighborhood. 6 4537-014-001-0004 UGA 0.15 acres Vacant property just outside city limits in the Annapolis neighborhood. Figure 30. Table of surplus or vacant public land to consider for housing opportunities. Source: City of Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 26 Figure 31. Map of surplus or vacant public land to consider for housing opportunities. Source: City of Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 27 Project Spotlights This section provides detailed case studies of recent and ongoing housing developments in Port Orchard. It includes a cross-section of housing types. The spotlights are intended to provide insights on housing cost and design trends. Valley Quadplex This a recently completed fourplex development at the corner of Mitchell Avenue and Dwight Street. " The site is zoned R3 and is within the Downtown Countywide Center. The site is on a block with single-family homes, to the south is a small multifamily complex, and to the east is South Kitsap High School. Each of the four units is 3 bed/2.5 bath with about 1,450 square feet of living area. The lot is 8,276 square feet lot (0.19 acres), so the density is 21 units per acre. The building is three -stories and steps down a slope, with one -car garages located in a daylight basement in the rear of each unit. The site incorporates a rear shared access drive connected to a private alley. Residential open space is provided on the east and south sides of the building. Staff report the development fits the neighborhood well i ;T and it is a good example of infill. The developer tr4 suggested more friendly paperwork and inspection scheduling (the City just recently launched online- DW6GHT Ayr scheduling and permitting). The fourplex was as intimidating and laborious to permit as an apartment building, possibly due to the required environmental review and the use of the commercial building code (as opposed to the residential building code). The developer was interested in but unable to participate in the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program due to the local minimum threshold of 10 dwelling units (under updated state law a four -unit development is the minimum). The land cost was about $93,000 and the total construction cost (before sales tax) was about $200 per square foot. The units are each renting for $2,300 to $2,500 per month. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 28 Haven Apartments This is a nearly complete garden apartment development in southern Port Orchard located off Pottery Avenue and within the Ruby Creek subarea. The site is zoned Commercial Mixed Use and is within the Ruby Creek Overlay District. This is a semi -rural area quickly transitioning into a low -density neighborhood center. Adjacent to the site to the south is Ruby Creek and a single-family property, to the west is additional vacant land where the Haven Townhome project is planned by the same developer, to the north is a church and car dealership, and to the east is a wooded wetland. Only about half of the 18-acre parcel is developable due to the wetland and stream buffers; after subtracting those, the development's net density is about 24 units per acre. The development has 216 total units spread across 10 three-story buildings. About 36% of units are 1-bedrooms, 52% are 2-bedrooms, and 11 % are 3- bedrooms. An average of 1.65 parking spaces per unit are provided. This development offers more amenities than typical multifamily projects in Port Orchard. With units renting slightly above $2.00 per square foot (e.g. at least $2,100/month for a two -bedroom unit), the project will serve the mid -high end of the Port Orchard rental market. This is partly due to the developer's intentional positioning and the site amenities, including a 6,000 square feet clubhouse with a swimming pool. Higher rents are also partly due to the high construction costs that need to be recouped. Hard construction costs, not including land, were about $170 per square foot. Impact fees totaled about $28,000 per unit ($6 million total). Through a development agreement, the developer is receiving sewer general facility fee credits to help offset the cost of a new $2.5 million sewer lift station constructed at the developer's expense. The developer is also receiving transportation and park impact fee credits for constructed improvements constructed and land dedication. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 29 McCormick Village This is a planned mixed -use subdivision that is a small part of the large master planned McCormick Woods area, which has been under development since the 1980's and was annexed to Port Orchard in 2009. This particular site is about 23 acres and located on the north side of Clifton Road. The area is currently forested vacant land, with a large church to the southwest of the site, single-family subdivisions planned or under construction in the vicinity, and new public schools planned just west of the site. The site has a mix of zoning: Residential 3, Neighborhood Mixed Use, and Commercial Mixed Use. It also has a special McCormick Village Overlay (MVOD) with subtle changes to the residential lot standards. The City developed the MVOD regulations to implement the McCormick Village Subarea Plan and worked closely with the landowner. The overlay provides some nuances such as additional allowed building types, revised minimum/maximum setbacks, and a prohibition on parking in the front of lots. The residential preliminary plat shows up to 153 lots and all lots having alley access. A variety of housing types are illustrated, with the majority being 30-feet wide lots with detached homes and above -garage accessory dwelling units (uniquely, all such units will start as rentals). One version of the plat also shows paseo houses (similar to cottage housing, but with less common open space) and two-story forecourt apartment buildings (with 6-8 units per site). The total unit count is not yet known, but based on one drawing provided to the City, the site could have up to 320 units (including ADU's). The gross density (including ADU's and excluding the commercial area) would be about 20 units per acre. The separately permitted commercial village is at the northeast corner of the site. This would be Port Orchard's first retail development west of State Route 16. Preliminary plans show pads for about 10 small commercial buildings served by surface parking and woonerf-style drive aisles. .ena ! - I Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 30 The Ramsey This is an ongoing mixed -use development in southern Port Orchard located at the northeast corner of Sedgwick Road and Ramsey Road. It is zoned Commercial Mixed Use, located within the Sedgwick-Bethel SR-16 center, and within the soon -to -be master planned Bethel Sedgwick Countywide Center. This is a semi -developed suburban area characterized by a mixture of small and large auto -oriented commercial uses. This site is located uphill from the area's major intersection. Adjacent to the site to the east is a gas station, to the south are single-family homes and a home -based auto detailing shop, to the west is a fitness center, and to the north is vacant forested land. The development is occurring on a relatively compact and sloping 2.5-acre site. It consists of three buildings, one of which is small drive -through coffee stand. The other two buildings are three stories and, combined, contain commercial space and 99 apartments on the upper floors. The gross density is about 40 units per acre. The development is one of the few participating in the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program since the program was started in 2016. The developer is currently applying for a "Type 3" 8-year property tax exemption in exchange for incorporating structured parking and a shopfront design (commercial retail space). This is the first large private development in Port Orchard to incorporate structured parking. The project is located far from Downtown Port Orchard, and yet the land value and market economics appear to be enabling this unconventional hybrid between suburban and urban land use intensity. While it is was assisted by the MFTE program, this project may be representative of an early transition in the Port Orchard real estate market where more dense, mixed -use development is becoming economically viable. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 31 Downtown Mixed Use Projects Several residential -commercial mixed -use projects have been proposed in Downtown Port Orchard in recent years. None have broken ground as of this writing, though one is now permitted. Conceptual designs show urban features like structured parking, storefronts, rooftop open space, and being at least four stories in height. This swell may be signaling a shift in the local real estate economy where compact infill and redevelopment is on the verge of being more feasible due to a combination of land values and market rents. Project Description Bay Street Apartments (429 Bay Street) This project has been permitted on the site of the old Lighthouse Restaurant and will develop 39 units and 500 square feet of commercial on four levels. It is located on a 1.35 acre waterfront site. The project will have a single level of structured parking on the ground floor. The I developer requested a reduction of 66 parking spaces to 41 spaces. The residential density is 29 units per acre. Heronsview (100 Bethel Avenue) The conceptual plans have a total of 106 units on four - levels; 55% of units are studios, 23% are 1-bedrooms, 15% are 2-bedrooms, and 7% are live/work units. Proposed on - a 1.08 acre site, the development's residential density would be 98 units per acre. About 6,000 square feet of commercial space are shown in conceptual drawings. At least 143 parking spaces would be required if no on - street parking is available. Parking would be provided in a two -level garage, with the roof used as a residential open space. 1626-1636 Bay Street This concept includes 71 units on five levels, including two levels of structured parking. Proposed on a 0.51 acre site, the residential density would be 139 units per acre. The site and development concept is currently for sale for about $6 million. q 640 Bay Street This a City -owned property that was intended to be sold f to a private developer, though the project has been on u _ hold for at least four years. This early concept proposed r --� to include 44 units on five levels and about 12,000 square feet of commercial space. Parking is proposed off -site. It FI �a 8 would include a rooftop garden and a vacation of Fredrick IL Street which would be developed as a landscaped public space and hill climb. The potential residential density is 159 units per acre. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 32 Section 3 - Cost Trends Housing Cost Trends Housing costs in Port Orchard have been increasing steadily over the last decade, for both renters and homeowners, as shown in Figure 32 below. As of mid-2022, Zillow reports an average home value of $511,600 and an average rent of $1,638 per unit in the city, a yearly increase of five percent for ownership units and nine percent for rentals over the past decade. Notably, both ownership and rental housing costs have increased more rapidly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a pattern seen across the greater Puget Sound region, and particularly in smaller and moderate -sized jurisdictions when compared with larger cities such as Seattle. $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 a) co $300,000 0 $200,000 $100,000 Average Home Value Average Multifamilv Rent Per Unit 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 32. Housing Costs in Port Orchard, 2012-2022. Source: Zillow, Costar. $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 }, .E $1,200 a� o_ $1,000 of $800 co $600 $400 75 $200 $0 Figure 33 shows the change in Port Orchard's housing prices compared with the change in incomes from 2010-2020. After a drop in home prices between 2010 and 2012, incomes and housing prices increased similarly between 2012 and 2015, after which home prices began to increase significantly faster than incomes. Rental prices, which had been stable from 2013- 2017, also began a steep increase in 2017, also outpacing incomes. The gap has continued to worsen over the past few years, with a 28 percent increase in rents and 56 percent increase in home values from 2015-2020, compared to only a 15 percent increase in incomes over the same period. This shows that housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident in recent years, a trend also seen across the country. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 33 70% 60% 50% 40°i° ✓ 30% 20% 10% 0% —� -10% -20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Median Gross Rent Zillow Home Value Index Median Household Income Figure 33. Change in Home Prices, Rents, and Incomes in Port Orchard, 2010-2020. Source: Zillow, American Community Survey 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table S2503, DP04, Leland Consulting Group Figure 34 shows the relationship between what the typical Port Orchard household earns in a year and the amount they would need to earn to afford the typical home in the city, based on 2020 census and home price data. The income needed to afford the median home in the city is about $50,585 more than the median household currently earns, or to put it another way, the typical Port Orchard household could afford a home worth about $303,012, but the typical home in the city in 2020 was worth 1.5 times as much, $468,702. $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $468,702 $303,012 $122,304 $71,719 M 0 1 1 Median Household Income Needed To Median Sales Price Maximum Home Price Income Afford Median Home Affordable to Median Household Figure 34. Ownership Housing Affordability in Port Orchard. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 34 A housing affordability chart illustrating home prices which would be affordable to a variety of income levels is shown below in Figure 35. Port Orchard's median incomes and sales prices are both shown. This data illustrates the degree to which ownership housing has become out of reach for many Port Orchard residents, even those earning more than the city's median household income. $900 ■ Household Income ($1,000s) ■ House Price ($1,000s) $800 $700 $600 Median Sales Price ( 468) $500 $400 $300 Median Household $200 Income ($71) $192 $100 $96 ' $_ A household earning $100,000 could not afford the median Port Orchard sales price of $468,000 even though they are earning nearly $30,000 more than the median household income. $383 $287 $150 J$75 $100 , ■ $575 $766 Figure 35. Housing Prices Affordable to Various Incomes with Port Orchard Median Income and Sales Price, 2021. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Construction Costs The cost of construction for all housing types has been increasing for decades, although the past few years have seen unprecedented increases. These costs have a major impact on development feasibility. Higher development costs ultimately drive up the sales price of finished housing and can lead to reduced housing production when the market cannot support those higher housing prices. The following chart provides construction price indexes' for multifamily housing units under construction, single-family houses sold, and for single-family houses under construction. Recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows construction costs went up by 17.5% year -over -year from 2020 to 2021, the largest spike in this data from year to year since 1970. Costs in 2021 were also more than 23% higher than pre -pandemic 2019. Preliminary data for 2022 indicates an even greater jump in construction costs, largely due to supply chain issues, inflation, and labor shortages. 8 The houses sold index incorporates the value of the land and is available quarterly at the national level and annually by region. The indexes for houses under construction are available monthly at the national level. The indexes are based on data from the Survey of Construction (SOC). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 35 reo, MFR 180 SFR Under Construction SFR Sold (West) 160 140 120 100 - 80 LO % 00 ON O N co LO % 00 ON O N O O O O O - - - - - - N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure 36. Construction Price Indexes. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Construction Price Indexes Developers interviewed by the project team in summer 2022 indicated concerns over construction costs in the region. They described as many as ten material cost adjustments per year, compared to one to two price changes per year in the past. Developers generally agreed that lumber prices were likely to begin decreasing and stabilize in the coming years, though they expressed less optimism about short-term decreases in other material costs. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 36 Impact Fees Impact fees are a one-time fee required by local governments for new development to help pay for a portion of the expected costs of providing increased public services. The topic arose in stakeholder interviews and so an analysis compared Port Orchard's impact fees to other Kitsap County jurisdictions. Determining impact fee by building type (housing type) also provides information about how the fees are affecting the variety of housing being built. The table below a table shows total impact fees (combining fees for roads, parks, and schools) by housing type. Roads impact fee schedules typically have the most detailed housing types and thus was used as the basis for housing type comparison. The breakdown of impact fees by type of impact fee can be seen in Appendix A. Port Orchard has a fee for all three categories, which is not the case for some of the other jurisdictions. Bremerton currently does not collect impact fees but may start collecting them in the near future. The comparison finds that Port Orchard does have some of the highest impact fees in Kitsap County, but these fees may be closer to the median when making wider regional comparisons. For example, Sammamish impact fees total at least $14,000 per unit (as of 2019). Judging by the large volume of permitted developments in Port Orchard, the fees are having little negative effect on total development. However, the fees may be a minor factor for the variety of housing products being produced. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and ADU's have notably high fees for the lower resource impacts and land area they require compared to single-family homes. This may partially be because the school and park impact fees do not provide a high level of distinction among building types due to those fees being based more on persons per household. Family Duplex Triplex & Fourplex Townhouse Multifamily floorsSingle- 1-2 Multifamily floors Multifamily ADU Port $10,856.52 $9,156.34 $6,835.28 — $9,156.34 — $6,820.28 $6,189.29 $5,768.63 $4,677.97 - Orchard $9 096.34 10,347.34 $6,150.28 Kitsap $6,428.60 $3,496.75 $3,496.75 $3,766.74 $3,496.75 $2,956.77 $2,821.78 $3,766.74 County Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $7,969.18 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $5,102.97 $5,102.97 $5,323.48 Bainbridge $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 Island Gig Harbor $11,350.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $9,764.00 $11,715.00 Fiaure 37. Impact Fees per Unit by Housina Tvae. Source: Kitsaa Countv and Municipalities of Kitsaa County Some cities exempt ADU's from impact fees since they are not a primary unit and because the fees can be insurmountable for low- and moderate -income homeowners. Also, under RCW 82.02.060, cities may reduce impact fees by up 80% for affordable housing. Under POW 20.182, the City has not adopted any impact fee exemptions or reductions, though the idea is supported by Comprehensive Plan policy HS-6. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 37 Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs This section offers information about the needs for households in the City of Port Orchard. Market Rate Housing The chart below shows projected demand for new housing units through 2044 by income in Port Orchard based on the Kitsap County target of 5,291 new housing units in Port Orchard by 2044.9 The allocation of housing units by income is shown using three projection methodologies. The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) has recently released a draft calculator which uses two methodologies to calculate future housing needs by income by county, city, and UGA. Method "A" shown below allocates future housing needs by projected household income (as a share of AMI) evenly across all municipalities in Kitsap County. This shows a particularly high 2044 need of over 1,400 units affordable to the lowest - income households earning less than 30% AMI - which would need to be provided by subsidized affordable units. Commerce Method "B" allocates housing across all jurisdictions in the County after taking into account their existing housing unit breakdown by income level. Because Port Orchard already provides some subsidized units (and a larger share than some other Kitsap County municipalities), this method shows a need for fewer units for households earning under 30 percent AMI and between 30 and 50 percent AMI, but allocates more units for higher -income households earning more than 120 percent AMI. The third methodology shown is Leland Consulting Group's model which allocates future housing units based on Port Orchard's current income breakdown. This methodology shows a strong housing need for the lowest -income residents of the City but also reflects the need for "workforce" housing for the significant share of Port Orchard's population earning between 50 and 100 percent of the AMI. Overall, these three methodologies show that the largest housing needs by income in Port Orchard in the next two decades will be for the lowest -income households, which can only be met through regulated affordable (i.e. subsidized) housing, to a lesser degree for "workforce" housing for residents earning less than 100% AMI, which can be provided through a variety of channels including subsidized units, vouchers, other incentive programs such as MFTE, and filtering of existing units as new housing stock is built. Finally, there will remain a demand for between 1,200 and 1,800 market rate housing units targeting households earning more than 120 percent AMI over the next 20 years. Although the Commerce methodologies are still in draft form, all three sets of results are presented here to demonstrate the various calculations and considerations underlying future housing needs and targets regionally. The Kitsap County Regional Coordinating Council will decide on a final target number of new units by income level for all jurisdictions in the County in 2023, and that final target breakdown will be integrated into the 2024-2044 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. 9 This housing unit target and the Kitsap County population target for Port Orchard (10,500 new residents by 2044) would yield an average household size of 1.98 people per household. This is significantly less than the current Port Orchard household size of 2.44 people per household. This discrepancy may need to be addressed by Commerce. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 38 2,000 1,800 1,600 It 0 1,400 N T 1,200 0 1,000 Z 800 600 z 400 200 IN d 0-30 30-50 50-80 80-100 % AMI ■ Commerce Method A ■ Commerce Method B 100-120 LCG Method 120+ Figure 38. Housing Demand Projections for Port Orchard, 2022-2044 Source: Washington Department of Commerce Draft Projected Housing Needs Methodologies, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 39 Low -Income and Cost -Burdened Households HUD sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted housing programs.10 The 2022 Area Median Income (AMI) for the Bremerton -Silverdale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is $102,500. The following table outlines the 2022 Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD income limits for low, very low, and extremely low-income households making 80 percent, 50 percent, and 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), respectively. Household Extremely Low (30%) 21,600 24,700 27,800 1 30,850 33,350 37,190 41,910 46,630 Very Low Income (50%) 36,050 41,200 46,350 51,450 55,600 59,700 63,800 67,950 Low Income (80%) 57,650 65,850 74,100 82,300 88,900 95,500 102,100 108,650 Figure 39. HUD FY20221ncome Limits ($), Bremerton -Silverdale, WA MSA. Source: HUD In addition to income, HUD uses a measurement of "cost burden" to further determine which subset of a community's residents are most in need of housing support or most at risk of displacement or housing hardship. Figure 40 shows a breakdown of Port Orchard's households by tenure and cost burden status. Overall, about 35 percent of Port Orchard's households are considered cost -burdened. Half of all renter -occupied households are considered cost -burdened, while one quarter of owner -occupied households are considered cost -burdened. As is the case nationwide, renters are significantly more at risk of economic hardship and displacement than homeowners. With rental rates increasing dramatically in recent years and income growth failing to keep up, it appears that renters are suffering the consequences in terms of cost burden. There is a clear need for more rental housing that is affordable to all income levels. 10 Including the Public Housing, Section 8 project -based, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 202 housing for the elderly, and Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities programs HUD develops income limits based on median family income estimates and fair market rent area definitions. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 40 All Households 65% Renter occupied 50% Owner Occupied 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■ Severely Cost Burdened ■ Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened Figure 40. Household Tenure by Cost Burden in the City of Port Orchard, 2020. Source: HUD CHAS 2015- 2019. The following chart shows cost burden status by household income level for households earning less than the area median income (AMI). The lowest -income households earning 30 percent AMI or less have by far the highest cost burden, with 615 of the 715 households in this income bracket spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and 495 households, or 70 percent of households in the income bracket, spending more than half their income on housing costs. Similarly, 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of the AMI also spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. However, there are still a substantial number of households earning between 30 and 80 percent AMI which are also housing cost -burdened, as well as a quarter of households earning between 80 and 100 percent AMI. This data shows a need for subsidized affordable housing at various income levels, but particularly for households earning less than 50 percent AMI. 80-100% AM I 1 160 465 0 50-80% AMI 465 520 30-50% AMI < 30% AMI 130 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 ■ Severely Cost Burdened ■ Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened Figure 41. Cost Burden Status by Household Income Level in Port Orchard. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 41 Special Needs Housing Figure 42 shows the number of households in Port Orchard with a disabled resident by disability status and income. Most households with a disabled resident earn more than 80 percent of AMI, though particularly for residents with an ambulatory limitation (generally meaning they are unable to walk), there is a significant number of households earning less than 30 percent AMI. In addition to ambulatory limitations, hearing or vision impairments are the most common disability reported in Port Orchard households. Figure 42. Households by Disability Status and Income in Port Orchard. Source: HUD CHAS 2015-2019 People Facing Homelessness Kitsap County conducts a Point in Time Count of people experiencing homelessness countywide each year, typically in January. In 2022, the count was conducted in February instead. The count encompasses both sheltered and unsheltered people and is conducted during one 24-hour period each year. Therefore, the number is generally considered to be an undercount of the true population experiencing homelessness. In February 2022, 563 individuals were experiencing homelessness countywide, of which 136 were in transitional housing, 244 in emergency shelters, and 183 unsheltered. This was an 8 percent decrease from 202011 though a 7 percent increase from the previous four-year average. Of the 183 unsheltered residents surveyed, 23 percent, or 42 people, were in Port Orchard. Countywide, 67 percent of those surveyed reported becoming homeless due to health or mental health issues, 58 percent due to job loss, 40 percent due to loss of housing, 35 percent due to family conflict, and 25 percent due to substance use.12 A 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office finds that every $100 increase in median rent is associated with a nine percent increase in the estimated homelessness population, even after accounting for demographic and economic characteristics. This formula is considered at a national level but may be helpful context for the current trend in local rent increases. 11 The count of unsheltered individuals was not completed in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 12 Kitsap County Point In Time Count. https://www.kitsapgov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.asp_x Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 42 Transit Under definitions of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Port Orchard mostly has Level 4 transit service.13 Higher levels of service (Levels 1-3) are considered to be more attractive to the general population (e.g. choice riders), more conducive to reducing solo driving, and more able justify reduced parking (and therefore reduced housing costs) at residential developments. The lack of regular bus service on Sundays and between Port Orchard and Bremerton is particularly notable. Kitsap Transit operates public bus and passenger ferry service in Port Orchard. Two ferry docks have service to the Bremerton ferry terminal where riders can catch auto ferries or fast passenger ferries to Seattle. There are six fixed -route bus lines operating within the central and eastern part of the city, generally running at frequencies of 30 to 60 minutes. Buses stop operating in the early evening. On Saturdays, buses run between 10am and 5pm. Western Port Orchard area is a served by an on -demand, weekday -only service called SK Ride which connects residents to some regular bus routes. Other services include worker/driver buses for Navy facility commuters, door-to-door Access buses for seniors and people with disabilities (runs 8am to 4pm on weekdays and Sundays), and vanpools/carpools. Figure 43. Kitsap Transit fixed -route bus lines in the Port Orchard area. 13 "Frequent Transit Service Study." December 2022. Washington State Department of Transportation. https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/frequent-transit-service-study/ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 43 Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools Existing Funding Port Orchard does not have currently any funding streams directly funding affordable housing development or preservation. In January 2022, Kitsap County imposed a 0.1 % affordable housing sales tax as allowed under RCW 82.14.530. The revenue must be used for constructing or maintaining affordable housing. It is expected to generate about $5 million per year.14 This sales tax option would have been available to Port Orchard (generating about $850,000 per year per .1 %, based on 2021 revenue), but state law stipulates that after a county adopts the tax cities in the county may no longer implement their own tax.15 Poulsbo and Bainbridge Island implemented affordable housing sales taxes before the county did and so their taxes remain effective in addition the county's. Other Funding Options The Municipal Research Service Center provides a list of other funding sources for Washington cities and affordable housing developers. These include: • Property tax levy of up to $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation for up to 10 years to fund very low-income housing (RCW 84.52.105) • Real estate excise tax of up to 0.25% to fund affordable housing through 2026 (RCW 82.46.035) • Mandatory inclusionary zoning requirements that require residential developments to either provide affordable housing on -site or to pay into a housing fund for city governments to fund housing elsewhere (generally this tool must be paired with large upzones to avoid regulatory takings claims) • Lodging taxes, which may be used to fund a variety of government programs (as noted under the short-term rental discussion, Port Orchard already has a lodging tax) • Loans and grants from the Washington State Housing Trust Fund (administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce) • State law under RCW 43.185C.080 allows cities to receive grants from the Washington homeless housing account. A prerequisite is adoption of a local homeless housing plan or adopting by reference a county homeless housing plan that has a specific strategy for the city. Grant value is tied to the real estate document recording fees generated within the local jurisdiction. • Low-income housing tax credits which investors in housing projects can apply to (administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission) 14 "Commissioners vote to impose 1 /10th of 1 % sales tax for affordable housing." January 2022. Kitsap Daily News. https://www.kitsapdailynews.com/news/commissioners-vote-to-impose-1-10th-of-1-sales-tax-for-affordable- housin is Funding Local Affordable Housing Efforts. August 2022. Municipal Research Service Center. https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2022/Options-for-Funding-Local-Affordable-Housing- Efforasox Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 44 Multifamily Tax Exemption Overview The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) is a program authorized by the state, starting in 1995 (RCW 84.14). Cities can grant one or more of the following programs for new buildings or existing buildings: • 8-year exemption for any type of multifamily development • 12-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 20 percent of units for low- and moderate -income households • A 20-year exemption for multifamily developments that reserve at least 25 percent of units for sale as permanently affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less, and the development must be sponsored by a non-profit or governmental entity (this option was added by the Legislature in 202116). Port Orchard meets the threshold of 15,000 population to unlock this option. Land, existing site improvements, and non-residential improvements are not exempt and are subject to normal property taxes. At the local government's discretion, the exemption's basis may be limited to the value of affordable units or other criteria. The local government has latitude in many other aspects. It can require certain public benefits, change what types of development apply, and can map specific areas where the exemption is available. Cities can also set lower maximum rent prices than the statute allows. MFTE programs require ongoing monitoring, especially for any buildings with affordable units, to ensure that rental rates and resident incomes are meeting the criteria. A 2019 statewide audit found that local MFTE programs are frequently used to improve the financial performance of private developments but it is unclear if they result in a net increase in housing production. For 2018 the audit found average annual local and state property tax savings of $10,651 per affordable unit and $2,096 per market -rate unit, with wide variations depending on the location, land value, and local property tax rates. Seattle has the most MFTE units in the state and likely skews the average tax savings high. Participating properties in Bremerton see average annual property tax savings of $6,123 per affordable unit $1,413 per market -rate unit (data was not available for Port Orchard). Port Orchard MFTE Review Port Orchard has had an MFTE program in place since 2016, which is codified under Chapter 3.48 POMC. It goes beyond the basic framework of state law and provides three types of exemptions. The "Type 1" program is a 12-year tax exemption available to properties zoned for multifamily or mixed -use development within one-half mile of a transit route or ferry terminal. At least 20 percent of units must be rented at least 10 percent below fair market rent to tenants with the following incomes: 16 "Overview of 2021 Changes to the Multifamily Housing Tax Exemption Program." Washington State Department of Commerce. htttps://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882abtzafwzlofkf05.pdf Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 45 • At or below 40 percent of median family income, for housing units in congregate residences or small efficiency dwelling units • At or below 65 percent of median family income for one -bedroom units • At or below 75 percent of median family income for two -bedroom units • At or below 80 percent of median family income for three -bedroom and larger units. IIE n Will WQ - _nuwnmm —'I �7 - L. — FT d T LPL J p._ y Y Type I Tax Exemption Multifamily -zoned Parcels in Designated Centers and Other Properties City Limits Applicable Properties Figure 44. Parcels eligible for the Type 1 MFTE program The "Type 2" program is an 8-year tax exemption available to properties within local centers of importance (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) and which are encouraged to redevelop and may require rezoning. Properties must meet at least one of these criteria: • Have abandoned buildings (vacant or unused for more than two years) • Underutilized buildings (50 percent or more vacancy for more than two years) • An assessed building value to land ratio of two -to -one or more. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 46 7� Type 2 Tax Exemption Redevelopment i J a �h f- Li .i lfoi Uocuma b 11. t„S:Itcr I.tt ALalaruriP. YW! acm.,'A /.L2LJe3mntl F' 4 ` r Figure 5. Parcels cels eligible for the Type 2 MFTE program The "Type 3" program is an 8-year exemption available to properties within local centers of importance (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) and zoned for multifamily or mixed -use development. Developments must meet one of these standards: 1. At least 50 percent of required parking must be structured and achieve at least 50 units per net developable acre 2. Construct mixed -use shopfront building(s) containing non-residential square footage equal to at least 40 percent of all building footprints 3. Purchase one additional story of building height for one or more buildings through the city's transfer of development rights program d Ltd r T•4T4 -T �I rI) r Fr I i Type 3 Tax Exemption Multifamily -Zoned Properties in Centers 1771 City Limits Uoc-t- U:tGISK, nmtair TYW3T.Pba .,e Map72=..d Figure 46. Parcels eligible for the Type 3 MFTE program Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 47 The following table shows how many developments and dwelling units are utilizing Port Orchard's MFTE program since inception. Numbers in parenthesis are MFTE applications currently in progress (as of December 2022). Figure 47. MFTE program statistics. Source: City of Port Orchard Observations: • Port Orchard's MFTE program is structured differently than most Washington cities, with two versions of the 8-year program • In the Type 3 program, options for combining required features could be clarified, as was done with the one participating project which used less structured parking and shopfront design than required individually but combined use of both features to qualify. • In the Type 1 program, the minimum development size of 10 units reduces the number of small projects that can participate. State law sets the minimum development size at four units. • In the Type 1 program, residents have their incomes verified only in order to determine what size of unit they can occupy. In other words, individualized rent caps are set for physical units and not customized for each household's size and characteristics. This is a different approach than most cities, but appears to fit within the state law framework. • In the Type 1 program, the depth of affordability (10% below market rate) may be imbalanced with the property tax savings. • Updates to RCW 84.14 allow median family income to now be based on the city or metropolitan statistical area of the project (rather than just the county). As noted in Section 3, the past few years have seen unprecedented increases in construction costs which have a major impact on development feasibility. There is interest among City officials and stakeholders to revisit the MFTE program and make adjustments to improve economic feasibility and administration. The City has the legal option to seek help with monitoring the MFTE program and freeing up staff resources. Housing Kitsap, for example, already has systems in place to administer income -based housing. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 48 Section 6 - Housing Policies Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies This section focuses on a handful of key policies in the Housing Element. Full comments are available in Appendix B. Policy HS-2 Support the development of a variety of housing The City has a good foundation of supportive types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed- zoning standards to support a variety of housing use (residential and other uses) and live -work types, though as noted in Section 6 some development, small -lot and zero lot line single- improvements could be made or more incentives family homes, and manufactured homes, as well added. The MVOD zone is an example of as traditional single-family homes, through innovative planning. Financial assistance largely is innovative planning, efficient and effective implemented through the MFTE program, though administration of land and building codes, and, other options may need to be explored to support where available, applicable financial assistance. the low-income population. HS-6 Consider reducing permitting fees for No waivers/reductions for impact fees and general development which provide affordable housing as facilities charges are in place. defined by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) section 200-120- 020. HS-9 Implement minimum residential density The City does not have minimum density requirements in centers of local importance in standards in any zone. order to increase land and infrastructure efficiency. HS-14 Implement zoning and development regulations This type of development does not appear to be which encourage infill housing on empty and happening in large numbers, with most housing redevelopable parcels. being built on greenfields on the edge of the city. More incentives for infill and redevelopment in local centers should be explored in the HAP. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 49 Development Regulations Port Orchard's zoning standards are codified under Title 20 POMC and primarily exist in Chapters 20.30 through 20.58. The key standards reviewed here are the permitted land uses and dimensional standards. Other standards provide supplemental residential use and design standards for most housing types. Multifamily design standards are located under Chapter 20.127 POMC. In most cities, this consists of a simple list or table organized by zone. In Port Orchard, understanding the permitted uses is complex because there are two permission standards: One code section describes "building types", and the other describes "residential uses", and these are located in separate chapters. The key development regulations on housing are summarized in the tables below. Following the tables is a set of observations. Residential Zones: Allowed Residential Development In the first table, P means permitted and a blank cell means the building type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. -�IMF- Detached House P P P P Backyard Cottage P P P P Cottage Court P P P P Duplex: Side -by -Side P P P Duplex: Back -to -Back P P P Attached House P P Fourplex P P P Townhouse P P P P Apartment P P P Live -Work Manufactured or Mobile Home Park Accessory Building P P P P P P Figure 48. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.32.015 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 50 In the second table are selected permitted uses in residential zones. These are reorganized from the actual code and have subheadings added. P means permitted, C means conditionally permitted (subject to extra review and public comment), and a blank cell means the housing type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. Use Types (POMC Residential Zones General Single-family detached (including new manufactured homes) P P P P Two-family P P P Single-family attached (2 units) P P P Single-family attached (3 or 4 units) P P P P P Single-family attached (5 or 6 units) P P P P Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units) P P P Multifamily dwellings (5 or more units) P P P Manufactured or Mobile Homes Designated manufactured home, manufactured or mobile home (except for new designated manufactured home) P New designated manufactured home P P P P Manufactured or mobile home park Supportive Housing Indoor emergency housing Indoor emergency shelter Permanent supportive housing C C C C C C Transitional housing C C C C C C Group Lodgings Boarding house C C Congregate living facilities C C C C Lodging house C C C Group home (up to 8 residents), except as follows: P P P P P P Adult family home P P P P All group living (9 or more residents) C C Figure 49. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.39.040 Observations: There are several user -friendliness challenges with these standards of Chapter 20.32 and 20.39, particularly as they relate to middle housing: • The R2 zone, the largest by land area, allows a good mix of housing types, though might consider adding "Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units)" • Residential development allowances are regulated in at least three code sections, which creates some opportunity for confusion. Residential development allowed by zone are regulated in Chapter 20.32 (Building Types), Chapter 20.34 and 20.35 (Residential Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 51 Districts & Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts, respectively), and Chapter 20.39 (Use Provisions). • Code users must know to look in all applicable locations. For example: o Permissions for "Detached House" building type and "Single-family detached" land use, which have similar meanings to most people, are found in both Chapters 20.32 and 20.39. o Chapter 20.32 describes a "Townhouse" as a single building type but it appears to be buildable under at least six different land uses in Chapter 20.39. This is an effort to limit townhouse complexes to four connected units in lower density zones, but to allow larger six unit townhome clusters in higher density zones. o Chapter 20.32 describes a Fourplex as being either three or four units. Triplex is the term for a three -unit building and should be added, or the term renamed to Triplex/Fourplex. o Chapter 20.32 describes a Cottage Court but it is unclear which type of residential land use that falls under in Chapter 20.39, especially since there are mismatches in which zones the different types of single-family uses are allowed. • The terms "Two-family" and "Single-family attached (2 units)" in Chapter 20.39 should simply be "Duplex" which is a more commonly used term. It is also unnecessary to describe two different types of duplexes in Chapter 20.32 when they are both allowed in the same zones. The building type "Attached House" is another instance of the same use being duplicated. • A single-family triplex/fourplex is intended for potential homeownership with each unit on its own lot, and a multifamily triplex/fourplex is most likely intended for rentals. However, it is unknown why they have different permissions by zone. The same goes for fiveplex and sixplex developments. Ownership and rental housing that has the same land use and appearance should be treated similarly. • The City has no path to permit manufactured housing (also known as factory -built housing). Factory -built housing should be treated the same as site -built housing if it conforms to all applicable zoning and design standards. Residential Zones: Dimensional Standards A blank cell means the standard is not applicable. Note: The R5 zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. StandardsDimensional •• Residential Zones Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Detached House (street vehicle 2,800 access) 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 Detached House (alley vehicle access) 51000 3,000 2,400 Cottage Court 1,200 1,200 1,200 Duplex: Side -by -Side 5,000 5,000 5,000 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 52 StandardsDimensional •• i Residential Zones Duplex: Back -to -Back 5,000 5,000 5,000 Attached House 2,500 2,000 2,500 Fourplex 7,000 7,000 7,000 Townhouse 2,000 800 800 1,000 Apartment 10,000 10,000 10,000 Minimum Site Size (square feet) (POMC 20.32) Cottage Court 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Townhouse 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Minimum lot width (feet) Detached House 50 50 36 40 (street vehicle access) Detached House (alley vehicle access) 50 30 26 40 Cottage Court 20 20 20 20 Duplex: Side -by -Side (street vehicle access) 60 60 60 Duplex: Side -by -Side (alley vehicle access) 40 40 40 Duplex: Back -to -Back 40 40 40 Attached House (street vehicle access) 30 30 30 Attached House (alley vehicle access) 20 20 20 Fourplex 60 60 60 Townhouse (street vehicle access) 30 30 30 30 Townhouse (alley vehicle access) 20 16 16 16 Apartment 80 80 80 Other Lot Standards Maximum hard surface 50% 70 /0 80 /0 80 /0 80 /a ° 75 /o coverage Building Height (feet/stories) Height, maximum 35 35 35 45 55 35 3 stories 3 stories 3 stories 4 stories 5 stories 3 stories Height, Accessory Structure (feet) 24 24 24 24 Density Minimum density (units per acre) Maximum density (units per acre) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 53 StandardsDimensional •• i Residential Zones Setbacks (Feet) Primary street setback, 10 10 10 10 10 10 minimum Side street setback, minimum 10 10 10 10 10 10 Side interior setback, minimum 5 5 5 5 5 5 Rear setback, minimum 10 10 10 4-10 10 10 Figure 50. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.34 Observations: • Chapter 20.34 has complex lists of lot area and width standards that differ by zone and by building type, which is summarized in the table above. This is one of the more complicated arrangements of dimensional standards among Washington cities. • However, the actual minimum lot widths, lot sizes, and setbacks and maximum hard surface coverage standards are generally reasonable. Some of the minimum lot widths greater than 50 feet may be worth revisiting for infill opportunities. • There are no minimum density requirements, which disincentives most new development (especially subdivisions) from building anything other than single-family homes. This does not fulfill Comprehensive Plan policies LU-11, HS-9, and HS-16, which call for minimum densities at least in local centers. • The lot size and setback standards are highly specific, providing no flexibility for developers and site planners. One building type must be chosen and stuck with throughout the design process, otherwise choosing or adding a different type seems to require restarting land area needs and design assumptions from scratch. This disincentivizes developing a mix building types in large subdivisions or any type of infill "missing middle" housing. • The minimum "site size" provided only for cottages and townhouses discourages those middle types by providing a layer of complication and limiting the sites that are eligible for middle housing development. • Each building type is listed in Chapter 20.32, where there are lists of dimensional standards (lot width, setback, etc.) that says "set by district" for nearly every standard. However, it does not say where to find this information. Code users must know to navigate to the relevant Chapter 20.34, for example, for Residential Districts. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 54 Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones: Allowed Residential Development In the first table, P means permitted and a blank cell means the building type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The RMU zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. es (POMC 20.32.015) Commercial Building Type ff"�F-BPMU CMU _00------ Detached • -Backyard and Mixed Use Zones DMU GMU CC CH IF Cottage Cottage • 000------ Duplex: Back -to -Back Attached • - -00------ • • - 0000-0--- - • 0000000-0 Shopfront House 0000-00-0 Mixed Use ShopfrontManufactured --000-0-0 or Mobile Home Park Accessory Building 000000000 Figure 51. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.32.015 In the second table is selected permitted uses in residential zones. These are reorganized from the actual code and have subheadings added. P means permitted, C means conditionally permitted (subject to extra review and public comment), and a blank cell means the housing type is not permitted in the zone. Note: The RMU zone is not currently mapped, and so was not evaluated closely. (POMC Mixed Commercial and -Use Z64111111ff General Single-family detached (including P P new manufactured homes) Two-family P P P Single-family attached (2 units) P P P Single-family attached (3 or 4 units) P P P P P P P P Single-family attached (5 or 6 units) P P P P P P P P Multifamily dwellings (3 or 4 units) P P P P P P P P Multifamily dwellings (5 or more units) P P P P P P P P Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 55 Manufactured or Mobile Homes Designated manufactured home, manufactured or mobile home (except for new designated manufactured home) New designated manufactured home P P P Manufactured or mobile home park Supportive Housing Indoor emergency housing C C C C C Indoor emergency shelter C C C C C Permanent supportive housing C C C C C C C C Transitional housing C C C C C C C C Group Lodgings Boarding house C C P Congregate living facilities C C P Lodging house C C P Group home (up to 8 residents), except as follows: P P Adult family home P P All group living (9 or more residents) P C P P C P Figure 52. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code table 20.39.040 Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones: Dimensional Standards A blank cell means the standard is not applicable. Dimensional Standards (POMC 20.35) Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones Measure RMU I NMU BPMU CMU I DMU GMU CC CH IF Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Detached House (street vehicle Detached House (alley vehicle �� Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 56 StandardsDimensional •O Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones Shopfront House 6,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 None 5,000 5,000 Mixed Use Shopfront 10,000 5,000 None None 5,000 None Minimum Site Size (square feet) (POMC 20.32) Cottage Court Townhouse Minimum lot width (feet) Detached House (street vehicle 60 60 access) Detached House (alley vehicle 60 60 access) Cottage Court Duplex: Side -by - Side (street 60 60 vehicle access) Duplex: Side -by - Side (alley 60 60 vehicle access) Duplex: Back -to- 60 60 Back Attached House (street vehicle 30 access) Attached House (alley vehicle 30 access) Fourplex 60 Townhouse (street vehicle 30 30 16 access) Townhouse (alley vehicle 16 16 16 access) Apartment 50 Shopfront House 60 65 60 50 None 50 50 Mixed Use Shopfront 80 50 None None 50 50 Other Lot Standards Maximum hard surface coverage 90% 70% 75% 80% 100% 90% 70% 70% 70% Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 57 StandardsDimensional •• Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones Building Height (feet) Height, 35 35 40 40 38 38 35 35 maximum Density Minimum density (units per acre) Maximum density (units per acre) Setbacks (Feet) Primary street 0 10 10 0 15 setback, (10 (30 (30 (10 (0 Max) (50 20 5 minimum Max) Max) Max) Max) Max) Side street 0 10 10 0 15 15 setback, (70 (30 (30 (70 (0 Max) (50 (50 5 minimum Max) Max) Max) Max) Max) Max) Side interior setback, 0-5 5 5 0 (0 Max) 10 10 minimum Rear setback, 10 10 10 20 (0 Max) 10 10 minimum Figure 53. Excerpt of Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.35 Observations: • Apartment and townhouse building types are not allowed in the Commercial Corridor (CC) zone, but single-family attached and multifamily land use is allowed. This appears to limit this type of development to the live -work building type, which has struggled to achieve market feasibility in most of the region. • Apartment and townhouse building types are allowed in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zone, which is often adjacent to the CC zone along arterial corridors and appears to serve a similar purpose. • No residential development is allowed in the Commercial Heavy (CH) zone, which prevents any possible mixed -use redevelopment of aging shopping centers or underutilized commercial properties in the Bethel and Sedgwick corridors. • The maximum impervious surface standards provide sufficient flexibility for residential development • Note that while the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) base height limit 38 feet, the Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) that overlaps almost all of these two zones provides increased height limits of 48-68 feet, which increases the feasibility of mixed -use development. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 58 The 40 feet height limit in the CMU and BPMU zones (perhaps the other most promising zones for mixed -use development given their coverage of the city) is limiting, allowing for only about three stories of development by -right. Mixed -use development is generally more feasible the taller the building is, since the cost of construction on a per -square - foot basis remains relatively constant for 3-6 story buildings. Options for height increases and bonus provisions (outside of the transfer of development rights program) may be evaluated in the HAP. Some cities provide height bonuses as part of MFTE participation. As a point of reference, the Ruby Creek Overlay District provides a base 55-feet height limit for the CMU, CC, and CH zones in the southern area of the city. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 59 ADU Standards Port Orchard regulates accessory dwelling units (ADU) in two locations: Chapter 20.68 POW for basic procedures and design requirements, and POW 20.32.030 for the "Backyard cottage" dwelling type. Attached ADUs are allowed in all residential zones on lots with a single detached dwelling unit and limited to 40 percent the size of the primary unit or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Detached ADUs (backyard cottages) are allowed in the R1, R2, R3, R6, NMU, RMU, BPMU, and GB zones and limited to 40 percent the size of the primary unit or 1,000 square feet, whichever is rg eater. Port Orchard explicitly permits ADUs to be used as a short-term rental and for occupation by home businesses and occupations. Port Orchard amended its ADU standards in October 2022 with Ordinance 038-22. The ordinance removes requirements to register an ADU with an affidavit and ending the need for an "ADU agreement" to be recorded with the county auditor. As part of this, the owner occupancy requirement and parking requirements for ADUs have been removed; these are two of the most common and significant barriers to ADUs, so these changes will improve feasibility of ADU development. Other Development Regulations POW 20.129 provides standards for the protection and replacement of significant trees. City staff have observed that the requirement for a tree retention plan, which applies to all development except detached houses and backyard cottages, adds a considerable and repetitive cost for development applications. Alternative approaches are available, such as requiring a minimum tree canopy coverage (which can use existing or new trees) that still achieves the same goals but avoids the risk of lone significant trees being damaged subsequent to development. Design Standards Port Orchard has several residential design standards. • POW 20.32: Building types • POW 20.139: Residential design standards for residential building types like detached houses, backyard cottages, cottages, duplexes, townhomes, and accessory buildings • POW 20.127: Commercial and multifamily development block frontages, site planning, and building design At least two stakeholders said the cottage housing standards discourage their development, particularly the minimum site size standards and the minimum open space: • The minimum site area is 22,500 SF regardless of number of units, and an additional 4,500 SF site area is required per unit when there are six or more cottages even though the minimum unit lot size is 1,200 SF. • The minimum courtyard area is 3,000 SF (minimum width 40 feet) and extra 600 SF per unit is required when there are six or more cottages. • Compare these other typical cottage standards, such as in Anacortes, which do not regulate lot size and have smaller open space requirements. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 60 Zoning Map The City's current zoning map is copied below. JIM- CITY OF PORT ORCHARD Building Code The City of Port Orchard has adopted standard building and trades under Chapter 20.200 POW with local amendments. Adopted codes include the International Building Code (applies to commercial and mixed -use development, and residential development with three or more units), the International Residential Code (applies to single-family, duplex, and townhouse development), and international codes for mechanical systems, plumbing, energy conservation, fire safety, and property maintenance. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 61 Landlord —Tenant Regulations People who rent homes are significantly more likely to be cost -burdened, face eviction, and be at risk of homelessness. Recognizing this, the State of Washington sets the baseline for the landlord -tenant relationship through the State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act, RCW 59.18. According to the Attorney General's Office, there is no centralized enforcement mechanism for the RCW, and so it is incumbent upon landlords and tenants to either self -remedy violations, seek counseling or low-cost legal help from non-profit organizations, and/or resolve disputes through the courts. Over the past few years, the Washington State Legislature has adopted new tenant protections as follows. Year RCW Topic 2018 59.18.255 Prohibition on source Prohibits source of income discrimination against a of income tenant who uses a benefit or subsidy to pay rent discrimination 2019 59.18.200 Notice of demolition Tenants must be provided a 120-day notice to tenants of demolition or substantial rehabilitation of premises 2019 59.18.140 Notice of rent Tenants must be provided a 60-day notice of a rent increase increase, and increases may not take effect until the completion of the term of the current rental agreement 2020 59.18.610 Initial deposits and Tenants may request paying initial deposits, fees nonrefundable fees, and last month's rent in installments (may be spread over 2-3 months, depending on lease length) 2021 59.18.650 Just cause evictions Landlords must specify a reason for refusing to continue a residential tenancy, subject to certain limited exceptions Figure 54. Recent state landlord -tenant regulations Notably, rent control by local jurisdictions was banned at the state level in 1981 (RCW 35.21.830). Otherwise, local jurisdictions are free to adopt additional or more stringent regulations than those provided by the state, and numerous cities and counties have done so. The City of Port Orchard has not adopted any local landlord -tenant regulations. The King County Bar Association provides a model tenant protection ordinance within the framework of Washington State law which could be informative for future discussions and recommendations. Several Washington cities have recently adopted at least portions of the model ordinance. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 62 State Land Use Law In recent years the Washington State Legislature has enacted preemption laws requiring local jurisdictions to ease regulations on certain types of residential land uses. In the 2022 legislative session, several additional bills were proposed with major preemptions regarding missing middle housing, accessory dwelling units, and minimum building heights (respectively, HB 1782, HB 2020, and HB 1660). These recent bills did not pass but can likely be expected to come up again in 2023 and beyond as Washington continues to confront statewide housing challenges. A non -exhaustive list of recent state preemptions follows. RCW TopicYear 2018 36.70A.450 Home -based family Cities may not prohibit the use of a residential dwelling, day care located in an area zoned for residential or commercial use, as a family day-care provider's facility serving twelve or fewer children 2019 35.21.684 Tiny homes Cities may not adopt ordinances that prevent tiny homes with wheels used as a primary residence in a manufactured/mobile home community, with the exception that ordinances may require that tiny houses with wheels contain sanitary plumbing fixtures. 2019 35A.63.300 Religious Upon request, cities must allow an increased density organization density bonus for development of single-family or multifamily bonus residences affordable to low-income households on property owned by religious organizations. 2019 36.70A.600 Safe harbor from The adoption of ordinances and other nonproject appeals under the actions taken by a city to ease regulations on housing State Environmental development are not subject to administrative or Policy Act judicial appeal under RCW 43.21 C. Similar protection is made for housing elements and implementing regulations that increase housing capacity under RCW 36.70A.070. 2020 36.70A.698 Parking for accessory Cities may not require the provision of off-street dwelling units parking for accessory dwelling units within one -quarter mile of a major transit stop (likely does not apply to Port Orchard due to low transit service today). 2020 36.70A.620 Parking for Cities may not require more than a certain ratio of multifamily housing parking spaces per unit within one -quarter mile of a frequent transit stop. There are different limits for market -rate units, designated senior and disability homes, and low-income units (likely does not apply to Port Orchard due to low transit service today). 2021 35A.21.430 Permanent Cities may not prohibit permanent supportive housing supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed. This supersedes a similar law passed in 2019, RCW 35A.21.305. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 63 RCW TopicYear 2021 35A.21.430 Transitional housing Cities may not prohibit transitional housing in areas where multifamily housing or hotels are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed. 2021 35A.21.430 Indoor emergency Cities may not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and shelters and indoor indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels emergency housing are permitted. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed. 2021 35A.21.314 "Family' definition Except for limits on occupant load per square foot or and number of general health and safety provisions, cities may not unrelated household regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that occupants may occupy a household or dwelling unit. 2021 36.70A.070 Requirements for Requires planning and analysis of housing needs for Comprehensive Plan moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income Housing Elements households; a variety of housing types; zoning that may have a discriminatory effect; and other related issues. This will apply to the next major update of Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan due in 2024. Figure 55. Recent state zoning preemptions Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 64 Federal Incentives Created in 2017, Opportunity Zones are intended to assist economically distressed communities with preferential tax treatment for those investing eligible capital gains. Port Orchard has been designated with two federal Opportunity Zones located contiguously with Census Tracts #53035092200 and #53035092300. This covers the much of the city east of State Route 16. Generally, this tool has seen little interest from large residential developers, but it may be appealing to local or long-term hold developers. The program expires in 2026. 71 Rd W C e may` g•W' U g1iS�'� C P CiIFiL+n lid S�n1 Q��7rN 0 5� - Fbrt -i OR hard Induunal' , Peek Soulh Kitmp High A Figure 56. Location of the federal Opportunity Zones in Port Orchard Fbh Pa "101lb? Port Orchard shares many of its housing challenges with other communities nationwide, and the country's affordable housing problem has caught the attention of the White House. In May 2022, President Biden released a statement saying, in part: "One of the most significant issues constraining housing supply and production is the lack of available and affordable land, which is in large part driven by state and local zoning and land use laws and regulations that limit housing density. Exclusionary land use and zoning policies constrain land use, artificially inflate prices, perpetuate historical patterns of segregation, keep workers in lower productivity regions, and limit economic growth. Reducing regulatory barriers to housing production has been a bipartisan cause in a number of states throughout the country. It's time for the same to be true in Congress, as well as in more states and local jurisdictions throughout the country." The President has directed his administration to leverage existing transportation and economic development funding streams to reward jurisdictions that promote density, main street revitalization, and transit -oriented development. For the near future, the President has also proposed billions of dollars for HUD grant programs to support local jurisdictions in eliminating barriers to affordable housing production, supporting manufactured housing, scaling up ADU production, and other measures. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 65 Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis A land capacity analysis is a core element of a housing needs analysis, as required by the Washington Department of Commerce. Kitsap County completed a Buildable Lands Report in November 2021 which contains a comprehensive analysis of vacant and redevelopable land in Port Orchard as well as required land to meet expected population growth. As shown in Figure 54, Port Orchard has surplus land to accommodate 5,750 more residents than expected by 2036. According to the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the County is currently updating its zoning to remove barriers to housing in UGAs. The target population growth in Port Orchard's UGA is based on forthcoming County zoning code revisions incentivizing urban housing development in the UGA consistent with its designation as a High -Capacity Transit Corridor in PSRC's VISION 2050 framework. Together, the city and UGA have available land for a surplus of 5,750 residents. Figure 57. Port Orchard 2021 Residential Buildable Lands Analysis Summary. Source: 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Analysis, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, City of Port Orchard Figure 58 shows a breakdown of unit and population capacity by zone and type of unit. As shown, the majority of the new unit capacity is on vacant or redevelopable land in the R2 and R3 zones, as well as to a lesser degree in the CMU zone. The largest amount of multifamily unit capacity is found in the R3 zone. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 66 Zoning Greenbelt (GB) Net Acres 71.74 Family Unit Capacity...Capacity 36 Multifamily Unit PopulationSingle- 96 Residential 1 (R1) 35.15 255 685 Residential 2 (R2) 147.06 1,495 4,022 Residential 3 (R3) 31.87 1,540 1,350 7,049 Residential 4 (R4) 21.56 456 954 Residential 6 (R6) 18.11 421 1,134 Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) 0.54 5 11 Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) 5.59 19 39 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) 0.24 2 4 Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) 0.31 39 82 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 49.76 961 2,009 Commercial Corridor (CC) 18.62 79 166 Figure 58. Port Orchard 2021 Buildable Lands by Zone. Source: 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Analysis. Port Orchard's land capacity is likely higher than the numbers listed in the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report as a result of new zoning changes adopted in 2019 but not used in the analysis. For example, the Buildable Lands Report assumed that the R2 zone would see only single-family development even though although multifamily development is allowed in the zone and multifamily development would result in a larger number of units than shown in the table above. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 67 Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison Single- Duplex Triplex & Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily ADU Family . ..floors Road Impact Fees Port Orchard $5,205.69 $5,205.69 $2,944.63 - $5,205.69 $5,205.69 $2,944.63 $2,313.64 $1,892.98 $1,472.32 - $2,944.63 $2,564.90 Kitsap $4,229.84 $2,294.91 $2,294.91 $2,564.90 $2,294.91 $1,754.93 $1,619.94 County Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $5,318.52 $4,128.48 $4,128.48 $4,128.48 $4,128.48 $3,068.16 $3,068.16 $4,128.48 Bainbridge Island $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 Gig Harbor $5,720.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 $6,085.00 Parks Impact Fees Port Orchard $4,280.00 $3,089.00 $3,029.00 $3,089.00 - $4,280.00 $3,014.00 $3,014.00 $3,014.00 $2,344.00 Kitsap County $743.10 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 $362.03 Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 $1,195.00 Bainbridge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Island Gig Harbor $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1j500.00 $1j500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 School Impact Fees Port Orchard $1,370.83 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 $861.65 Kitsap $1,455.66 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 County Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $1,455.66 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $0.00 Bainbridge $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Island Gig Harbor $4,130.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 $2,179.00 �$2,179.00 $4,130.00 Total Impact Fees Port $10,856.52 $9,156.34 $6,835.28 - $9,156.34 - $6,820.28 $6,189.29 $5,768.63 $4,677.97 - Orchard $9 096.34 10,347.34 $6,150.28 Kitsap County $6,428.60 $3,496.75 $3,496.75 $3,766.74 $3,496.75 $2,956.77 $2,821.78 $3,766.74 Bremerton $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Poulsbo $7,969.18 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $6,163.29 $5,102.97 $5,102.97 $5,323.48 Bainbridge Island $1,811.82 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,413.22 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 $1,123.33 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 68 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 69 Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies The consultant team's comments on select housing policies are listed below. Housing Element Goal/ Policy HS-1 Identify a sufficient amount of land for housing, The Land Capacity Analysis in Section 7 of this including but not limited to government -assisted report finds the City has surplus capacity for 5,750 housing, housing for low-income families, residents beyond 2044 growth targets. Land manufactured housing, multifamily housing, capacity will be reviewed in more detail with the group homes, and foster care facilities. update to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan due in 2024. HS-2 Support the development of a variety of housing The City has a good foundation of supportive types, including apartments, townhomes, mixed- zoning standards to support a variety of housing use (residential and other uses) and live -work types, though as noted in Section 6 some development, small -lot and zero lot line single- improvements could be made or more incentives family homes, and manufactured homes, as well added. The MVOD zone is an example of as traditional single-family homes, through innovative planning. Financial assistance largely is innovative planning, efficient and effective implemented through the MFTE program, though administration of land and building codes, and, other options may need to be explored to support where available, applicable financial assistance. the low-income population. See also HS-20. HS-3 Monitor official and estimated population and The HAP is partially fulfilling this policy. Some housing data to ensure zoning and development gaps have been found in this report. regulations reflect market demands HS-4 Adopt zoning and development regulations that According to City staff, this policy is generally will have the effect of minimizing housing costs being met, but stakeholders report other factors and maximizing housing options. outside the City's control are also contributing to increasing the costs of building housing. HS-5 Support the development of housing and related Port Orchard does not have any emergency services that are provided by regional housing housing or emergency shelter for homeless programs and agencies for special needs individuals. Supportive and group housing for populations, especially the homeless, children, people with mental or physical disabilities also the elderly, and people with mental or physical appears limited, though there is a considerable disabilities. share of senior housing and assisted living facilities concentrated on the Pottery Avenue corridor. HS-6 Consider reducing permitting fees for No waivers/reductions for impact fees, general development which provide affordable housing facilities charges, or other permitting fees appear as defined by the Washington Administrative to be in place. Code (WAC) section 200-120- 020. HS-7 Consider the creation of zoning and other land This has been met through the MFTE program. use incentives for the private construction of affordable and special needs housing as a percentage of units in multi -family development. HS-8 Consider adopting incentives for development of This has been met through the MFTE program. affordable multi -family homes through property tax abatement in accordance with 84.14 RCW, focusing on designated mixed -use local centers with identified needs for residential infill and redevelopment. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 70 Goal/ Policy Text MAKERS Comments HS-9 Implement minimum residential density The City does not have any minimum density requirements in centers of local importance in standards in any zone. order to increase land and infrastructure efficiency. HS-10 Encourage the development of vertical multi- The MFTE Type III program and supportive zoning family housing above ground floor commercial helps encourage this type of housing, and there uses within centers of local importance. are a variety of private projects proposed in local centers. HS-11 Encourage the development of a mix of housing A more thorough review of the future land use types within walking and bicycling distance of map will be needed in the Comprehensive Plan public schools, parks, transit service, and update. This is a good policy to continue forward. commercial centers. HS-12 Require that new housing developments occur This is primarily met through impact fees. concurrently with necessary infrastructure investments. HS-14 Implement zoning and development regulations This type of development does not appear to be which encourage infill housing on empty and happening in large numbers, with most housing redevelopable parcels. being built on greenfields on the edge of the city. More incentives for infill and redevelopment in local centers should be explored in the HAP. HS-15 Allow the development of residential accessory Allow in all residential areas. Consider policy to dwelling units (ADUs) and detached accessory allow ADU's to be built with all single-family, dwelling units (DADUs) in appropriate residential duplex, and triplex developments. areas with sufficient public facilities to adequately serve additional residents. HS-16 Consider increasing maximum housing densities Similar to policy HS-9. Minimum densities will be and implementing minimum housing densities in explored in the HAP. The City has no maximum appropriate areas. density limits in residential zones. HS-18 Consider programs to preserve or rehabilitate One project has utilized the MFTE Type II program neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs intended for abandoned properties. The City could of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or consider other maintenance support, such as use abandonment. of Community Development Block Grants to help low-income homeowners with rehabilitation. HS-19 Consider commercial building design standards Commercial design standards have been adopted. that establish and protect neighborhood character. HS-20 Seek federal, state, and other funding for the Staff report no work has been done on grant renovation and maintenance of existing housing applications to renovate/maintain existing stock. housing stock. HS-22 Streamlining the permitting process for Stakeholders noted that permit processing time development by implementing policies and and unexpected hurdles are a continuing problem, procedures that reduce the length of time though the City has recently moved to an involved in plan approval. electronic system. HS-24 Consider developing and implementing flexible The City has recently updated its critical areas development standards for housing being standards and has no maximum density limits in proposed in the vicinity of critical areas to meet residential zones. both the goals of housing targets and environmental protection. HS-27 If the City's growth rate falls below 2.1 % annual In individual years the growth rate has sometimes growth, the rate at which the City would need to been lower than 2.1 % (e.g. 2.7% from 2017 to grow at in order to hit its 2036 growth target, the 2018), and from 2015 to 2022 the average annual Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 71 city should consider adopting reasonable growth rate was 2.6%. It is unclear which measures such as reducing adopted timeframe should be used to evaluate whether transportation levels of service, impact fees, or "reasonable measures" are needed. accelerating growth related projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. HS-28 If the City's growth rate increases from the 2.5% In individual years the growth rate has sometimes growth rate experienced from 2013-2015, the been higher than 2.5% (e.g. 2.8% from 2021 to City should consider adopting reasonable 2022), and from 2015 to 2022 the average annual measures including increasing transportation growth rate was 2.6%. It is unclear which level of service standards, impact fees, or timeframe should be used to evaluate whether delaying projects within the City's Capital "reasonable measures" are needed. Improvement Program. Land Use Element Goal/ Policy LU-1 Ensure that land use and zoning regulations Some variety of housing types are being seen in maintain and enhance existing single-family recent years, but not enough to meet all market residential neighborhoods, while encouraging needs. Revisiting this policy in the context of that new development provides a mixed range of single-family neighborhoods may be warranted in housing types. the Comprehensive Plan update. LU-11 Within centers of local importance, set minimum The housing policy review in Section 6 finds that building densities that enable lively and active none of these ideas have been implemented, with streets and commercial destinations. Such limits the exception of maximum street setbacks in may take the form of: minimum floors or building limited commercial areas. height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. LU-17 Incentivize infill development to preserve and This type of development does not appear to be protect open space, critical areas, and natural happening in large numbers, with most housing resources. being built on greenfields on the edge of the city. More incentives for infill and redevelopment in local centers should be explored in the HAP. Transportation Element Goal/ Policy Goal 7 Work with Kitsap Transit to provide increased Level of service standards for transit frequency is transit service to the City as development not mentioned anywhere in the Transportation occurs. Element. TR-38 Require new development and redevelopment to The future land use map and zoning map should provide safe neighborhood walking and biking be evaluated to determine what housing capacity routes to schools. and potential for new development exists near schools. New infrastructure is most easily paid for by new development, and schools should be nodes of residential density to facilitate short walks and bike rides for students from home. TR-86 Consider reduction of parking requirements if a Noted. development provides alternatives for multi- Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 72 Appendix C Public Engagement Report Port Orchard Housing Action Plan Public Engagement Report March 29, 2023 1.0 - Introduction In the course of preparing a housing action plan (HAP) Port Orchard engaged community members to gain a deeper understanding of local housing needs and affordability issues, find shared values and common ground, and identify divergent viewpoints. Public engagement occurred primarily in three ways: • Stakeholder interviews (see section 2.0) • A communitywide housing survey (see section 3.0) Table of Contents 1.0 — Introduction............................................................ 2.0 — Stakeholder Interview Summary ............................ 3.0 — Housing Survey Summary ..................................... Appendix A — Written Comments for "Other" Answers.. Appendix B — Housing Stories ........................................ Appendix C — Housing Construction Comments............ Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report 1 1 ..................................................... 2 ..................................................... 6 ................................................... 31 ................................................... 33 ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Page Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 2 2.0 - Stakeholder Interview Summary MAKERS and Leland Consulting Group interviewed 14 individual Port Orchard stakeholders. They included or represented city residents, elected officials, affordable housing agencies, developers and homebuilders, and other community leaders. This range of people provided a variety of perspectives on housing challenges and opportunities in Port Orchard. This section summarizes their comments, observations, and priorities. Organizations interviewed: • Port Orchard City Council and Mayor • Kitsap Housing Authority • Disney & Associates • Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce • Tarragon • Contour Construction • McCormick Communities Overall, stakeholders confirmed that there is a lack of housing options in Port Orchard, even with recent changes by the city. Low -moderate income workers and fixed -income retirees are struggling to afford housing in Port Orchard and long-time residents are seeing their adult children unable to afford buying a home in the city. There is concern that essential service and retail workers are leaving the community, limiting the social and economic diversity of the city, and hurting businesses in the city. All cost inputs for new housing are going in the wrong direction amid rising prices for materials, labor, and land. There may be some regulatory opportunities to improve the cost efficiency of construction and create partnerships for affordable housing. Regulatory tweaks to the code and design standards, policy updates to the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, and friendlier development processes for housing providers is the collection of solutions stakeholders feel could help better achieve city housing goals. 2.1 — Housing Challenges Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • There is a lot of housing being developed, but there lacks diversity of housing options with current and planned housing being developed. Most new housing is either a single-family detached home or garden apartments. Diversity of housing options is a challenge in Port Orchard. • Quote (paraphrased): "After a life changing event, I didn't want to deal with another long-term mortgage or upkeep of a large house. I wanted something where I could help take care of my mom, somewhere we could live in the same building but have our own spaces. What I was looking for didn't really exist in Port Orchard." Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 3 • Rents and upfront fees/deposits have increased significantly over the past several years, compounding the difficulties for entry-level and moderate -income workers. • Quote (paraphrased): "I am worried about economic diversity and being a place that is inclusive for people starting out. I am also worried about racial diversity and being unable to attract people from all walks of life." • Several stories were shared by people who have lived in town decades and their children cannot afford to purchase a home in town. • Lots of interest was shared by people interested in mixed -use and residential development in downtown Port Orchard, while admitting understanding or frustration that the area doesn't seem quite ready for that type of development. • There seems to be little price difference in the cost of purchasing a single-family home versus a townhome, even though they have differences in amenities and size. • Some housing providers felt cottage housing is currently tough with design standards and current allowed density. One housing provider referenced the possible trade-off with open space but thought cottage housing could be more viable if more density was allowed on the lot. • The local affordable housing authority is recently reorganizing and updating their systems, meaning they're currently behind on processing. The current waitlist has over a 1000 people and are at least a year away from developing any new housing. 2.2 — Housing Production and Code Considerations Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Several stakeholders said they appreciate working with Port Orchard staff, giving credit to their responsiveness, and that they generally liked the recent zoning code updates. However, they've also noticed with the increase of projects in Port Orchard, the permitting process has slowed down and is taken longer than it has in the past. • While admitting it did provide good looking products. Some housing providers felt navigating the design standards was more cumbersome than it needed to be (specifically mentioned were single-family homes and 2-4 unit-plexes). • Some housing providers found the lack of consistent processes for key parts of projects (sewer capacity, water line hookups, and building code) made it feel like staff were working against them, even if that wasn't the intention. • Quote (paraphrased): "So often if feels like permitters and inspectors are working against me, I'm not trying to slip something by, I want to be more collaborative during the construction process." • One housing provider felt the permitting process for a fourplex was equally as laborious as permitting an apartment. Suggested getting permitting processes for the 2-4 door range closer to the single-family permitting process. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 4 • One housing provider felt having to do so much of the process only during the City's business hours and having to do a phone call to schedule every inspection, is hard on smaller housing providers. Suggests an online permit portal. • Land costs and construction material costs have increased, while there is a short supply of labor to do the work. This is a nationwide problem. • Most stakeholders understand the reason and need for Port Orchard to raise impact fees in recent years to help pay for needed infrastructure. Many stakeholders are satisfied with where impact fees are at. Housing providers understand why fees increased, but also note that increased fees impact affordability and could impact future development. Additionally, the intensity of concern of increasing impact fees was stronger from smaller housing providers and those who mainly provide rental properties. • Quote (paraphrased): "I believe new construction should pay for itself and I don't think impact fees are too cumbersome to development in the city. However, $15,000 in total fees to approve an ADU is disproportionate." • Quote (paraphrased): "45% of all my housing is tied up in fees and permitting, taxes, impact fees, and other governmental oversight... Price increases are passed on to residents." 2.3 — Homelessness and Social Services Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Understand homelessness is a regional and statewide problem that is hard to get a handle on. Stakeholders understand affordable housing and mental health services are needed to address the problem, but know the city is lacking the resources to provide more. • A couple of stakeholders would like to see more shelters, transitional housing, single room occupancy apartments (SROs), and congregate housing in the city as housing best positioned to support the homeless population. Suggested the code be friendly to these types if not already. • A challenge identified by one stakeholder, was that available parking at new housing for the formerly homeless is still a big issue. 2.4 — Employment and Businesses • The nearby military workforce brings a consistent level of demand for housing every year. • Expansion of telecommunicating or work from home and commuting on the Kitsap fast ferry, has allowed more people from higher cost areas like Seattle to move to Port Orchard. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 5 A couple of stakeholders discussed how housing affordability is a constraint on business success in the city. Lack of workforce is hurting businesses. • Several stakeholders mentioned the need for a grocery store and consistent retail options in the downtown area. One stakeholder explained the challenge as "The demographics don't support high -end grocers and retail. On the other hand, the town needs to be upgraded to attract businesses." • Land values are not at the point for big box retailers like Safeway to consider mixed -use redevelopment and structured parking, but more housing nearby is important to support the customer base. .rrnncnnrtrntinr Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Stakeholders like the fast ferry and foot ferry transit access to Bremerton and now Seattle. However, all expressed better service is needed for the public bus transit. • Kitsap Transit has money to add lines and increase service, but operator labor shortages are keeping that from happening. This is a nationwide problem. • Biking in general and e-bikes in particular are growing in popularity as a way to get around town, do shopping, commute, etc. Seems like an opportunity for people to reduce their cost of living by driving less. 2.6 — Opportunities Summary of stakeholder comments on this topic: • Most stakeholders expressed interest and support for increased housing options. Stakeholders are looking for housing options like missing middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), townhomes, SROs, congregate housing, and apartments that are not garden apartments. • Several stakeholders are interested in updating the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program in Port Orchard to get more affordability on MFTE units. • Several housing providers shared that they there will be a market for rentable single- family homes, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. • Kitsap Housing says affordable senior housing does well in Port Orchard and because of this, more affordable senior housing could be developed in the future. • One housing provider expressed a lot of satisfaction with Port Orchard's updated R3 zone and felt that the impacts of the updated zone will be coming in the future. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan -Public Engagement Report Page 6 3.0 - Housing Survey Summary 3.1 - Target Audience and Response Rate The target audience for the survey was people living and/or working in Port Orchard city limits. The majority of respondents self -reported meeting these criteria. The project team set an informal goal of receiving at least 150 responses. The total input was 140 responses combined, and after removing non -valid response there are 128 responses available for analysis. The breakdown is provided below and details on outreach methods are provided in section 3.10. * 12 people (-9 percent) reported both living outside Port Orchard and not working in Port Orchard, and the majority are retired. While it is likely that most of these respondents have some connection to Port Orchard, they are not currently local constituents. Housing Information Question 1 Where do you live? Respondents All respondents (128) Most respondents live within Port Orchard city limits. About 13% of respondents live outside the city and have a job based in Port Orchard. 1% ■ 1 live within Port Orchard city limits, west of State Route 16 I live within Port Orchard city limits, east of State Route 16 ■ I live outside Port Orchard, elsewhere in Kitsap County I live outside of Kitsap County Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 7 Question 2 Which of these best describe your living situation? Respondents All respondents (128) Most respondents are homeowners, at 82%. Approximately 15% of respondents are renters. The rest reported being in some other situation or being homeless (the online survey was filled out by two homeless people). The survey was disproportionately answered by owners, whose households make up about 61 % of the housing units in Port Orchard. About 39% of Port Orchard housing units are renter households. NOTE: Some of the questions in the remainder of the survey compare answers between owners and renters, noted in the question summary boxes. The 4 respondents who report neither owning nor renting represent a small percentage of responses and are excluded from those comparison analyses for brevity, but are included in other analyses and any written comments. 100% 80% 82.0% 60% 40% 20% 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1 % 0% jK_ Own Rent Don't pay for Homeless None of these — housing different situation Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 8 Question 3 Regarding employment and commuting, please select the answer that most accurately describes your situation. Respondents All respondents (124), owners (105) and renters (19) Most respondents are employed and working. About 25% of respondents are retired with about 94% of the retired respondents being homeowners. As a percentage of responses, both homeowners and renters that live in Port Orchard but have employment outside the city have similar rates of commuting to job and working remotely. The employment and commuting patterns for those that are working do not differentiate too significantly between owner and renter respondents. Renters 26.2 Owners 20.0% 31.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% My employment is based in Port Orchard city limits, and I commute to my job My employment is based in Port Orchard city limits, and I usually work remotely My employment is based outside Port Orchard, and I commute to my job ■ My employment is based outside Port Orchard, and I usually work remotely I am not working right now but I plan to in the future ■ I am retired Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 9 Question 4 What is your household's total annual income? It's okay to guess. Your household includes yourself, partner/spouse or family members living with you, and roommates. Respondents All respondents (124), owners (105) and renters (19) Respondents reported a wide range of annual household incomes. Owner respondents generally have higher incomes than renter respondents. For reference, the 2020 Median Household Income in Port Orchard reported by the ACS was $71,719. About 61 % of owner respondents report their households have an income of at least $80,000 per year. About 63% of renters report their households earn less than $80,000 per year. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 -'g -'c N tD 00 O LLO O O N r V N It � O O O V> <? V> </? 00 O Ln A ■ Owners 0 N N N 00 O LO O O V O O O r r N v V> 00 <a V>00 O OLO n N Renters Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 10 Question 5 Approximately what percent of total/gross annual income does your household pay for your home? It's okay to guess. This includes rent or mortgage payments, HOA fees, property taxes, and utilities (water, sewer, etc.). Respondents All respondents (123), owners (104) and renters (19) "Cost burden" is a measure of how many households pay more than 30% of their annual income on housing. Over 60% of renters report being cost burdened by housing, with nearly a third being extremely cost burdened (paying more than half their household income on housing). About 28% of owners report being cost burdened. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 20% or less Cost Burdened 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% or more Cost of Housing Compared to Household Income ■ Owners Renters Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 11 Housing Stability Question 6 T If you experience a major unexpected financial event like a job loss, large medical bill, or a partner passing away, would you be worried about being able to stay in your current home? Respondents All respondents (119), Owners (101) and renters (18) Both owners and renters report being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected financial event at significantly high levels. A little over 60% of renters and almost 50% of owners report being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected event. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Yes No ■ Owners Renters Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 12 Question 7 Do you or any of your closest family or friends share any of the following concerns about these costs of living and service issues in Port Orchard? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (97) Housing relates to other economic, service, medical, and transportation issues. The top concern by a significant margin is the availability of medical care in town, which 49% of respondents were concerned about. Also, having some distinction from other choices, was almost 40% of respondents being concerned about expensive or unavailable day care. The remaining concerns clustered closely together as respondents third highest concern, with these concerns all being chosen by around 30% of respondents: • Limited availability of shelter and services for homeless people • Businesses struggling to recruit employees • Expensive or unavailable assisted living options around • Limited public transit service 0% 20% 40% 60% Some types of needed medical care are unavailable in town Day care is either expensive or unavailable in town Public transit service is very limited or unreliable Businesses are struggling to recruit employees who can afford to live here P Assisted living is either expensive or unavailable in town Shelter and services for homeless people are limited Other (please specify) About 22 people selected the "other" option for this question to provide written answers. Full comments are available in Appendix A.1. These are summarized as follows. • Limited dining and shopping options in the area • Property taxes are high and keep increasing, which affects everyone • High housing costs are taking away from the ability to afford other basics Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 13 Limited safe bike routes Some concerns about crime Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 14 Housing Stories Question 8 Do you have a housing story to tell? Respondents All respondents (63) Dozens of housing stories were submitted. A full listing is available in Appendix B. Overview The stories range from recounting of why people moved to Port Orchard, the impacts housing costs are having on their family and friends, and the acknowledgment of how difficult it is for young and new residents to get started in the City. Many homeowners shared how the increasing housing costs are making life hard or pushing out their kids, elderly parents, and friends from Port Orchard. Renters are discouraged about opportunities for homeownership, but also expressed dissatisfaction with the housing options available in the City to rent or buy. Overall, there is an understanding and a frustration from respondents that rising housing costs is negatively impacting other areas of quality of life. Renter Stories Many renters are feeling the pinch of increasing rent prices and are feeling pressure to move out of town for more affordable housing. Renters expressed the lack of options to rent in the area, as well as the lack of options to buy in the area. The renter stories include respondents who have grown up in Port Orchard, who have been in Port Orchard for a while, and relatively new renters in the City. An anonymous renter said: "1 grew up here and my parents live here. My husband and 1 struggled to find a home to buy that was the right mix of size, location, neighborhood, future appreciation, and development risk. We continued to rent with an exceptionally good set up, but we watched the home prices skyrocket the past few years and I began to have serious concerns about being priced out of the area. This year we purchased multifamily real estate in port orchard to preserve the option to stay in the area and secure our future housing needs." A renter named Vanessa said: "Moved out to WA Jan 2022 with husband and son. We wanted to buy a home as first time buyers but find the process a bit difficult. Renting a home is getting to be expensive with rent being $2700 for two bedroom duplexes." An anonymous renter said: "We moved here from Alaska & didn't intend to stay in our current apartment for more than one year. Due to rent and other cost increases and poor well -paying job opportunities we've been essentially trapped here for 5 years, and the situation is leading me to look elsewhere for our future. 1 was really excited to live in this beautiful area, and I've been sorely disappointed trying to enjoy living here." Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 15 Homeowner Stories Homeowners frequently said they feel lucky, fortunate, or grateful to have purchased a home when they did, acknowledging that they could not afford current prices. One person named Cate said, "I was lucky and got into my home 16 years ago; 1 have refinanced once. If I were to try to find a place to live right now without the equity of my home, 1 would have to find a roommate or two to alleviate the financial strain." A homeowner named Kris said: "We moved to port orchard a few years ago. Even with our two middle class jobs, we find it exceptionally expensive to afford our modest home. If something were to happen and we'd need repairs to our house, such as old water pipes bursting, we'd be struggling a lot to pay the mortgage." Family and Friends Many people said their adult children are either living with them because they can't afford to buy or rent in the area, or their children are moving away to find housing they can afford elsewhere. Also, it's not just children being impacted in people's families. Respondents shared stories of siblings and elderly parents who are impacted by housing cost in the area. Many people also shared that housing costs are impacting friends and colleagues. A homeowner named Matt said: "I was born and raised in South Kitsap and two of my children still live here.... with us, they can't afford to buy." An anonymous homeowner said: "My kids can't afford to stay and live in Port Orchard so they moved away. My dad moved to another town to find more affordable senior housing. The rental market is not sustainable for young adults to start and build their families and future homes here. It used to be when 1 moved here 22 years ago which Is why 1 chooses to raise my kids here." A homeowner named Christopher said: "I've had friends who live farther away for lower apartment rent, yet they work here in Port Orchard. I've also heard of people getting pushed out of Port Orchard to find better home rental and home buying prices. Port Orchard used to be the better value -for -your - money place when most get pushed out of the Silverdale and Bremerton areas." A homeowner named Season said: "1 grew up here and have watched my parents slowly start to be priced out of the area since 2007 (they have always rented). My mom was a homemaker and my dad worked in carpet/flooring as an independent contractor. 1 was lucky enough to have bought a home in 2011 for $736K when there was a surplus of foreclosed homes scattered throughout Port Orchard. My spouse's mother is also in the same situation as my parents (she will actually be moving in with us in February because as a para-educator and a service industry worker, she cannot afford to rent a one bedroom apartment in Port Orchard) Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 16 1 am disappointed to see that new apartments are showing up (which is a good thing), but that the price does not fit the incomes of many people in our town. Ideally, 1 would like to see renting as a valid option for folks who have found themselves downsizing or are approaching retirement age who might not have access or time to pay a home loan, but can still live independently and with dignity. " 3.5 — Housing Types For these two housing type questions, the answer choices were the same but the questions were different. The questions asked: • What type of home do you currently live in? • In the future, what types of homes would you consider or see yourself living in, assuming it met your price range and the needs of your family or household? The following graphic was provided to illustrate examples of some of the less common home types. The answer choices also had some parenthetical details to further explain each type, which are removed from the charts for brevity. These were: • Detached house on a large lot with a big yard • Detached house on a small lot with a modest yard (the lot size is smaller than 5,000 square feet) • Accessory dwelling unit (often designed as a mother-in-law suite, basement apartment, or backyard cottage) • Cottage housing (small single-family homes clustered around a shared yard) • Duplex or triplex (two or three attached homes) • Townhouse (attached homes, usually with multiple floors) • Apartment or condominium with 1 or 2 bedrooms • Apartment or condominium with 3 or more bedrooms • Supportive living residence (such as a group home, assisted living, or nursing home) D�uple� or tri�le�x Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 17 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 18 Question 9 What type of home do you currently live in? Respondents All respondents (108), owners (100), and renters (18) Of the owner survey takers, 96% live in a single-family home. Renters live in a larger variety of housing: 28% live in single-family homes, 17% live in an apartment or condo building, 5% live in ADU's, 39% live in a duplex or triplex, and 11 % live in a townhouse. 6 0 % -T-- 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 111 Owners Renters ■ Detached house on a large lot with a big yard ■ Detached house on a small lot with a modest yard Accessory dwelling unit Cottage court housing Duplex or triplex ■ Townhouse Apartment or condominium with 1 or 2 bedrooms Apartment or condominium with 3 or more bedrooms ■ Supportive living residence ■ Other (please specify) The survey had an "other" option which was filled out by 2 people. One of these other answers was also "single family house" with various qualities and lot size description, the other was described as a duplex style townhome, and so they are added to the overall counts in the chart. No survey takers report living in a supportive living residence (nursing home, assisted living facility, etc.). Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 19 Question 10 In the future, what types of homes would you consider or see yourself living in, assuming it met your price range and the needs of your family or household? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (119) This question was intended to understand the demand for different housing types. This will be compared to the actual housing available and being built in Port Orchard. 1 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 14.3%0 11.8% 10.10/01M 10.9% R a0/ ■ Detached house on a large lot with a big yard ■ Detached house on a small lot with a modest yard Accessory dwelling unit ■ Cottage court housing Duplex or triplex Townhouse ■ Apartment or condominium with 1 or 2 bedrooms ■ Apartment or condominium with 3 or more bedrooms ■ Supportive living residence Both renters and homeowners have a strong interest in living in single-family houses, with the large lot detached home still being the overwhelming favorite for both groups. A variety of other homes are desired. Combined results of all survey takers: 11 % would consider living in an ADU • 12% would consider living in a duplex or triplex • 19% would consider living in cottage housing • 10% would consider living in a townhouse • 22% would consider living in an apartment or condominium (with a stronger preference for 1-2 bedroom units) • 11 % would consider supportive living residences A total of 8 people selected the "other" option. Full comments are available in Appendix A.2. Most answers are similar to the basic housing types listed above. There were additional Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 20 mentions of moving out of Kitsap County altogether and a comment about having lots of land or acreage in addition to a nice size house. %menities and Feature For this set of questions, respondents filled out matrices of housing features using a weighted 1 to 5 scale. Answers of "not sure" were weighted zero. The data here uses all respondents, rather than comparing owners and renters. There was little difference in the overall results between the two groups. The answer tables are shaded for quick reference as follows: q,.. , > 4.25 3.5 to 4.25 2.75 to 3.5 < 2.75 Question 11 How important are these amenity features for you when searching for housing? Please rate on a scale of 1-5. A 5 means the feature is very important, and 1 means the feature is not at all important. Respondents All respondents (1 18) This question was intended to determine how important key housing features are for people when searching for housing. The features listed are those commonly listed on real estate listings and the basic physical aspects of a home. The most important item was finding housing in the respondents' price range. The second most important was having a home with air conditioning and heating. The home being large enough for the family or household rated a close third. In -unit appliances like laundry and dishwasher also rated fairly high. The least important amenity feature was common space for residents. This is more likely to be located in townhouse or multifamily developments than the single-family developments that many survey takers said they are interested in with previous questions. !4.2 In my price range 91 % Air conditioning and heating 83% Large enough for my family or household (number of bedrooms and bathrooms) 82% 4.26 In -unit appliances like laundry and dishwasher 82% 4.16 Private yard space 63% 3.88 Storage space 51 % 3.62 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 21 The building allows pets 60% 3.45 Other private space, such as a balcony, deck, or rooftop 52% 3.35 No stairs — the unit is either on the ground level or accessed by elevator 47% 3.19 Common space for residents, like a courtyard, roof deck, or recreation room 27% 2.34 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 22 Question 12 How important are these location and transportation features for you when searching for housing? Please rate on a scale of 1-5. A 5 means the feature is very important, and 1 means the feature is not at all important. Respondents All respondents (118) In this category, the top answer is housing located in a neighborhood that feels safe for active transportation (walking, rolling, and bicycling). Survey takers were also strongly interested in finding housing that has enough off-street parking. Moderately important location and transportation features were the distance from the home to shopping, parks, and schools. The other location and transportation features fall into the less important grouping: housing that is located a short distance to work; and having a secure place to park bikes at home. The least important feature is having equipment to charge an electric vehicle at home. Transportation'Location and . The neighborhood feels safe for walking, rolling, and bicycling 172%. 4.62 Enough off-street parking 4.09 Short distance to grocery stores and other services 62% 3.69 Short distance to public parks and schools 47% 3.21 Short distance to work 33% 2.83 Secure place to park bikes 35% 2.72 Equipment for electric vehicle charging 25% 2.22 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 23 Question 13 After housing, transportation is often the second largest share of household costs. If the following transportation options were practical and available to you, how likely would you use them to spend less on transportation? Please rate on a scale of 1-5. A 5 means you would definitely use the option, and a 1 means you would never use the option. Respondents All respondents (1 17) In this question, the top answer was "More safe sidewalks connecting my neighborhood to the rest of town." Far behind, the second top answer was working from home/telecommuting. There is moderate interest in transportation options like more safe bicycling routes, more bus and transit service, and driving electric cars. There was relatively low but still noticeable interest (with at least a quarter to a third of respondents interested) in electric bikes and downsizing the number of vehicles in the household. There was very little interested in using car -share or ride-share/taxi services. Transportation Option More safe sidewalks connecting my neighborhood to the rest of town Percentage Rating 4 or 5 73% Weighted Average Score 4.15 Working from home/telecommuting 62% 3.68 More safe bicycling routes connecting my neighborhood to the rest of town 42% 3.01 More bus service connecting to my job, school, shopping, or other services 39% 3.01 Driving an electric car to save on gas costs 34% 2.9 Selling a car or downsizing to a one -car household 28% 2.62 Using an electric bike (for distances, hills, or carrying needs) 17% 2.6 Car -share or ride-share/taxi services in town 16% 2.35 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 24 3.7 - Concepts Evaluation This question was intended to gauge the level of community support or opposition for land use, program, and funding concepts. The answers were weighted as follows. I Answer Strongly support - �t�l 2 Weight Somewhat support 1 Not sure/need more information 0 Somewhat oppose -1 Strongly oppose -2 Question 14 The following is a list of land use and zoning concepts that could be considered in the Housing Action Plan to help improve access to housing in Port Orchard. Do you support or oppose these concepts? Respondents Total Respondents (114) The charts below show how the respondents answered and are listed in order of the weighted average scores from high to low (for all respondents), which is summarized in the following table. Weighted andwW&and Zoning Concepts Average Score Percenta ...Oppose Percentage Percentage Streamline zoning standards to encourage more "middle housing" like attached duplexes, 0.85 65% 25% 10% triplexes, and townhomes Relax restrictions on accessory dwelling units 0.79 62°i° 22°i° 16°i° to encourage more to be built Create development incentives for essential services like childcare and assisted living, such 0.79 60% 30% 10% as height bonuses Modest increase in building height limits (1-2 0.65 54°i° 27°i° 19°i° floors) in multifamily and/or commercial areas Enact a minimum density requirement in one or more zones, to encourage a greater variety of 0.59 47% 41 % 12% home types in new subdivisions Encourage development of more multifamily (apartments/condos) in the Downtown area, 0.35 49% 28% 23% particularly on side streets Renters are slightly more supportive of the concepts, but there isn't a significant difference between renters and owners in their support for concepts. The strongest support overall is for streamlining zoning standards that encourage more middle housing. Other top -rated concepts were relaxing restrictions on ADUs and having creative development incentives for essential Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 25 services like daycare and assisted living. The most opposed and uncertain concept among all respondents is "encourage development of more multifamily in the Downtown area" With any concept some level of public outreach and education may be needed, demonstrated with the large shares of people who are not sure or need more information. Question 15 How much would you support these policy and program concepts, if they could help stabilize housing prices and access to housing in Port Orchard? Do you support or oppose these concepts? Respondents All Respondents (114), owner (92), and renter (18) The charts below compare owner and renter response and are listed in order of the weighted average scores from high to low (for all respondents), which is summarized in the following table. o 'r�olicy and PE29ram Concepts 0.66 57% .4 24% 19% Hire a city housing coordinator to assist renters and support local homeless services Requirements for private housing projects to 0.63 58% 18% 24% reserve some units for low-income households Stronger renter protections such as more 0.54 54% 18% 28% notice time for rent increases or options to manage move -in fees Tighten regulations on vacation rentals to 0.25 47% 20% 33% discourage the use of regular housing for tourists All the concepts scored relatively moderately when viewed overall but hiring a city housing coordinator was the concept with the most support. Notably, with this set of questions renters that participated showed a lot more support for all of the policy and program concepts than owners did, showing at least 70% support rate for the first three concepts listed in the table. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 26 Question 16 The following is a list of funding concepts that could be considered in the Housing Action Plan. Do you support or oppose these concepts? Respondents Total (114), owner (93), and renter (18) The charts below compare owner and renter response and are listed in order of the weighted average scores from high to low (for all respondents), which is summarized in the following table. Percenta krcentage Additional funding for public transit to help 0.89 SupportPercentage 71 % 16% ppose 13% people access jobs and services without a car City advocacy for more county, state, or federal 0.87 65% 23% 12% funding for affordable housing projects Direct and/or temporary rental payment 0.66 57% 27% 16% assistance for those most in need Financial assistance to help single-family 0.54 56% 24% 20% homeowners build accessory dwelling units A citywide property tax levy to fund affordable -0.39 29% 21 % 50% housing Overall, there is strong support for both additional funding for public transit and for the City to advocate for more funding from its government partners for affordable housing projects. There is moderate support for the concept of direct rental payment assistance, with renters more supportive than owners. There is more uncertainty with the concepts to provide financial assistance for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, and considerable opposition to the idea of an affordable housing property tax levy. Renters and owners both showed strong support for additional funding for public transit and for the City to advocate for more funding from its government partners for affordable housing projects. However, renters showed considerably more support for the other funding concepts then owners did. Renters supported direct rental payment assistance at 84%, financial assistance for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units at 72%, and an affordable housing property tax levy at 50%. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 27 3.8 - Demographic Information This section of the survey emphasized that answers are voluntary (as are all questions on the survey) and are only used to determine if the City is reaching a representative population. NOTE: Housing tenure is listed at the beginning of the survey summary under the Housing Information section. Question 17 Do you live in a subsidized or rent -restricted home? For example, a home managed by Housing Kitsap or similar housing agency. Respondents All respondents (113) Of the respondents who answered, 3 said they live in a subsidized or rent -restricted home. This is about 2.7% of respondents. Question 18 What is your race? Select all that apply. All questions on this page are optional and help the City of Port Orchard understand if its public engagement methods are reaching a representative population. Respondents All respondents (107) The survey captured a generally representative population in terms of race. For example, 27% of respondents identified as non -white and about 33% of the population is non -white. Of the respondents who answered, 6 provided 'other" answers that are mostly invalid, and are excluded from the chart below. 2% ■ White ■ Asian Other (please specify) ■ Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native ■ Black or African American Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 28 Question 19 What languages do you primarily speak at home? Respondents All respondents (1 10) Of the respondents who answered, 98.2% primary speak English at home and 0.9% primarily speak Spanish at home. English speakers are slightly overrepresented and Spanish speakers are slightly underrepresented, as in Port Orchard 1.9% of residents primarily speak Spanish at home. Other survey answers include Swedish, French, and Japanese. Question 20 Do you have any permanent physical disabilities that make it difficult to use your home? Respondents All respondents (1 11) Of the respondents who answered, 8% report having a permanent physical disability that makes it difficult to use their home. Question 21 Which of these describe the makeup of your family or household? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (1 11) A majority of owners and renters live with a partner or spouse with owners being the most likely group at around 70%, while for the renter group it was a little over 50%. Respondents whether owner or renter, had similar family or household makeups, with both groups having similar response rates for living alone, living with children, living with multiple generations, and living with pets. The only other main difference between the groups, is renters live in households with unrelated roommates at 12%. Whereas, no respondents in the owner group are living with unrelated roommates. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 29 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Owners Renters ■ 1 live alone ■ 1 live with a partner spouse I live with children ■ 1 live with multiple generations (e.g. grandparents, grandchildren) ■ 1 live with unrelated roommates ■ 1 live with pets Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 30 Question 22 What is your home 5-digit zipcode? Respondents All respondents (111) 94% of respondents report living in a Port Orchard zipcode which includes either 98366 or 98367. This is within the realm of consistency with Question 1 in the Housing Information section, as 87% of respondents reported living in the city limits, but the zipcode used for the City is also shared with nearby cities and areas. The other 6% of respondents likely represent the survey takers who live outside the city but work in the city. Zipcode 98366 79 71.2% Port Orchard, Manchester, and Southworth 98367 25 22.5% Port Orchard — Bethel and West of SR 16 98359 2 1.8% Olalla 98351 1 0.9% Longbranch 98312 1 0.9% Bremerton (west) and Gorst 98673 1 0.9% Wishram 98335 1 0.9% Gig Harbor 98337 1 0.9% Bremerton (east) 3.9 - Outreach Information The online survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey and went live on November 15, 2022, and closed on February 1, 2023. The link to the survey was formally distributed by: • An email to the interviewed HAP stakeholders • A post on the Facebook page of the City of Port Orchard Government page • An update on the project webpage It took an average of 15 minutes to complete the online survey. Of the local respondents, 89% fully completed the survey meaning they viewed and/or responded to all questions. An invitation to participate in the survey accompanied by a QR code to the survey, was attached to bi-monthly City utility bills that went out the week of November 28cn Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 31 Survey Appendix A - Written Comments for "Other" Answers Appendix A.1- Question 9 "Other" Answers Question 7 Do you or any of your closest family or friends share any of the following concerns about these costs of living and service issues in Port Orchard? Respondents All respondents (92) Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. • More and more apartment complexes keep popping up but we don't have good shopping areas and restaurants in the area. • Too many dilapidated rentals owned by non residents of the area. • Few places to eat out except fast food • The permitting process is inefficient and poorly managed. • Concerned with safety. Town is old and not vibrant. • A business district with local eateries and activities could benefit the town. • Late night crimes, but the Port Orchard police department is closed? Calls are being routed to, being handled by, who will follow up on/when? • Traffic and houses going up in wetland area • The growing homeless in wetlands that are breaking into homes and cars nearby • Put the homeless in jail and help stop the crime rate • Housing costs outrageous • Businesses are struggling thanks to regulations and over reach by our government. Transit, really ? The amount we spend on transit, to benefit a few, those that commute to Seattle, and then the empty busses. • Quality of life. We're not pets worried about being cared for • Everything is too expensive, but housing takes away from being able to afford basics • There are few safe bike routes. • High cost of water & sewer • Healthy places to eat and more variety to grocery shop other than FM's. • High property taxes • increase in car accidents with so much development going in. Part of what keeps raising our cost of living are property taxes- our property taxes skyrocketed in the last few years. • Utilities are high • Businesses are skirting laws and regulations leading to unsafe work conditions as well, money plays a large part but safety is also a factor. • Port Orchard is overwhelming crowded, Financial concerns living in Port Orchard Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 32 Appendix A.2 - Question 11 "Other" Answers Question 11 In the future, what types of homes would you consider or see yourself living in, assuming it met your price range and the needs of your family or household? Select all that apply. Respondents All respondents (1 19) • Condo!!!!!!! We need fewer apartments and more condos. • Acreage land • Small house on acreage... Elsewhere. • Single family home • Moving out of Kitsap due to the rising costs even with our planned retirement accounts. • House • Acreage in the middle of the woods • single story rambler not 2 story! Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 33 Survey Appendix B - Housing Stories Question 8 Do you have a housing story to tell? Respondents All respondents (61) Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. See a summary under section 3.4 of this report. Appendix 113.1- Housing Stories from Owners Stories with people who volunteered to attribute their first name are listed first. Stories after that are anonymous. Michelle We moved to Kitsap County in 2012; we moved again to within the city limits in September 2020. We are both retired and enjoy being out of King County (too busy over there). Our children are both grown and married. One lives on Vashon Island (no kids) and the other lives in Puyallup (3 kids). My parents recently relocated back to Washington (from Arizona) and live within walking distance to us. Our biggest concern is if Port Orchard will improve the roads considering how much the area is growing. Specifically, Bethel Avenue -- it needs to be widened to at least include a left turn lane. Old Clifton also needs a LOT of pothole attention. Kitsap County does a GREAT job of maintaining their roads. Port Orchard needs to do the same. John I moved here from Seattle in June 1999. 1 could not afford to live in Seattle anymore then and still now. This area was the only area that was affordable to purchase a home. Jane Difficulty in finding affordable housing. Housing permits and new construction regulations appear to be stifling new, affordable construction. Chuck I moved to Port Orchard in 2019 and moved into my retirement home. It was the best move I ever made. Vanessa I grew up in Port Orchard - one of four children. Two of my adult siblings cannot afford to own a home here, one (in her 40's) cannot afford to rent and has had to move back in with our parents with her three children. It is a huge financial burden on my parents and they have not been able to retire (70 years old). My youngest brother had to move to Tacoma to find an affordable apartment to rent, while the other brother and his blended family with 6 kids owns a two bedroom house. My 20 year old niece works 3 jobs to rent one room in a house because she cannot afford an apartment in Kitsap. She can't afford to go to college or own a car, and Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 34 public transportation is limited. I currently do not work because finding child care is almost impossible in Port Orchard, and unreliable where it is available. I consider myself fortunate to be able to have the option to stay home with my children as most households couldn't even consider this. Christopher I've had friends who live farther away for lower apartment rent, yet they work here in Port Orchard. I've also heard of people getting pushed out of Port Orchard to find better home rental and home buying prices. Port Orchard used to be the better value -for -your -money place when most get pushed out of the Silverdale and Bremerton areas. Don I've lived in Kitsap County my entire life. I was fortunate enough to leverage another house into this one, both at the right time. I couldn't afford this home now. Many of my coworkers feel they " ... missed that boat entirely!" My neighbor is retired, his wife passed, their cottage industry business closed its doors during Covid and he's worried about being 'taxed out' of his home. Another neighbor has his elderly parents living with him because " ... there's really a need for affordable housing and assisted living. If my wife wasn't home for most of the day with them, I fear what would happen." I would add that I've seen quite a few little businesses close shop and roll out of town. The "local mom & pop" type places are a dying breed, but maybe we'll gain yet another pot shop or new franchise! Ethan Joined the Navy and while working in Bremerton & Bangor, lived in Port Orchard as it seemed to be more of an area to grow a family when we first lived in. We ended up staying there. Jim I grew up on Bainbridge Island and worked in Seattle until I retired. then bought property here and built my house here and it is all paid for. I have children who can not afford to live here. Brenda I came to Port Orchard May 1979 returned to NY. After many years my I accepted a job transfer to WA in 2008. The first place I went to look for housing for my mother and myself was Port Orchard. I wanted a small community town for my aging mother. I remembered walking along Bay St in the late 70's and feeling safe. Fred After my wife passed, there was no way I was going to pay about 15 percent of my retirement income in property taxes. As a widower, I couldn't do that. Quality of life here is diminishing fast. The more you build, the worse it gets. Y'all don't bother to upgrade infrastructure (like roads) to handle the increased population. We've needed a new Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 35 high school for decades! We're about to be "Little Bummertown" (Bremerton), and I don't think anyone gives a rat's arse. I'm moving out of state. You'll be chock-full of Seattle transplants in no time. Good luck with that. BTW, my brother in law just lost his wife. He's moving out of state soon too. Our only other option are those old folks corrals you keep building. We're both veterans. Thanks again. Season I grew up here and have watched my parents slowly start to be priced out of the area since 2001 (they have always rented). My mom was a homemaker and my dad worked in carpet/flooring as an independent contractor. I was lucky enough to have bought a home in 2011 for $136K when there was a surplus of foreclosed homes scattered throughout Port Orchard. My spouse's mother is also in the same situation as my parents (she will actually be moving in with us in February because as a para-educator and a service industry worker, she cannot afford to rent a one bedroom apartment in Port Orchard) I am disappointed to see that new apartments are showing up (which is a good thing), but that the price does not fit the incomes of many people in our town. Ideally, I would like to see renting as a valid option for folks who have found themselves downsizing or are approaching retirement age who might not have access or time to pay a home loan, but can still live independently and with dignity. Isaac I have an adult son that cannot afford to rent or buy a place of his own. Matt I was born and raised in South Kitsap and two of my children still live here.... with us, they can't afford to buy. Julie I work in the mortgage industry in Port Orchard and have 50 plus clients who qualify to buy but can not afford the inventory in this area. Instead, they are looking in Mason County and South Pierce or other area in Kitsap they may be more affordable. Craig I have children who can't afford to move to Port Orchard. Jay I have friends who have been priced out of Port Orchard by residents moving in from King County. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 36 Karianna My husband and I choose to move to Port Orchard in 2018 because we wanted to purchase a house for our growing family. We had to make many compromises because of prices of homes in the area, but what we purchased will be good for us while we work on finding/building/etc. our final home here in WA. (I was born in WA, he is from MN, but fell in love with the state before he met me). Our home has lots of things we need to do to improve to be perfect for us now, but the long term plan is to build a home on land, and rent our current property, hopefully to military families (like us) who need a space to land. BUT since pricing in the area is next to impossible for people to afford, even we have to price our home higher to even afford to rent it. With so many in the area being military, I know finding affordable homes or apartments are extremely hard. Its lucky to find something within the housing allowance, as prices rise with the allowance being raised. We got lucky ... we are within our budget, and we make it work, but constantly rising taxes, lack of housing, unaffordable pricing, and many other factors is a CONSTANT battle for military families coming to the area, and already here. We love it here in Port Orchard, we have wonderful neighbors, we have easy access to everything we need (even if we have to travel a bit for some more specific things like Costco and other larger stores), and we LOVE how the city has grown without losing its small town feel. But... Housing is a huge problem, not just in the City of Port Orchard, but the whole Peninsula. With competition for houses from Seattle, its made the situation next to impossible for one of the biggest driving forces for the economy in the area ... the military families. How we can add housing without losing the charm of the small town feel I have yet been able to figure out ... but something DOES need done. Our family is lucky ... but there are MANY who are not. Erica I grew up in Port Orchard and the majority of my extended family lives here. My husband and I would like to find a house on acreage or property to build our dream home that supports us growing most of our own food. That is incredibly hard to find at a reasonable price. Debra Potential for large medical bills, trying to downsize by 2/3rds sq footage and cannot find a home that I can afford and does not need remodeling/updating. My income may look middle - income but it is SS - investments less withdrawals to have money to live on. With the economy my retirement savings are declining quickly but @ 68 1 have many worsening health conditions that prevents me from being to able to work. We need some nicely, made for elderly eg small - ranch homes. Melissa Recently moved here, only reason I was able to buy was because it's a townhouse Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 37 Michael My wife and I moved to Port Orchard in 1991, when it was still a beautiful place to live. The current house and apartment building explosion looks terrible, is already causing significant traffic congestion, and will inevitably cause an crease in crime. It is sad to see the incredible amount of development spoiling the place I love. Don Moved to Port orchard for a job in the shipyard. Dan Moved to PO from Silverdale. Relocated from Central California in 1993 to accept job with City of Bremerton PW&U as Project Manager and later accepted position in 2008 with Harrison Medical Center and 2016 with CHI Francisan in Hospital Planning, Design & Construction. Very fun career! David We moved to Port Orchard because we had friends here in Kitsap County Cate I was lucky and got into my home 16 years ago; I have refinanced once. If I were to try to find a place to live right now without the equity of my home, I would have to find a roommate or two to alleviate the financial strain. Diane I moved here from Auburn in 2003, since retired. Diane I moved to Port Orchard for a new job in 2000. My partner and I are now 79 and 84. 1 retired in 2020, but due to expenses, health problems and too much being withdrawn from IRA funds I'm looking for a part time job to help us stay in our home. Kris We moved to port orchard a few years ago. Even with our two middle class jobs, we find it exceptionally expensive to afford our modest home. If something were to happen and we'd need repairs to our house, such as old water pipes bursting, we'd be struggling a lot to pay the mortgage. Gerry I purchased my grandmother's home from the estate after she died. I commuted from Port Orchard to Poulsbo for work for over 30 years. Anonymous Fear for my 2 children being able to afford a modest dwelling (teenagers). Recruitment for my County employer has impacted services rendered there. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 38 Anonymous My kids can't afford to stay and live in Port Orchard so they moved away. My dad moved to another town to find more affordable senior housing. The rental market is no sustainable for young adults to start and build their families and future homes here. It used to be when I moved here 22 years ago which Is why I chooses to raise my kids here. Anonymous When we moved to Port Orchard, difficult to find homes in decent condition close to foot ferry. Anonymous Moved to Port 0 21 yrs ago to be near a son and because it was near Seattle but not IN Seattle Anonymous We own a building that we are attempting to turn into affordable, communal living for individuals in their 20's. The challenge is that as we work through the permitting process it keeps changing from the direction given between the pre -permit planning meetings and at the time we submitted for approval. Specifically, new forms and additional forms and then the entire application has to be submitted with new dates. These changes are creating additional costs in financing, professional planning, etc. These additional costs are making redevelopment to provide affordable housing prohibitive when considering future projects. Anonymous Our housing story doesn't really fit what I think you're looking for. We would like to move, not because of costs or work. The one and only reason we want to move is because of our dishonest and unethical HOA. We'd like to move to a home with privacy and seclusion. Anonymous I have watched much housing happening in the last year. I am not happy about all the green belts and housing that is occurring. There is not the infrastructure for this. Our sewage and water are not able to provide this amount of development. I see houses going up in wetlands and the area that I moved to that was rural and green is becoming full of traffic and crime. know housing is your priority but stop destroying our natural areas. Anonymous My children can't find housing here that they can afford. They have moved elsewhere. The politics in WA have also contributed to them leaving the state. We are not far behind. Can't stand what our governor is doing to this state. Anonymous Lived here for 44 years. Grown kids live with us in a mother-in-law apartment because they can't afford their own housing here. Anonymous I was only able to purchase my home in Port Orchard with Housing Kitsap's Mutual Self -Help Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 39 Housing Program. This offered my family and I an affordable path towards homeownership Otherwise, I wouldn't even be able to rent here. Anonymous Kids can't afford housing and live with us. All our employees live outside the city because it's cheaper. Anonymous Senior relatives are housed in my home (at below market rent) because living expenses are too high in King County. Port Orchard remains a less expensive option for living within the Puget Sound region. Anonymous We moved to Port Orchard from Bainbridge because we wanted to raise our kids in this community. We love our home and our neighbors in McCormick Woods. Anonymous I moved to Port Orchard 15 years ago because I loved its small feel, yet close proximity to the larger cities. More so I loved the trees. We have no trees anymore. The city is allowing clear cutting to put in mass developments. Our water quality sucks. Even filters can't remove the hard minerals and chlorine. Port Orchard should be just as concerned about protecting everyone- not just a pet project that someone at city hall has. All residents' quality of life goes down when the city doesn't seem to care about preserving what made this city unique and beautiful. Put the port orchard city plan side by side a Seattle map. City of Seattle has more designated green space than Port Orchard's long term plan. Anonymous I moved Port Orchard 30 years ago and purchased a home. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 40 Appendix B.2 - Housing Stories from Renter - Stories with people who volunteered to attribute their first name are listed first. Stories after that are anonymous. Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. See a summary under section 3.4 of this report. Chris This city is pricing out the local workforce. These surface level allocations of below market rent in new housing developments is immoral in exchange for the tax breaks they receive. The workforce used for construction will not be local either. There's a high likelihood that new housing will be rented by navy members, further limiting workforce housing as the navy doesn't stock our grocery store shelves. Demarie There is very little options when looking for a home to rent. Also keep noticing the amount of apartments that are being built but very little is being done about making sure our roadways have the capability of supporting that amount of growth. Paul Grew up next door to where I'm at now. I've rented this home for 13 years. The owners have always paid the water/utility bill because there is 2 homes on the 1 meter. I've learned this evening that the bill hasn't been paid since September and the service is scheduled to be disconnected tomorrow. My aunt and uncle own the property . They had to move to a assisted living facility several months ago. I was led to believe that the bill would be kept current. As a disabled individual living alone I am very concerned. I will call in the morning to try and resolve this issue. Vanessa Moved out to WA Jan 2022 with husband and son. We wanted to buy a home as first time buyers but find the process a bit difficult. Renting a home is getting to be expensive with rent being $2100 for two bedroom duplexes. Anonymous I grew up here and my parents live here. My husband and I struggled to find a home to buy that was the right mix of size, location, neighborhood, future appreciation, and development risk. We continued to rent with an exceptionally good set up, but we watched the home prices skyrocket the past few years and I began to have serious concerns about being priced out of the area. This year we purchased multifamily real estate in port orchard to preserve the option to stay in the area and secure our future housing needs. Anonymous We moved here from Alaska & didn't intend to stay in our current apartment for more than one year. Due to rent and other cost increases and poor well -paying job opportunities we've been Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 41 essentially trapped here for 5 years, and the situation is leading me to look elsewhere for our future. I was really excited to live in this beautiful area, and I've been sorely disappointed trying to enjoy living here. From: M Neiner <mneiner@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 8:58 PM To: Planning Mailbox Subject: Housing Action Plan Some people who received this message don't often get email from mneiner@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear Planning Commission, Please submit this to Public Record as a public comment regarding the Housing Action Plan. After reading through the action plan, the one thing that stands out to me is the heavy focus on parts of the City that are East of SR16. If I didn't know any better I would never be able to tell that McCormick Woods and the adjacent developments are even part of the city. It's as if those neighborhoods were completely exempted from consideration for any kind of measures to help fight this housing CRISIS the city is currently experiencing. Things become even more of a head scratcher when considering the City Council used the growth in that area as a big part of the rationale for spending almost a million dollars on a splash pad conversion project at the city park. There is limited parking at the park, no public transit, and it's not walkable or bike -able for anybody outside of the general area. This park doesn't' exist in the plan yet more city money is being spent at that park then any other park. Where is all this equity I hear about? I'm sure there are reasons for omitting this relatively LARGE area of the city from the plan; all of which could be dealt with through zoning and comp plan changes. Of course it would be challenging to take on such changes when the folks living in those areas typically have strong homeowner associations, discretionary income, legal connections and other resources to bear on the city. Is this what NIMBY looks like? Is this plan what the Department of Commerce had in mind when they provided the funding to make the plan? I'm beginning to understand why the legislators in Olympia are advocating for RCW revisions that take zoning control out of the hands of local jurisdictions. This is not a Housing Action Plan for Port Orchard. This is a Housing Action Plan for Port Orchard East of SR16. Respectfully, Mike Neiner Port Orchard 1 po n o T /da V .0 w TD S C_ e C'DC1Q . �yc A-IA/Ac r e 4 hs pe�Pl,P ea Atid7d ✓'�h� !S �� G4��prc� �45 '� eOLGi" T� e faX /�Gr�QSe S �or Jiro?�✓'� a�cc+� CI,-eulc� z �y �a r i c t h e yeas es Lam. w, r e S on S e 4�% 7�0✓' Steeptacl( RECEIVED PERMIT CENTER JAN 4 5 2023 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD HOUSING ACTION PLAN (HAP) DATED MAY 24, 2023 WHEREAS, on April 21, 2022, the City was awarded a State -funded grant of $75,000 from the Washington State Department of Commerce under the authority granted by Chapter 39.34 RCW for the development of a Housing Action Plan (HAP); and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2022 the City of Port Orchard approved a grant agreement, Contract CXXX-22, between the City and the Washington State Department of Commerce for the Housing Action Plan Implementation Grant to adopt a HAP in the amount of $75,000; and WHEREAS, the City has recently completed City of Port Orchard HAP in accordance with Contract C069-22 and state guidelines; and WHEREAS, the HAP quantifies existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households, with documentation of housing and household characteristics, and cost -burdened households; and WHEREAS, the HAP identifies strategies to increase the supply of housing, and variety of housing types, needed to serve the housing; and WHEREAS, the HAP analyzes population and employment trends and documents projections; and WHEREAS, the HAP considers strategies to minimize displacement of low-income residents resulting from redevelopment; and WHEREAS, the HAP evaluates the current housing element adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070; and WHEREAS, the development of the HAP provided participation and input from community members, community groups, local builders, local realtors, nonprofit housing advocates, and local religious groups; and 10682172.1 - 366922 - 0001 Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the HAP includes a schedule of programs and actions to implement the recommendations of the HAP; and WHEREAS, the City utilized a variety of approaches to ensure public involvement, including direct mailings, public meetings, and online surveys; and WHEREAS, the City has incorporated the input of the community to produce a HAP that will address the City's priorities and needs in order to promote housing opportunities for all City residents; and WHEREAS, the HAP was reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the City's SEPA Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on April 14, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard Planning Commission conducted an open record public hearing on the Housing Action Plan on May 2, 2023, and continued the hearing to June 6, 2023; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023 after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend acceptance of the HAP by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City has complied with the substantive, procedural and notice requirements for this action, and that it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to approve the City of Port Orchard Housing Action Plan; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: THAT: It is the intent of the Port Orchard City Council that the recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated as findings in support of this Resolution. THAT: The Planning Commission's Recommendation is hereby adopted and ratified by the Port Orchard City Council as its decision herein. The City Council adopts the findings of the Planning Commission as its own findings herein. THAT: The City Council, after reviewing all the evidence and the Planning Commission's recommendation, hereby approves and accepts the City of Port Orchard Housing Action Plan dated May 24, 2023. 10682172.1 - 366922 - 0001 Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 THAT: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 13t" day of June 2023. Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk 10682172.1 - 366922 - 0001 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (36o) 874-5533 • FAX: (36o) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 5(b) Meeting Date: June 6, 2023 Public Hearing — Revisions to Prepared by: Nick Bond, Development Director Subject: POMC 2.20 Planning Commission Summary: City Staff is considering revising Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 2.20 for clearer guidance and regulations for the Planning Commission. City Staff shared examples of other jurisdictions code regarding Planning Commission regulations (Poulsbo, Gig Harbor, Bremerton, and Bainbridge Island) to the Planning Commissioners as well as the existing POMC 2.20 Planning Commission, which provides regulations for the Commission currently. Staff gathered feedback on how the Planning Commission would like to proceed with the code amendment. After reviewing the proposed redline changes, the Planning Commissioners recommended City Staff to draft an ordinance amending POMC 2.20 and a public hearing be scheduled for tonight's meeting. Staff introduced the proposed amendment to POMC 2.20 at the May 2, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. Since introduction, the City of Port Orchard SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) on May 9, 2023. Public notice for tonight's public hearing was properly noticed consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25 on May 22, 2023. As of the date of Report preparation, the Department of Community Development has not received comments regarding the proposed code amendment or the DNS. For the Planning Commission's consideration, City Staff has included another potential amendment to POMC 2.20 to include an additional section, POMC 2.20.035. This section would require the Chair of the Planning Commission to be physically present or pass the gavel to someone physically present to Chair the meeting. City Staff encourages the Planning Commission to review the additional section and determine if they would like to include POMC 2.20.035 in the ordinance. The proposed language to be included in the ordinance is presented for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation to the City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission to review the recommendations presented and approval of the proposed amendments to POMC 2.20.010, 2.20.020, 2.20.025, 2.20.30, 2.20.035, 2.20.040, 2.20.050, and 2.20.060, 2.20.065, 2.20.070, and 2.20.080. Suggested Motion: "I move to recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amending Port Orchard Municipal Code POMC 2.20.010, 2.20.020, 2.20.025, 2.20.30, 2.20.035, 2.20.040, 2.20.050, and 2.20.060, 2.20.065, 2.20.070, and 2.20.080, as presented." Attachments: Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) 2.20 Planning Commission Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. -23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REVISIONS TO PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE (POMC) 2.20 TO PROVIDE UPDATED GUIDANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT THEIR DUTIES; AMENDING POMC SECTIONS 2.20.010, 2.20.020, 2.20.030, 2.20.050 AND 2.20.080 TO MAKE HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES, AMENDING 2.20.080 TO UPDATE QUORUM REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING REMOTE PARTICIPATION, ADDING NEW SECTION POMC 2.20.025 TO OUTLINE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS, ADDING NEW SECTION POMC 2.20.035 REGARDING ATTENDANCE TO ADDRESS REMOTE PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES, AND NEW SECTION POMC 2.20.065 REGARDING RECORDS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CORRECTIONS, AND PUBLICATION; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend POMC Chapter 2.20 (Planning Commission) in order to provide updated guidance to the Planning Commission to carry out their duties, including amending or adopting procedures to address remote participation by Planning Commission Members; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City's SEPA official issued a determination of non - significance for the proposed adoption of revisions POMC 2.20, and there have been no appeals; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed adoption of revisions to POMC 2.20, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the recommendation from the Planning Commission, all public comment, and the Ordinance, finds that this Ordinance is consistent with Chapter 35.63 RCW, and that the amendments herein are in the best interests of the residents of the City and further advance the public health, safety and welfare; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council adopts all of the "Whereas" sections of this ordinance as findings in support of this ordinance. SECTION 2. Section 2.20.010 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to Ordinance No. read as follows: Page 2 of 6 2.20.010 Planning Csommission created. Pursuant to Chapter 35.63 RCW, there is created a Ceity Pelanning CEommission, which shall consist of seven members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the CEity Ceouncil; six shall be residents of the Ceity and one may be a nonresident of the CEity except the Mayor and CEity CEouncil may, by council resolution, temporarily extend the term of a Planning CEommissioner who, during their per term, moves out of the CEity, to provide for continuity of specific projects or planning processes. SECTION 3. Section 2.20.020 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.020 Planning Ccommission positions, terms, and term ending dates. (1) Planning CEommissioner terms shall be four years in length. There shall be seven P-planning CEommissioner positions to be known as Position 1, Position 2, Position 3, Position 4, Position 5, Position 6, and Position 7, respectively. The current term expiration for each of the respective P-planning Ceommission positions as of the date of the ordinance codified in this chapter is as follows: Position Term Expiration Position 1 December 31, 2020 Position 2 December 31, 2020 Position 3 December 31, 2021 Position 4 December 31, 2022 Position 5 December 31, 2023 Position 6 December 31, 2023 Position 7 December 31, 2023 (2) Upon expiration of the terms of each position as provided in subsection (1) of this section, reappointments or successors shall be appointed by the Mayor for t#ea term of four years each. When an appointment by the Mmayor is to fill an open position prior to the end of the term, then the person so appointed shall serve out the term of the position into which they have he ^" she lh^s been appointed. SECTION 4. A new Section 2.20.025 is hereby added to the Port Orchard Municipal Code to read as follows: 2.20.025 Conduct of meetings. The following standards shall apply to Planning Commission meetings: Ordinance No. Page 3of6 (1) Planning Commission meetings will be held consistent with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW and the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. (2) The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Planning Commission in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with any special rules of order the Planning Commission may adopt. (3) Planning Commission meetings must have a physical location for the public to attend, however, members of the Planning Commission may attend the meetinZ remotely. The means of remote access shall allow real-time verbal communication. (4) A Planning Commission quorum shall be required for passage of any matter before the Planning Commission. (5) The minutes of the meeting shall reflect the ayes and nays cast on a particular measure as well as the vote of each member present. (6) Whenever a tie vote occurs, such a vote shall be considered no decision concluded. In such a case, the Chairperson shall call for a new motion, or hearing no new motion and determining the matter under consideration cannot be resolved during the current meeting, shall announce and direct the matter to be carried over to the next Planning Commission agenda, at which time it shall be scheduled for further consideration: or, the Chairperson may forward the request to the City Council with no recommendation accompanied by the minutes of the request. SECTION 5. Section 2.20.030 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.030 Powers and duties. The Pplanning CEommission shall have all of the powers and perform each and all of the duties specified by Chapter 35.63 RCW, together with any other duties or authority which may hereafter be conferred upon them by laws of the state of Washington, the performance of such duties and the exercise of such authority to be subject to each and all the limitations expressed in Chapter 35.63 RCW. SECTION 6. A new Section 2.20.035 is hereby added to the Port Orchard Municipal Code to read as follows: 2.20.035 Attendance. Planning Commissioners shall attend Planning Commission meetings in the physical location where the meeting is held. Planning Commissioners may attend meetings remotely if necessary. If the Chair is unable to be present in the physical location where the meeting is held, the Vice Chair, if physically present, shall chair the meeting. If neither the Chair nor Vice Chair are present, another commissioner who is physically resent, shall chair the meeting. Such selection shall be as voted on by the membership. Ordinance No. Page 4 of 6 SECTION 7. Section 2.20.040 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.040 Recommendations to Ci eouncil. The Ccity Ccouncil may refer to the P-planning CEommission for its recommendation and report, any ordinance, resolution, or other proposal relating to any of the matters and subjects referred to in Chapter 35.63 RCW, and the Planning CEommission shall promptly report to the C Ccouncil thereon, making such recommendations and giving such counsel as it may deem proper. SECTION 8. Section 2.20.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.060 Meetings of Planning CEommission — Records. The Planning CEommission shall elect its own Cc -hair e MaR and create and fill such other offices as it may determine it requires. In general, the Planning CEommission shall hold a regular meeting once per month; however, during any month, the Cc -hair of the Planning CEommission or the CEity's Department of Community Development g Ddirector may determine that there are no review items requiring the Pplanning CEommission to hold a regular meeting and conduct business during that month; or, that there are review items requiring the Pplanning CEommission to hold a regular meeting and conduct business more often than once during that month. All meetings shall be open to the public and shall be noticed in accordance with Chapter 42.30 RCW. of public r ef4 SECTION 9. A new Section POMC 2.20.065 is hereby added to the Port Orchard Municipal Code to read as follows: 2.20.065 Recordkeepine. The City shall provide a recording of all Planning Commission meetings by electronic means. The City shall furnish a copy of a recording of any meeting upon written request of any interested party. The party requesting the copy of the recording must bear the costs of producing a copy of the recording. The Planning Commission will also keep a written record of its meetings, resolutions, transactions, findings, and conclusions. That record shall be a public record. SECTION 10. Section 2.20.070 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.070 Quorum. Ordinance No. Page 5 of 6 (1) A simple majority mem" of the Pialanning Ceommission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Any action taken by a majority of those present at any regular meeting of the Pplanning CEommission shall be deemed and taken as the action of the Planning Ceommission. 2) Planning Commissioners attending meetings remotely will count in the quorum. In the case of a meeting being interrupted by the loss of a quorum during the taking of public comments or testimony, the Planning Commission may continue to accept and record all the public comments that are offered but may not take any action on that agenda item, nor may continue to another agenda item, other than to adjourn. 3) When a quorum does not exist at a regularly scheduled or special meeting, a member of the Planning Commission may announce to all present that any public hearings are continued to a time, date, and location certain, thereby avoiding the need to re -advertise such public hearings. SECTION 11. Section 2.20.080 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.080 Annual report to City Ceouncil. The Pplanning Ceommission, at or before its first regular meeting in February of each year, shall make a full report in writing to the CEity Ceouncil of its transactions and expenditures, if any, for the preceding year, with such general recommendations as to matters covered by its prescribed duties and authority as may to it seem proper. SECTION 12. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. SECTION 13. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and/or code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener's/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto. SECTION 14. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. SECTION 15. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect five days after publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this day of 2023. Ordinance No. Page 6of6 ATTEST: Robert Putaansuu, Mayor SPONSOR: Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk , Councilmember APPROVED AS TO FORM: Charlotte A. Archer, City Attorney PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Ph.: (36o) 874-5533 • FAX: (36o) 876-4980 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No: 5(c) Meeting Date: June 6, 2023 Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP Subject: Open Space Taxation Act Request Development Director Summary: McCormick Development Corporation made application to Kitsap County on March 28, 2023 for classification of the property identified as APN 5686-000-058-0001 by the Kitsap County Assessor requesting a one acre parcel within the Amherst Plat be designated with an Open Space Tax Classification. On April 13, 2023 the Port Orchard Department of Community Development received a request from the Kitsap County Department of Community Development regarding the application. The parcel, Tract E, is currently under the ownership of McCormick Development Corp and was created as part of the Amherst Plat recorded in May 2021. The property is a forested site designated Residential 2 on the adopted City of Port Orchard 2023 Zoning Map and unencumbered by critical areas as described in the Soundview Consultants' June 7, 2019 Wetland Report. Tract E, as noted on page 2 of the recorded plat, was retained by the owner for future development or private open space, or to be transferred to an adjoining owner. The parcel is landlocked and offers little to no legal access to recreational opportunities. However, the property adjoins an open space tract associated with the Strathmore subdivision immediately east of the subject property. The Open Space Taxation Act, enacted in 1970, allows voluntary resource conservation on private property to preserve, protect or restore open space resources, such as buffers to streams and wetlands, ground water, wildlife among other environmental considerations in exchange for tax incentive. The process is administered by Kitsap County where in incorporated areas, separate affirmative acts by both the County and City legislative bodies affirm the entirety of an application without modification or both bodies affirm an application with identical modifications. Either body can approve, approve with conditions (provided the conditions are identical) or deny. If approved, tax benefit starts the following year. Open Space is defined in RCW 84.34.020 as: (a) any land area designated by an official comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city or county and zoned accordingly, or (b) any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (ii) protect streams or water supply, or (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or (iv) enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space, or (v) enhance recreation opportunities, or (vi) preserve historic sites, or (vii) preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas, or (viii) retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by the legislative body granting the open space classification, or (c) any land meeting the definition of farm and agricultural conservation land under subsection (8) of RCW 84.34.020. The Land Use Committee was briefed on the Open Space request at their regular meeting on May 10, 2023 and supported staff processing of the request through Planning Commission prior to bringing it to a regularly scheduled City Council meeting for decision. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review the request prior to scheduling a public hearing. Staff recommends that a public hearing be scheduled for August 1, 2023, on the requested designation. Attachments: Open Space Taxation Act Information, and materials received by the Kitsap County Department of Community Development as part of application: • Sheet 3 of 6 Amherst Plat identifying subject property, • Kitsap County Application Submission Report, • Amherst Plat (recorded May 2021), • Undated photograph of subject property from adjacent Amherst Plat prior to home construction, • Undated aerial photograph of subject property (circa 2021), • Subject property plat and aerial photograph, • June 7, 2019 Wetland Report prepared by Soundview Consultants, and • May 29, 2019 Geotechnical Report prepared by Riley Group. 2 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Open Space Taxation Act The information and instructions in this publication are to be used when applying for assessment on the basis of current use under the"open space laws,"chapter 84.34 RCW and chapter 458-30 WAC. What is the Open Space Taxation Act? The Open Space Taxation Act, enacted in 1970, allows property owners to have their open space, farm and agricultural, and timber lands valued at their current use rather than at their highest and best use. The Act states that it is in the best interest of the state to maintain, preserve, conserve, and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food, fiber, and forest crops and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well- being of the state and its citizens. Lands qualifying for current use classification The law provides three classifications Open space land Farm and agricultural land Timber land man �•' � :; S �• .yam � � Open space land is defined as any of the following: Any land area zoned for open space by a comprehensive official land use plan adopted by any city or county. 2. Any land area in which the preservation in its present use would: a. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources. b. Protect streams or water supply. c. Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes. (As a condition of granting open space classification, the legislative body may not require public access on land classified for the purpose of promoting conservation of wetlands.) d. Enhance the value to the public of neighbouring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space. e. Enhance recreation opportunities. f. Preserve historic sites. g. Preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas. h. Retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by the legislative authority granting the open space classification. 3. Any land meeting the definition of"farm and agricultural conservation land,' which means either: Land previously classified under the farm and agricultural classification that no longer meets the criteria and is reclassified under open space land; or b. "Traditional farmland not classified, that has not been irrevocably devoted to a use inconsistent with agricultural uses, and that has a high potential for returning to commercial agriculture. This fact sheet provides general information regarding the Open Space Taxation Act. The information is current at the date ofpublication. Please note subsequent law changes may supersede or invalidate some of this information. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 3. Any parcel of land that is five acres or more but less than 20 acres, is devoted primarily to agricultural uses, and has standing crops with 'lyv�r�_.;,..,-..�,,., ,.., ,..._ ..•,5:, an expectation of harvest within: a. Seven years and a demonstrable r investment in the production of those crops equivalent to $100 or more per acre in the current Farm and agricultural land is defined as any of the following: 1. Any parcel of land that is 20 or more acres, or multiple parcels of land that are contiguous and total 20 or more acres, and are: a. Devoted primarily to the production of livestock or agricultural commodities for commercial purposes. b. Enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program (CRP) or its successor administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. c. Other commercial agricultural activities established under chapter 458-30 WAC. 2. Any parcel of land that is five acres or more but less than 20 acres, is devoted primarily to agricultural uses, and has produced a gross income equivalent to: a. Prior to January 1, 1993, $100 or more per acre per year for three of the five calendar years preceding the date of application for classification. b. On or after January 1, 1993, $200 or more per acre per year for three of the five calendar years preceding the date of application for classification. or previous calendar year b. Fifteen years for short rotation hardwoods and a demonstrable investment in the production of those crops equivalent to $100 or more per acre in the current or previous calendar year. 4. For parcels of land five acres or more but less than 20 acres, "gross income from agricultural uses" includes, but is not limited to, the wholesale value of agricultural products donated to nonprofit food banks or feeding programs. Any parcel of land less than five acres devoted primarily to agricultural uses and has produced a gross income of: a. Prior to January 1, 1993, $1,000 or more per year for three of the five calendar years preceding the date of application for classification. b. On or after January 1, 1993, $1,500 or more per year for three of the five calendar years preceding the date of application for classification. 6. "Farm and agricultural land"also includes any of the following: a. Incidental uses compatible with agricultural purposes, including wetland preservation, provided such use does not exceed 20 of the classified land. b. Land on which appurtenances necessary for production, preparation, or sale of agricultural products exist in conjunction with the lands producing such products. c. Any non-contiguous parcel one to five acres, that is an integral part of the farming operations. d. Land on which housing for employees or the principal place of residence of the farm operator or owner is sited provided the use of the housing or residence is integral to the use of the classified land for agricultural purposes, the housing or residence is on or contiguous to the classified land, and the classified land is 20 or more acres. e. Land that is used primarily for equestrian -related activities for which a charge is made, including, but not limited to, stabling, training, riding, clinics, schooling, shows, or grazing for feed. Depending on the number of classified acres, the land may be subject to minimum gross income requirements. f. Land that is primarily used for commercial horticultural purposes, including growing seedlings, trees, shrubs, vines, fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, and other plants in containers, whether under a structure or not. For additional criteria regarding this use, please refer to RCW 84.34.020(2)(h). WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Timber land is defined as the following: Any parcel of land five or more acresor multiple parcels of land that are contiguous and total five or more acres which is or are devoted primarily to the growth and harvest of timber for commercial purposes. Timber land means the land only and does not include a residential homesite. The term includes land used for incidental uses that are compatible with the growing and harvesting of timber but no more than 10% of the land may be used for such incidental uses. It also includes the land which appurtenances necessary for the production, preparation, or sale of the timber products exist in conjunction with land producing these products. The timber land classification may be unavailable in some counties. As a result of the passage of Senate Bill 6180 in 2014, counties have the option to merge their timber land classification into their designated forest land program under chapter 84.33 RCW.To determine whether your county offers the timber land classification, you may contact the county assessor or visit the Department of Revenue's website at: www.dor.wa.gov. Who may apply? An owner or contract vendee may apply for current use assessment. However, all owners or contract vendees must sign the application for classification, and any resulting agreement. When may I apply? Applications may be made for classification at any time during the year from January 1 through December 31. If approved, current use assessment will begin on January 1 following the year the application was submitted. Where do I get the application? Application forms for the farm and agricultural land classification are available from the county assessor's office. Application forms for the open space and timber land classifications are available from either the county assessor's office or by contacting the county legislative authority. Where do I file the application? An application for open space classification is filed with the county legislative authority. An application for farm and agricultural land classification is filed with the county assessor. An application for timber land classification is filed with the county legislative authority. Timber land applications require that a timber management plan also be filed. Is there an application fee? The city or county legislative authority may, at their discretion, establish a processing fee to accompany each application. This fee must be in an amount that reasonably covers the processing costs of the application. What happens after I file my application for open space classification? Applications for classification or reclassification as "open space land" are made to the appropriate agency or official called the "granting authority" If the land is located in the county's unincorporated area, the county legislative authority is the granting authority on the application. If the land is located within an incorporated area of the county, the application is acted upon by both the county and city legislative authorities. If the application is subject to a comprehensive plan that has been adopted by any city or county it will be processed in the same manner in which an amendment to the comprehensive plan is processed. If the application is not subject to a comprehensive land use plan, a public hearing on the application will be conducted, but a notice announcing the hearing must be published at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The granting authority must approve or reject the application within six months of receiving the application. In determining whether an application made for classification or reclassification should be approved or denied, the granting authority may consider the benefits to the general welfare of preserving the current use of the property. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE They may require that certain conditions be met including but not limited to the granting of easements. If the application is approved, the granting authority will, within five calendar days of the approval date, send an agreement to the applicant for signature showing the land classification and conditions imposed. The applicant may accept or reject the agreement. If the applicant accepts, he or she must sign and return the agreement to the granting authority within 30 days after receipt. The approval or denial of the application for classification or reclassification is a legislative determination and is reviewable only for arbitrary and capricious actions. Appeal can be made only to the superior court of the county where the application was filed. Within 10 days of receiving notice of classification of the land from the granting authority, the assessor submits the notice to the county auditor for recording in the place and manner provided for the public recording of state tax liens on real property. If approved, current use assessment will begin on January 1 following the year the application was submitted. The criteria for classification continue to apply after classification has been granted. How does a public benefit rating system work? If the county legislative authority has established a public benefit rating system (PBRS) for the open space classification, the criteria contained within the rating system governs the eligibility and valuation of the land subject to the application. When a county creates or amends a PBRS, all classified open space land will be rated under the new PBRS. Land that no longer qualifies for classification will not be removed from classification, but will be rated according to the PBRS. Within 30 days of receiving notification of the new assessed value established by the PBRS, the owner may request removal of classification of the land without imposition of additional tax, interest, and penalty. What happens after I file my application for farm and agricultural land classification? Upon application for classification or reclassification, the assessor may require applicants to provide data regarding the use of the land, including, but not limited to, the productivity of typical crops, sales receipts, federal income tax returns, other related income and expense data, and any other information relevant to the application. The application will be considered approved unless the assessor notifies the applicant in writing prior to May 1 of the year after the application was submitted. The criteria for classification continue to apply after classification has been granted. What is an "advisory committee"? The county legislative authority must appoint a five member committee representing the active farming community within the county. This committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the assessor in implementing assessment guidelines as established by the Department of Revenue for the assessment of open space lands, farm and agricultural lands, and timber lands. How do I appeal a denial of my farm and agricultural land application? The owner may appeal the assessor's denial to the board of equalization in the county where the land is located. The appeal must be filed with the board on or before July 1 of the year of the determination or within 30 days after the mailing of the notice of denial, or within a time limit of up to 60 days adopted by the county legislative authority, whichever is later. What happens after I file my application for timber land classification? Applications for timber land classification or reclassification are made to the county legislative authority. A timber management plan is required at the time of application or when a sale or transfer of timber land occurs and a notice of continuance is signed. The application form requests information about forest management, restocking, fire protection, insect and disease control, weed control, and any other summary of experience and activity that supports the growth and harvest of timber for commercial purposes. 4 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The application is acted upon in a manner similar to open space land applications and within six months of receiving the application. Approval or denial of a timber land application is a legislative determination and is reviewable only for arbitrary and capricious action. Appeal can be made only to the superior court of the county where the application was filed. Within 10 days of receiving notice of classification of the land from the granting authority, the assessor submits the notice to the county auditor for recording in the place and manner provided for the public recording of state tax liens on real property. If approved, current use assessment will begin on January 1 following the year the application was submitted. The criteria for classification continue to apply after classification has been granted. How is the value of classified land determined? The assessor is required to maintain two values for each parcel that is classified. The first is the value that would be placed on the land if it was not classified. This is commonly referred to as the "fair market value" The second is the current use land value based on its current use, not highest and best use, as classified by the granting authority. Open space land located within a county that has adopted a public benefit rating system will be valued according to the criteria of the rating system. In the absence of a rating system, the per acre value can be no less than the lowest per acre value of classified farm and agricultural land in the county. In determining the current use value of farm and agricultural land, the assessor considers the earning or productive capacity of comparable lands from crops grown most typically in the area averaged over not less than five years. This earning or productive capacity is the "net cash rental" and is capitalized by a "rate of interest" charged on long term loans secured by a mortgage on farm or agricultural land plus a component for property taxes. Timber land is valued according to a schedule prepared by the Department of Revenue according to chapter 84.33 RCW. The Department of Revenue annually adjusts and certifies timber land values to be used by county assessors in preparing assessment rolls. The assessors assign the timber land values to the property based upon land grades and operability classes. When are taxes due on classified lands? Land classified as open space, farm and agricultural, or timber land is assessed at its current use value and placed on the assessment rolls the year after the application was submitted. Taxes on classified land are due and payable the year after the current use value was placed on the assessment rolls. How long does the classification last? The land continues in its classification until a request for removal is made by the owner, the use of land no longer complies, a sale or transfer to an owner that causes land to be exempt from property taxes, or the ownership has changed and the new owner has not signed a Notice of Continuance. The notice of removal is recorded with the county auditor in the same manner as the recording of state tax liens on real property. Additional tax, interest, and penalties will apply if the land is removed and the removal does not meet one of the exceptions listed in RCW 84.34.108(6). How do I withdraw from classification? If intending to withdraw all or a portion of the land from classification after 10 years of classification, the owner must complete a withdrawal form with the county assessor. If a portion of the land is removed from classification, the remaining portion must meet the requirements of original classification unless the remaining land has different income or investment criteria. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE What happens after I file a request to withdraw? Upon receipt of a request for withdrawal, the assessor notifies the granting authority that originally approved the classification, and, the assessor withdraws the land from classification. The land withdrawn from classification is subject to seven years of additional tax and interest, but not a 20% penalty. What happens if the classified land is sold or transferred? When classified land is sold or transferred, the seller or transferor becomes liable at the time of sale for the additional tax, interest, and penalty unless the new owner(s) signs the Notice of Continuance which is attached to or shown on the real estate excise tax affidavit. The county auditor cannot accept an instrument of conveyance on any classified land unless the Notice of Continuance has been signed or the additional tax, interest, and penalty has been paid. The assessor determines if the land qualifies for continued classification What if I want to change the use of my classified property? An owner changing the use of land from a classified use must notify the county assessor within 60 days of this action. The assessor will remove the land from classified status and impose an additional tax equal to the difference between the tax paid on the current use value and the tax that would have been paid on the land had it not been classified. The additional tax is payable for the last seven tax years, plus interest at the same rate as charged on delinquent property taxes, plus a penalty of 20% of the total amount. If the assessor removes my land from classification, may I appeal? Yes, the owner may file an appeal of the removal from classification to the county board of equalization on or before July 1 of the year of the determination, or within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed by the assessor, or within a time limit of up to 60 days adopted by the county legislative authority, whichever is later. Upon removal from classification, what taxes are due? At the time the land is removed from classification, any taxes owing from January 1 of the removal year through the removal date, and any additional tax, applicable interest, and penalty owing are due and payable to the county treasurer within 30 days of the owner being notified. What if the additional taxes are not paid? Any additional tax, applicable interest, and penalty become a lien on the land at the time the land is removed from classification. This lien has priority over any other encumbrance on the land. Such a lien may be foreclosed upon expiration of the same period after delinquency in the same manner as delinquent real property taxes. If unpaid, interest is charged on the total amount due at the same rate that is applied by law to delinquent property taxes. Interest accrues from the date of the delinquency until the date the total amount is paid in full. What is done with the additional tax, interest, and penalty paid when land is removed from classification? Upon collection, the additional tax is distributed by the county treasurer in the same manner in which current taxes applicable to the subject land are distributed. The applicable interest and penalties are distributed to the county's current expense fund. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE How do I change the classification of my property? Land may be reclassified, upon request by the owner, subject toall applicable qualifications for each classification, without additional tax, interest, and penalty for the following: 1. Land classified as farm and agricultural land may be reclassified to timber land; timber land may be reclassified to farm and agricultural land. 2. Land classified as either farm and agricultural land or timber land under chapter 84.34 RCW, or forest land under chapter 84.33 RCW may be reclassified to open space land. 3. Land classified as farm and agricultural land or timber land may be reclassified to forest land under chapter 84.33 RCW. 4. Land previously classified as farm and agricultural land may be reclassified to open space land as"farm and agricultural conservation land" and subsequently be reclassified back to farm and agricultural land. Applications for reclassification are acted upon in the same manner as approvals for initial classification. The county assessor approves all applications for farm and agricultural classifications and reclassifications. The county legislative authority (and in some cases, the city legislative authority)approves all land classifications or reclassifications for timber land and open space land, including farm and agricultural conservation land. Is supporting information required to change classifications? The assessor may require an owner of classified land to submit data regarding the use of the land, productivity of typical crops, income and expense data, and similar information regarding continued eligibility. Laws and Rules It is helpful to read the complete laws, Revised Code of Washington, chapters 84.33 and 84.34 (RCW) and rules, Washington Administrative Code, chapter 458-30 (WAC) to understand requirements of the classifications and the tax liabilities incurred. Need More Information? Requirements for making application for current use classification are available at the county assessor's office or by contacting the county legislative authority. For general information contact: Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division P. O. Box 47471 Olympia, Washington 98504-7471 360-534-1400 ■ Website: dor.wa.gov ■ Telephone Information Center 360-705-6705 ■ For tax assistance or to request this document in an alternate format, visit dor.wa.gov or call 360-705- 6705. Teletype (TTY) users may use the Washington Relay Service by calling 711. Department of Revenue �- Washington State dor.wa.gov PTFS0046 06/21 PLAT OF AMHERST I i SHEET 3 of s Tract E from the Amherst Recorded final plat is the proposed parcel to designate.as open space. TRACT E PARCEL CONTAINS NO CRITICAL AREAS OR EASEMENTS. �0\ SEE SHEETS 4 AND 5 4�go° Ole I HATCH LINE 8 200 N O LEGEND': � =MONUMENT FOUND. =SET #4 REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "CONTOUR PLS 38965". X=CITY OF PORT ORCHARD STANDARD MONUMENT TO BE SET.. UE =UTILITY EASEMENT SF = SQUARE FEET Job No. 17— 202 ■ pe/uasaa s;ubla Ili '£04Z jg5ijAdo:D 'uaa;sAs Aaanllap pine bulbewi hae;aladoad s,;l eln �)jl aaalejeQ Aq papinoid s;uawnaoQ Y 04 tiA011, IL JAC Ile 05,E � ,� '�� ,� .��:� �► R `h' s •�'. �:4�+y a rf �r s � i E• - � +x • • ' 073-00 023:59,.,. x • •�•• • k 024.00 J ,. 075 00 025-00 0 Q0 t3 I338 0 .. �, oz$-oo 053.00 OZ •00 .-00 , ?.1 054.00"�p�� 03W0 �. 025-00 �p ew 0 - 05800 • 0 76 0 0.pe04 Ire. 4 ON- 057-00 04 p- li45-0 009.00 0 ( - 030.00 4.49 -00 41% . 05IL r z-°ax 013-00 016.0❑ #r �> 00 057.00 027 :-� 9-0 �• { 0600 Y ti i H3Kitsap County Downloaded March 28, 2023 Your Submission Details Submission Number: SUBMISSION-2023-1671 Status: In Review Message: Applicant Name: Nick Tosti Applicant Email: nick@cordillerainc.com Submission Type: Environmental > Open Space Last Updated: March 28, 2023 Submission URL; https:Happ.oncamino.com/kitsapcounty/dashboard/203690/guide Q Project Information Property Owner Details Step is Completed By: Applicant Please complete the details below. Open Space Details Step is Completed By: Applicant Please complete the details below. Q Submittal Items Site Plan for Open Space Step is Completed By: Applicant Please upload a Site Plan in PDF format and include the following: Contact the agency for more help (360) 337-5777 B help@kitsapi.com m 619 Division St, Port Orchard • North Arrow • Plan drawn to scale and list the scale • Home Location and any other existing buildings (e.g., Garage, Shed, Well House, etc.) • Area proposed for Open Space • Location of any Critical Areas (Wetlands, Streams, Shorelines, Steep Slopes, etc.) • Any easements Q Photographs of the Open Space Step is Completed By: Applicant Please provide photos in PDF format of the proposed Open Space area, showing any critical areas, if applicable. Additional Technical Reports Step is Completed By: Applicant If you have any of the reports listed below, or any additional pertinent documentation, please upload them now in PDF format and then click "Mark as Complete" above. If you do not have any of the below documentation, please click "Mark as Complete" above now. Please note, you may be informed during permit review if it's determined that one or more of the below reports are needed. Additional reports may be required based on site conditions: • Flood Elevation Certification • Soil Management Plans • Engineered Drainage Plans • Engineered Drainage Report • Infiltration Test Worksheet • No Net Loss (Shoreline) • Habitat Management Plan • Shoreline, wetland, or stream habitat report • Geotechnical Report • Wetland Delineation Report Q3 Go to the Online Permit Center - A Separate Website O Contact Information Step is Completed By: Applicant The Online PerMit enter is different than the Permit Application Portal you are currently using. An Online Permit Center account is required in order to get an official permit number, pay fees, issue permits, check status, and schedule inspections. Before filling out the form below, you must visit this separate website: https:Hco-kitsap-wa.smartciovcommunity.com/Public/Home To create your required Online Permit Center account, you can follow the link HERE. If you need additional assistance, you can check out the step-by-step instructions located HERE. ® What Happens Next? Ready to submit or still working on your application? Step is Completed By: Applicant If You Are Ready To Submit Your Application: Click submit and a Permit Technician will be contacting you. • If your application is deemed complete by the Permit Technician, you will then be given a permit number to continue with your process. • If additional information or changes to your application are needed, you will receive an email detailing what is still required. • Current permit intake processing times are approximately 10-14 days. If You Are Still Working On Your Application: You can log back in to resume your submittal at any point. If you do not submit your application, your proposed project will not be reviewed and you will be unable to move forward with your project. If you have any questions please reach out to us! You can find our contact page HERE. We look forward to working with you! Please select "Mark as Complete" above to move forward with your application. Questions and Answers 1 Is this application to designate the open space as Farm and Agriculture Conservation Land? Yes No 2 Is the land subject to a lease or agreement which permits any other use than its present use? Yes No Data Fields Open Space Details 1 Parcel Number(s) 5686-000-058-0001 Category Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring Parks, Forests, Wildlife Preserves, Nature Reservations or Sanctuaries or other Open Spaces Present Use Forested parcel in the McCormick Woods Mast Plan Community that will not be cleared and developed. Proposed Acreage 1.0 5 Jurisdiction City of Port Orchard Property Owner Details Name McCormick Development Corp Email Address nick@cordillerainc.com Phone 425-894-6382 Disclaimer This PDF was generated on March 28, 2023 and may be out of date. µisPa Co KITSAP COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Online Permit Center Contacts KITSAP COUNTY Kitsap County Sign Up or Log In suppoh:350-33]-5T 7 help@knsapl com 10 ��0 My Portal Public Notices Parcel Search View your applications and inspection Find and review public notice Find and review parcel information results announcements Welcome to the Kitsap County Online Permit Center Primary Contact Information Please confirm the name and the email address associated with the primary contact's Online Permit Center account. Email: nick@cordillerainc.com Name: Nick Tosti Phone Number: 425-894-6382 Additional Contact Information Adding additional contacts will allow them to pay fees, issue permits, check status, and schedule inspections. Any contacts listed below must have an Online Permit Center account or they cannot be added. Name Email Role in the project* Online Permit Center Account Cre4 ated Will hizzey william@cordillerainc.co ccounting Manager *Available role choices are listed below Engineer Architect Authorized Business Business Name Biologist Designer Agent Owner Geologist Inspection Project Property Property Owner Surveyor Tenant Contact Manager Manager Documents provided by DataTree LLC via it's proprietary imaging and delivery system. Copyright 2003, All rights reserved. PLAT OF AMHERST SHEET I OF 6 A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 04 AND A PORTION OF THE N 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 09, TWP. 23N., RNG. 1E. W. M. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON DEDICATION: CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS IN THE FEE SIMPLE OR CONTRACT PURCHASER AND MORTGAGE HOLDER OF THE LAND HEREBY PLATTED, HEREBY DECLARE THIS PLAT AND DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS FINAL PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS IN FORCE ON OF PRELIMINARY/SHORT PLAT APPROVAL. I HAVE APPROVED THIS ALL APPLICABLE THE DATE FINAL PLAT AS 1 FOREVER ALL STREETS AND AVENUES SHOWN THEREON AND USE THEREOF FOR ALL TO THE LAYOUT OF STREETS, ALLEYS AND OTHER RIGHTS -OF -WAY, DESIGN OF BRIDGES, PUBLIC PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE THEREOF FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY SEWAGE AND WA T SYSTEMS q4D OTHER STRUCTURES. EXAMINED AND APPROVED PURPOSES; ALSO THE RIGHT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS UPON THE LOTS AND BLOCKS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IN THE ORIGINAL REASONABLE BY ME THIS DAY OF 2021. GRADING OF THE STREETS AND AVENUES SHOWN HEREON. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS HEREBY WAIVE ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST ANY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY WHICH MAY BE OCCASIONED TO THE ADJACENT LAND BY THE ESTABLISHED CONSTRUCTION, DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID ROAD. THIS SUBDIVISION Is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cCORMICK WOODS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, A PLAT COMMUNITY, AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE WASHINGTON UNIFORM COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT, SOLELY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON UNIFORM COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT I AND NOT FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE. THIS MAP AND ANY PORTION THEREOF IS RESTRICTED BY LAW AND THE DECLARATION FOR McCORMICK WOODS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, RECORDED W UNDER KITSAP COUNTY RECORDING NO. H IN W TNES�WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS ��DAY E OF n 2021. MCCORMICK DEVELOPMENT CORP., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION BY: IT S: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF _ \"� ON THIS -DAY OF ^I'tOf-A 20,, BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHIN ON, DULY COMMISSIONED AND SWORN, PERSONALLY APPEARED G nc �-Y- TO ME PERSONALLY KNOWN (OR PROVEN ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE) TO BE THE k-f SA `�-� OF MCCORMICK DEVELOPMENT CORP., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION , THE COMPANY THAT EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED SAID INSTRUMENT TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED OF SAID CORPORATION, FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED, AND ON OATH STATED THAT HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE SAID INSTRUMENT AND THAT THE SEAL AFFIXED, IF ANY, IS THE CORPORATE SEAL OF SAID CORPORATION. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL HERETO AFFIXED THE DAY ND YEAR N THIS CERTIFICATE ABOVE WRITTEN. v O v n �► jMOON ►�: :: :mot NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING IN�� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Gy VIC INITY MAP If 1"=1000' ENGINE r CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL,OF THE CITY OF.PORT'ORCHARD THIS 77. DAY OF 2021. AYOR CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR APPROVAL: HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL TAXES AND DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS FOR HICH THE PROPERTY MAY BE LIABLE AS OF THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION. AVE BEEN DULY PAID, SATISFIED OR DISCHARGED. XECUT OTHIS a DAY OF 2021. INANCE DIRECTOR AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE: ILED AT THE REQUEST OF STEPHEN H WOODS, PLS, THIS DAY OFF 021, AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 3S OF PLATS, PAGE (S) k7lf-17Y ECORDS OF KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON. KITSAP COUNTY AUDITOR FEE: I Z!k- 00 COUNTY TREASURER APPROVAL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ALL TAXES HERETOFORE LEVIED AND WHICH HAS BECOME A LIEN UPON THE LANDS HEREIN DESCRIBED, HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND DISCHARGED, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF MY OFFICE; UP TO AND INCLUDING THE YEAR aQ&it . EXECUTED THIS DAY OF QU4 2021. COUNTY TREASURER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS FINAL PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL APPLICABLE TOWN/CITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS IN FORCE ON THE DATE OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. I HAVE APPROVED THIS FINAL PLAT AS TO THE LAYOUT OF STREETS, ALLEYS AND OTHER RIGHTS -OF -WAY, DESIGN OF BRIDGES, SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEMS AND OTHER STRUCTURES. EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS AY OF I*7 _ , 2021. ZZ z 2� COMMU ITY DEVELOPMENVbIRECTOR DATE LAND SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE: THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE REQUEST OF MCCORMICK DEVELOPMENT CORP. A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, IN APRIL, 2021. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP FOR THE PLAT OF AMHERST, IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED; THAT THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN; THAT ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE WASHINGTON UNIFORM COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT IS SUPPLIED HEREIN; ALL MONUMENTS AND LOT CORNERS ARE SET OR BONDED WITH THE CITY AND WILL BE SET PRIOR TO RELEASE OF THE BOND. THAT THIS PLAT CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THEREOF. 4/21/21 STEPHEN H. WOODS, P.L.S. 38965 DATE Job No. 1.7-202 PLAT OF AMHERST SHEET 2 of 6 A PORTION OF THE S 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 04 AND A PORTION OF THEN 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 09, TWP. 23N.; RNG. lE. W.M. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RESULTANT PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 201512020024, BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4 AND THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, W.M., IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND OF TRACT "0" SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF.M000RMICK WOODS RECORDED IN VOLUME 26 OF PLATS, PAGE (S) 189 THROUGH 196, INCLUSIVE, IN KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO KITSAP COUNTY FOR ST. ANDREW'S DRIVE SW UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 200608070089. BASIS OF BEARING: GRID NORTH. BASED UPON GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) LAMBERT GRID WASHINGTON STATE NORTH ZONE COORDINATES. THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983/2011 (NAD 83/2011 EPOCH 2O10.00) GRID COORDINATES WERE FOUND TO BE 192331.85 / 118564B.48 AT A PUNCH IN 3" BRASS DISK AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE i EAST, W.M.. THE INVERSE OF BOTH THE SEA LEVEL CORRECTION FACTOR OF 0.9999871363 AND THE GRID SCALE FACTOR OF 0.9999977172 WAS APPLIED TO THE GRID COORDINATES FOR SHOWN GROUND DISTANCES. FIRE PREVENTION NOTE: LOTS 47, 48, 49, 50, AND 52 SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN APPROVED FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VERSION OF THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF COMPLETE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. TRACT NOTES: TRACT A: OPEN SPACE, ACCESS, AND UTILITIES (PRIVATE) TRACT B: OPEN SPACE, RECREATION, AND UTILITIES (PRIVATE) TRACT C: OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) TRACT D: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (PRIVATE) TRACT E: RETAINED BY OWNER FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE), OR TO TRANSFER TO ADJOINING OWNER. TRACT F: OPEN SPACE, ACCESS, AND UTILITIES (PRIVATE) TRACT G: STORM POND (PRIVATE) TRACTS A, B, C, F AND G ARE TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THIS PLAT. TRACTS D AND E WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. NOTES: 1) THE MONUMENT CONTROL SHOWN FOR THIS SITE WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY FIELD TRAVERSE UTILIZING A'ONE (1) SECOND THEODOLITE WITH INTEGRAL ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING METER (GEODIMETER 600) AND REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) / STATIC GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS TRIMBLE RB). LINEAR AND ANGULAR CLOSURE OF THE TRAVERSES MEET THE STANDARDS OF WAC 332-130-090. 2) UTILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST ON THIS SITE. ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE VISIBLE OR HAVING VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF THEIR INSTALLATION ARE SHOWN HEREON. 3) THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED SEPTEMBER 9, 2017, THE DATE OF THIS FIELD UTILITY EASEMENT: SURVEY. AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO CASCADE NATURAL GAS, 4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENT SHOWN HEREON ARE PER 2ND AMENDED ANY WATER COMPANY, US POSTAL SERVICE, QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE NUMBER 03K-12421, DATED OCTOBER 23, 2020. NO PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC., ANY CABLE TELEPHONE COMPANY, ANY CITY, ADDITIONAL RESEARCH HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED. KITSAP COUNTY, ANY OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UNDERGROUND UTILITY SERVICE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PRIVATE ROOF DRAINS) AND 5) OFFSET DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED PERPENDICULAR OTHER UTILITIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, TO PROPERTY LINES. UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR TEN (10) FEET OF FRONT BOUNDARY LINES OF 6) THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHOWN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALL LOTS AND TRACTS, IN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE, MCCORMICK WOODS DRIVE SW AND OLD CLIFTON ROAD IS FOR CONSTRUCTION MAINTAIN AND REMOVE UTILITY SYSTEMS, LINES, FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND WILL AUTOMATICALLY EXTINGUISH 90 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE NEW INTERSECTION ATTACHED THERETO,. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICES TO THE OR AFTER NOTICE FROM THE CITY TO THE HOA, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AND TRACTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY GRANTEE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNNECESSARY DAMAGE IT CAUSES TO ANY REAL PROPERTY OWNER IN THE SUBDIVISION BY EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES HEREIN GRANTED. 4 N88°50'31"W 5259.12' — 2638.88'------------ 11 —4 3 —�--------- 2620.24' WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 1 E, W.M.. I EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 4,— FOUND 3/4 IRON PIPE WITH c TOWNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 1 E, W.M.. .PLUG AND TACK PER BLA NO. L-1078 I PER BLA NO. L-1078 co wi Cu Cn Cu o; ED N NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9/ I Cu SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 4, I ;j ui TOWNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 1 E, W.M.. Cu EO CALCULATED FOUND 1 1/2" IRON PIPE ^ rn Cu PER BLA NO. L-1078 I '" wo / w Y' 'ITN w 0 / N i z o� m o ��O I p / ti Z �a0 N . p / Z ® I �z NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 9/ f a I _ u SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 4, 0- I 0a TOWNSHIP 23 N, 'RANGE 1 E, W.M., I FOUND BRASS DISK IN CONCRETE. 5 4 SB9'09'30"E 2658 59' 4 / --,j\/ S89°07'07"E 2610.08' 4 3 8 9 1265.96' "" 992.94' - 399.70'- g 9 O 10 SW 00-50-30"W m� P��Cu q o ®� ��N 2 o 0 LO Cu �o�� Scale. ItTco I CuCu N 1 500 z NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 9/ Cu �� w SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 4, I z TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 1 E, W.M.. CALCULATED, FOUND BRASS PLUG Cu�QOCn IN CONCRETE PER BLA NO. L-1078 I \\ 71. o WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9, I \ z N TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 1 E, W.M.. G CALCULATED, FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE PER BLA N0. L-1078 I EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 9, ;a L TOWNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 1 E. W.M.. C" d FOUND 1" IRON PIPE PER BLA NO. L-1078 0 2633.16' 6` 8 C-- s\�--- ------ �— 2614.54' 10 N88'41'23"W 5244.69' �Q�oF wasy�oo SURVEY CONTROL _ Z LEGEND: Fs 9F3B965�o Q� = FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED . s1pNq� jSTE� 5� L ANO 4/21/21 Job No. 17-202 paNasaa s}U61a 11V 'ZOOZ jg5ijAdoC) 'wa}sAs Aaanllap pue 6u16ew1 Aae}aladoad s,}I e1n C)II aWie;ea Aq papin Aawnooa PLAT (I AMM.MT SHEET 3 of 6 v o°� ° A W 0 100 200 f4 N H I MATCH LINE B E' o Scale. o 1 100 It co o 0 co .-i o 00 E, Ico\ L co cr) c+) co rn I co ��, fd, (3) c ` w CY)'co Cv o P \ �I A�RST SAY co co Cv I It � LO co CO LO oVA � ce) x C p �w U °' ' "' cat 00 U a C\2 I x00 O Cv \ _ ' MCCORMICK WOODS DR_SW A LEGEND: = MONUMENT FOUND. N 30' I = SET #4 REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED 3o CONTOUR PLS 38965 . m• CITY OF PORT ORCHARD STANDARD MONUMENT TO BE SET.. SEE SHEET 4 OF 6 FOR LINE AND CURVE TABLE z _ ____ z N UE = UTILITY EASEMENT O1 ) N00'03'26°W (RADIAL) �or o�� a 1 W I SF = SQUARE FEET o m o� �¢ . m N ON W oo 0 ro Z. .o'N / co `� m 5/� //ti �� 0 60 120 R. 00.5" Scale.. N 1 _ 60 o Job No. 17-202 all v ti0 w m MATCH LINE B o, 0� E-, cu w Vol Y • - Cu Cu I N o� - z 55.26' dos H I n . \ F 38965 GcoCn o 9 FOI ST lNq� LAND SEE SHEETS 4 AND 5 4,21/2 paNasaa s}U61] 11V 'ZOOZ jg5ijAdoC) 'wa}sAs Aaanllap pue 6u15ew1 Aae}aladoid s,}I e1n �)jj aWie;ea Aq papinc A s}uawnooa Documents provided by DataTree LLC via it's proprietary imaging and delivery system. Copyright 2003, All rights reserved. 0 a� co Q Cr) LO M ao O N O N O O i O o O O cm O L O_ N D N z02 74T 5N qor 193d 38vnos = AS 1N9W9S` 3 Aii-iiln = 3n 13S 98 01 1N3WnNOW OUVONd1S OHVH380 IHOd d0 AIIO = A . „ 9968C Sid unOlN00 03dWd1S dd0 0I1Sd-ld 013H H1IM HV93 i V# 19S = � ' WoA 1N3WnNOW > 1 00' 058"d a 00 yj1a \ I o - -1-- g£ , nE. 5ti- �g 86 0� y o g0 tiE2-1 Eti1 '.I6 < <Z `G ibis i3Q m saee.�l xaloa3"' _ , 9��' - -I•� 0.605 s661 00,9 9 LZ'661 I 00'08B=ti o ,E5'VOti 3• --�\ k Cn rn ozMcn� Z9'99 ,9T'L9ti 1 y Mcornrri v o rn a z 1 rn EZ'65 ob.01Mm 90 \ ST ' Z9 M.9V • £V. EON � (�j M.9V , EV. EONwCk=L9 0 Ck r3Tt n T y \ `` �.g o�-4cn n ca�'� S r� Z\ 0.6 co-UZ Z. N I v deb ay�� %,� p \ w too N 1 cn Cn ni, cri M 1 m rn ru T 1 J v En 1 w rn m z 9ZO _ ZTl___ cn o ' ME �y bpi 6or Cn ym o 99 T9 VZO EZ� --� `a s�Jj'G oc° Off, 3„BT , LT. 90S d= 39.22 ,1 Off~ � N p�� • ��SJ 2 / / 3„8T_LT -- -- 1 R�S22 so, ED IV 11 d= 39 •22 ,11 R--300 ��O' 6a�TEO =s6, sl. td_ R�2�j L _ 3„BT,LT.505 5'�-��6615•5 G.9�61q, 9�,�, c�F�� pE cn S8' 9j a \ 1 ' 6 , �s, 6 r �'�� F9n 9 ''L.�Sbep�Ss9e s �\ oV I'll 03 m 01 m ZV rn \E� .fj �c' b�,s`S 1-9 •0-1 ,ZB'TL 3.10,13V.BEN OEl , L9' E9 3„LE. EE. LZN 621 ,V6'EE M.TV,99.EVS BE] ,0E'ZT M„82,8E.9EN LZl ,ZT'9 320,V9.V8S 9Zl ,Z0'9f 3.60,V9.0ES 9Zl ,60'9 3.BZ,V9.TES VZ-I , 99' TV M„90, L9. LES EZl ,E9'L M.99,Z0.Z9N ZZl ,00.91 3„OT,BE.LEN 12.1 , 98' 6Z M„VT , ZT. ETS 083 ,9Z'Z 3„OE,99.10S 6Tl .EZ'Eb 3.89,60.E9N Oil ,6L'E1 3„E0,90.6LS LT -I ,09'VZ 3„LE,8V.98N 911 ,E6'VL 3„1E2V.98N 911 98'9Z M„LE. ZV. 98S VTl 28'ZT 3.TZ,8T.6TS Ell ,Eo•01 3„131,LT.90S Ell ,00'0Z M.89,60.E9S TTl ,V0'8Z M.V9,90.0TS Oil ,EE'E9 M.6Z,VE.VTS 61 ,LL'VZ 3,.90I,VZ.BTS 81 ,91'99 M.62,VE.VTS Ll ,VE'9E M.9E,PMES 91 ,ET'92 M„90, MON 91 ,E8'9Z M.99,E9.LVN VI ,BV'L M„LE,6E.90N El ,L6'TT M.OE,99.TON El 50'9 3„90,L9.LEN Tl 130NVISIGI 9NI8V38 3NIl M' 1 rn Ma' g yc�g6 Ss d0Ln M N y 1 0 0 �o F� c' � '`90 00. �c��'.�c�`` --n H o 1 ov _ M CIO LO tiH I !S Nw1O M T909 66 o N O v dJ r� �, I ,��ao 3.To,Eo.EON 'Do 1; �� , sTn� ��aC 601� OF do " mN V1 a y�y p e6 6I 9 09 mac,, � �\J s 0 1, WM I6 ,'c.�ap `-J-•� M„ `t ��, a'S �i�i l �� b�.. .oti Ern _ sue• ��., �� •�'cf� 0� 20y �0� g 9 2� I0 0� \ •9 \%�-,\ 01 4°j \ °• ti o to •� c0� Cn N F� ,gs •SS Sd\ SS �� v, 19 •h ti oa cyo a p� rn N OD -n. Zti � �► cn O n mto A z N6S'l6•G'c' SS'ty . ti°j w= con N ,v Cn n ti �o �°o h ((�� , M ED MLM0. "6 � a dsl� n m 9 o 9oe 9Z'S9 1 1 ru �. A ry <u El ZM HOUR 1 S. 1HaHS US 9 d0 -b JLHHHS ,9 „LE,6E.gON ,09'LLT „90,90.62 ,01'06 6VO ;09'ZZE .89,69.1 GE'TT DO ,09'ZZE „10.9l.6 LT'25 LVO ,09'8ZE „10,91.6 LT'Z9 9VO ,05'ZZE „EV,EZ.Z WET 9VO ;00'001 .60.LV.L ,69'ET VVO ,09'ZZZ 29,E9.9 .06'ZZ EVO ,09'02Z .6Z,VO.VT ,99'V9 ZVO ,09'88Z .29,E9.E VT'91 TVO ,09'888 111T,TV.9 ,L6'9Z OVO ,09'828 .VT,Z9.E EO'9T 6EO. ,09'ZZZ .80,,19.E ,00'91 860 ,09'82Z „E9,LE.L ,E9'6Z LEO ,09'LLT ,9V.V0.8T ZV'LE 960 ,09'LLT „LO,ZE.V 190'VT 963 ,09'LLT „9Z,Z9.01 ,69'EE VEO ,09'LLT „OV,ZT.BT EV•99 EEO ,09'LLZ .BO,EE.V ,90'ZZ EEO 109'LLZ .98,TE.0, ,16'18 TEO .00'02 .TZ,V9.06 EL'TE 060 ,00'9Z .00.00.06 LZ'6E 680 ,00'OZ „2,9106 L916 BaO ,00'068 „OZ,TZ.T 90 1B LEO 100'0Z .6E,EE..68 192'TE 9ZO ,09'80T „OTITV.V ,9E`8 9ZO ,09'ZZE „6T,LO.L 60'0V VZO ,09'ZZE .9V,2.6 0L'Z9 EEO ,09'ZZE JE. 6V.6 .6Z'99 EEO ,09'ZZE 126,80.01 60-L9 TZO 109'ZZE .0,1199.Z I.w9T OZO ,09'ZVT .892E.01 EZ'98 613 ,o9'ZVT „ZT,TT.OZ ,12'09 8TO ,o5'ZVT „VE,91.2 ,19'09 LTO 109'8VT 1190,120.Z .60.9 910 ,09'ZVT .Zo,Z0.9 ,T0.9T 9TO 109'8VT „OE,ZT.OZ ,98.09 VTO ,09'8VT „OE,ZT.OZ ,92'09 ETO ,09'ZVT „LO MST ,8Z'8E ZTO ,09'888 .OV,EV.Z .69'01 TTO .09'288 .0T,0,9.81 ,TT'09 OTO .09'828 „OT,V9.ZT ,TT'09 60 ,09'828 119E108.TT 90'VV BO ,09'LLZ „LT,6V.9 ,61'88 LO ,09'LLZ „90,9Z.Z TL,TT 90 ,09'LLT „6V,90.VT ZL'EV 90 ,09'LLT .LE.LV.E ,VL'TT VO ,00'02 .00,6Z.96 ,EE'EE EO EZ•E8L .TZ,9Z.0 100'9 ZO ,EZ'EBL ,88,CB.9 ,VE'L8 TO snim VI130 OR 3Auno 1 E V . aAZIfI D w A m OPP- MATCH B � SHEET 5 QF6 rrrr► • • r • C1i w.w„ w.•.r •.w„r w.r www• ...� �,r� .w,r� wry wwr. •rwr wrrr •.�.• ..w� w.w.r w,wr „w, • ,�w� w� �� w�, ww •,•„• �� .� Cuin m SEE' SHEET. 3 � � N �;�N 1:4m LEGEND: CMD Cn d o s = MONUMENT FOUND VIR 0 SET #4 REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "CONTOUR PLS 3B965 " . CITY"OF PORT ORCHARD STANDARD MONUMENT TO BESET. . 04 . 14'F UE - UTILITY EASEMENT z wry. 4.t• g3. N�3'4). �`�o ��- SF - SQUARE FEET .,,►' � , � 39 -NIVF 1 j4. Cn CD •�� m �Zh• y� Tsy \'T .oZ rn C ti LO Cn CO o n ti N1 [I5 fp 9 3g ,3 " ' Q�" W B9 • � N n f�. s 6s yid •02 m gnn ��. •QO• 44.2 •06, NO2'5B''12'!W 11B 74' ��. 6' .T •x'ti. ca 7 40.37 15.20 19B. -�'• ��'� \ °� sue, osH ° , o_ 792B . 4 °sNNIy F • °� m ^ ss •3s •ova'. C 60 24 Cn clu to M LL- v scr,�'. ran p 'rs• 4` _ ;� rn o � mScale. co U3 co � o tioo• \�� t, Q, LL Ss,� 14'g16' z � ;� �,.� � � rn � � � to �. pa� \`� d� c'ca • 6 N 9:"'� ►a a m rn m .hh ��L 1 \\ems c��'S�s•M �j) �0. C6 `� 4 -� z �/ �3• ,r, `\60 ,o`L moo,• r�C• S6.. R`3 L-111, 8.30 ` `. /J3�° "`�� i Ryg '� �p' m h U- 0 Irk,07 \5 1S, o`L m C�. \6 `��'2,s°0 4_I2o (p '01og o�c3 ' o \ _ .off N _ o \ , D � \ C I�g• 087 �C, N 15, 01 �10 " �-�. �86 • gp � �3� y "� `�2.9 °��`/ • � � 22 �47 �s 15 01, " E 15g• 7 _ C5~ .� 26.0 p3 26 _ . _ Q' 9 2 / m o o,' C48�9,"3s, s �59- d= 4 . ��775 55 19 R 6, ; �o 50, 0015 °01 `10 „E + 6p 30 , j / cJ• c�,, (30 S� 46" o �; o 50 159' 73' ti 4= 45 `55' i9" R--2p0.04 , �"v8 33 s p d' •cr n .� o u 22.5C �. • ry to o - d= 45 55 �.9 A-2 A2 i °�► ` ,T 0 tc, U. 0 0.37' C� • `ro . o v E=4 T 3 Q •`; o o �C37 C38 C40 C4 s- G N ru► ti o o C39 l z.,mac,, n s �`' 0 Cn to 9 �1 v n �' to `n W N © m �. ,yp o• m u o co :n Ln CD © = '�'' 4� +r Z�. u? cr 54• Q6 . r? d' •�r © w E D�I SN�E'� 66 • 0 m Nn? n fo , , va cn , cj�G „ pA / 3 a co 50.00 ' ^�' in "G F 6 • 61 • cw v, �; -Cs 12 Qtiti� �� 5 01 `10 „W 50, 00� �12 ,00 , « SH�E� N f ►�, o Q Q�� r Sc. 06� Q, 6, N ox " NO3'03'04"E �`' U- 1$4'46' . _ sB•9fi W m ` �,g6"W. cs 50.5 4 ' E-+ cn - -`q �� • �,3 a 6 s t► r •� � � U cNo 24' 01 ` 44m N,68 •BB 4- cs' N v � rn �u 44.9.5, .a cn •� Cu 4�0 Cv U- 4p - rn z- o rn ty, in U- Cbco co CD IV LO Cv � 'M t w `r- r Cu �r o o� Q _ CD wSDI,© Ou m . co Lu iff _1 gUl Tn y N Z tEn ►,, ru co m m � 4` �� 19' " 61.59' ``~�` a ` N 4w rn m LO �,_ ��- ,5v"W \ \ 49 C31. / m A •A6 . -¢w " v d-cn D \ _ 161.591 .Tie gE�, � / � � N23.4g . --- -- -- _ ._... _._ .�..- ; � 6" w 72 11 ' -- \ S05/ // 33 F ,Npa Q7 3 S05'17' B'E , p0.lal. \/ �� y 1°` NO2.05'32"E 83.83. ��, �. aCn �� T\ ors \ r s` �6,o r-, u'cn w m rn Zr) 'r' \ C, PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE C �- m - DISPERSION. TRENCH EASEMENT _ v_ �,_ 22:5' 22. 5' SEE DETAIL "H" " ON THIS SH�ET ^ ri rn iv Q .N . tL ' rr3 r ` r � � NO3'43' 45"W 62.19' � A L=224.93'. c, ccs'i, r <81 ©- .14 '38' q , Ln 9 27.2a R-880. oo C-+ _ 157.15 - . _ B5.00 = fi5.52' - 91.63' - 30' 30, S03'43' 45"E 269.43' I.-1g4.89' �70.16 165.80 • 2B ` 50 a' 199.27 ' - - ' - - L-2 i 7. R-884 • 2fi o� --,�-= - � Cu S03'43' 45"E 2fi9.43 ` - a= 14 '38' 42 - w� - S1Q •54 ,56 n R-850.00' cCQRMICK WOODS DR SW= -- -- -- . cn - Ln.,- ~� Lnm • DETAIL H -52 .. . 92, '�A •95 50 N�7 A 1 all. � ilo 49 . .�9•6 \\N3o e � 7. 1 36 \� 3 00, ^, C. 5 O �� SEE SHEET 4 OF 6 FOR LINE AND CURVE. TABLE a o Q \ Job No. 17- 202 r3 / rtv Q J �\ Q�QQ� /ram o� 9 / a �� N • co C.) ITJ OONII� CP QQz /a o \ /Cz Scale.' s 2�` /o s,�oyF��STt 4 38965 ao 4 I TRACT B1 n 4/21/21 > > _ q � Ago pe/uasaa !;;qbp IIv'£ooz Jublandoo 'uaa;sAs Aaanllap pue bulbeWl hae;aladoad s,;l eln 011 aWjejeQ Aq papinoid s;uawnaoQ I, DETAIL "ACQ ANis E-4 F O \ \ lepo �.\ H Ir /260001' 2 DETAIL „F„ O� N t�0 . S1g'13*5�"w c� 21 36 w �I sn AB 5.50 ` E 9t .53 5� '' N76 • pRIV ACE Nc 5 fi GAS ENSEM fl O r o' O ��N �� ✓s V` 0 TRACT A PLAT OF AMHERST SHEET 6 of 6 EASEMENTS DETAIL DETAIL "B" DETAIL. „D„ d' cc I co TAy ¢ A= 45055' 19" co 20 37, S rn' L=178.33' 110' \ \ Lo 1 crz �in � \ / LU N W CD �� \ �! cc j LUCD cc -cc ti \ H .NC"i co cc a \ n w \ \ Lij CC) c�u En d' rn 0 DETAIL , G Lo c -- N01031_24"W DETAIL "E" I` co ce) co 105. 64' N03118010 "E CURVE _ ARC DELTA RADIUS C51 15.16' 86'51'14" 10.00' C52 17.26' 98'53'58" 10.00' C53 14.13' 3'38'18" 222.50' C54 29.03' 7'28'29" 222.50, C551 4.53' 4'3B'16" 56.00' C561 3.56" 4-38-16- 44.00' LINE BEARING DISTANCE L31 N84054'02"W 96.90' L32 S12000'51"W 20.62' L33 S11028'24"E 20.93' L34 N81040'22"E 67.30' L35 N86'18'39"E 12.48' L36 S86'18'39"W 23.74' L37 S81'40'22"W 56.23' L38 S17'13'36"E 18.05' L39 N73'24'01"E 91.68' Cr) ar cn \ Jj� cn ui w 0 40 _80 \\ • soz T� \ ACT S • .� \ cale. 1 E 40 DETAIL „C„ AMHERST WAY SW w ' o ccn � ' ' ¢ cn 5 d. ¢tcc. co ¢caz aoo •`l1rO �uj � o' �rn �¢w co to `15'0 '1 ¢Q� ^'' �'`- ¢mow •V1 96 62i •yA20'� °"E oo Co 1 9 aocn 1.13'�i'- COS" S15'01l1p, \ N12•�5 E 6.66, N11•Zg'24"W' myrm' W g0 0p, — _�` �mo /�36 E 9aLo 65 N 5i E 75.89, m .,.ago,00, 48 6•E 43.90' 9fF v It ~ 0 �Z S05 9E �52"S09 ro Lo 566'20'06"W 3.46' S2A2A a2 d' �s, AMHERST WAY SW C54 C53 c� cn c Lnn � can rn w L � r J D Ur7 d- co CSC \ 30 L32 1-33 O Lo co Of O yA1. \\ zoF \\ 9sr of 90 H21.52 9, g1 paNasaa s}U !a IIV1 ZOOZ jU Ia oC)'wa}s s AJGAllaP pue uI BWI ae}a,a in r. t F f 4 a .~jF ' F` W 41 t . t I. IL -If a , }' .k so 4 IN F .1 IIN . P. F _ P. ,- r t % F � f r JF I N i _ ■ _ ,- ti + 4 IF • n q6M'`MII"`' y + rr ,� .' i L + ` ai F ir A i i i �+. . F %'F*ti ice, `�'W 4i r �iI + 1f c* i m:o. r lv ■ . I . G Y III ,� !+I i�4t w { }- ', #_W % �` L 4 U. Ilk�.i �. r=,� ' V, It - .fir . Ir . . IIIII � i , •#-, � - ..V L L ! & 1 Ill 'hrF i •.% 4 K 0 i I r ' III. . ' +� 1 .r - II 1 f - _ 4 i yI - 1 F ti 11 # ~' _ _� M 4 . r , a V ' I. . L' � -n -Aqf �_ :'_ III I k im ' yi-. c I --- - i IIIIII qpp* , jg4 .0 -1 0■ r ` Ilk} � ' r_4 a}may-},�F." ' qr -- k .III!h F r t 10 `* ,' . r 3 % ■ #* ram' 7, r ' �r _r;4. :*4 S, MI ' wt y - , 4 J y •- R L y w �r lsr� r 1 -} . - F - Y f ' �} 1' }j y . 4 _ . ■ F 3 � ` '_ ■ ■ - ` - •_„ 1 F it 1 •I it +kr M1 �&& i A IL} L 4 I i ■ 4 41 I � � III i Y'� *� 4ti f F lkl- III L1 � xx +f" i �.1p 3n % 11.■ h ■III } + I �-, * , L III. Y + � V. y -# 4 y as �L� ■ r, ■ �, , 1 Ta � L '; + e I I �' ' 1 • 11.441 , k •1 - �x r k qiI I 'b."' �, • �r ■ e y{ X. , r o ; t� . 1! Ill r * ,I - Ie " JF� ` i d.�r 5 + ; A r of 1 Ill_�1 k 1ig� _ r . �IL ~ ~ it III . . IN L f� !b • r • .k k. . * % r 44 A. + *. .. . I . . r b) - { a �' ,% i *y �' I. t s i if-` 0 j .2 S �% �i �' • ' 1 �` h -4 .'q� `� t * * . ' � r r - Vail 4r�. ]fir J b• � .Y } VI:, Y . On yI .- : ;�4 0 % . 'w I 4 i4w l ■ ' IS .S. Ill :. ' ■I r ' -- + + +cam +rt qp + 4 ti � M _I.�x % w 14 f a 1.� 0 . J 60 r irw �1.■4 q ,a �rr �. 5 A i - I a 9 11 11111--ft. -mff- ,r y kl t. ,i w r i IM,A 40K- a 40 N 0 d � . t 4JF !, -. 41■ i * .* ;- ', „' ` .# a1p .r 44 •� JRK w' + ,_ � _ `og k6f + - Y f rV * r q- 4 . . - F J L� # _t .+f ��r - . f__ b r 4.d . - - - Ma --- - - - .. - - - � + 7 •Ik 5 L � y f. I I - . ? - M_ . I, r•y ..L. S r {I r J _ �'t I _ _ :r , _ , 1i � r 1 �• -• {, _ - ' r - - '� � , - - - s - - _ _ �i L z r, - } Z!III fi-W - -mF - � I . �� I w - - on- =2!!!!! - -------- M.- . Q -- _ _ , --I vim- - - � ' J r �__ t R� `- • �. _IIII_- - � �� _ _ , , _ . - �• j� # - � .- Kam• - f } f-■' .�. ;� r- - - k �Xi - - . AF . - . . _lvP - 4 . . "L' ..,49 .-? . - - ..I . 16 m . ' - ; .. .- . %#&W .. 7'. - . . �7 A ..X A_ _X,_ _X_ - ->I&--- - A. I.I - I _. " M.-kc-0, �!. _ - - .. . . - - Iftwoor 1%NNIIIIIII- ..X -_Jlill 11 Ill - ,Ill '-. -L . vr!sI . -_ �, � . I - .I�r�.., '� IIIIIIIIIIIII. � - , . 4 -VAL.; I., . �. - , _mil , }. r,* _ M ft v 1 __ - __ �.' - - - L _ _ ' t - ti -Y - + .«� �r - :- B.IH+F - J y'r�' �_ '-- � r<� i pip }�: * III.-_ 'Y r _ "`y' 4 w _ ti q a.� _ • L*�L r y ~ - _- - �� - �■ � }r 111111I, +j ■� _ , - _ �,} _- Jt _r .. a �-_- * - -rt • _A . ••1 }.,^t.• y : t ti - r _ . _ M1 ,•N '• - TM,y _ _ � z Y µ - _ - r . �L k - �L��+� -;..��5- __ �I� �_.. * J }-rv,- Lam' 1 #- .f _ r- l�-.`�Y-' J~_- i i .. fr r� +ti - - -- .r _ _ ' _ i - J* J r � iY �' r III; •••rrt{�P0 na#� ' If l+ �- cT try _ e. ' - i:_ kw y ' _ +4 Y #� -F �,r t'` _ _-�r� ' r r �r #� �� .� - _ , - / iII.�� 1 ' r`�. L 4 r N�.g1A i ■ i .• - ,5 AL b -& _ � �� y .. . f 400. . _ y f r.w• • -.Jr�r-'' ,�. t'+Z ql� - - ;,1� .•• ter• rFi " r � - r - , R ,,-� F•C� {� .Jib ,./ Y - - - . - '�� ti •4_ - � •�.. � . • _ "` '_ - - - - l+iyfi � -� . y . ` .. -;r � -7 �� . _ . - 4` - - _ i -t r _ r- i� _ a i . ` 'rY .'�?•' *. - .. -` - , -`+fir + - l .t L - • ti .. ' -� �. - . - - i � _ • s T �j / _ aIII- y. ,r J � : -I :df r M1, .S ,•_- t a f r r_ ' r� : j� - - fb'�. +I I'-+.- F ' - �• .•-�-,+s_ •. ' y• b'rr _r_�y_ , - - i a'�-iI - _ _ r__ � .'�}bF ' % _ r _ • _ _.y_ +_ ri=_ ' 'M a _ `�-L � Y4IvI _� - - a1rL .� ,.. + � , -." i ` .•r, ' _ ��+� _ { ~ }r' . - - - , 9rI rt - ti� .•,_., - ` t � _ •JL .-�fot"� r 1 - t irf , +r ; J - + • .i.� r L 4 - s r{ ' '" _ 4 #f - 1 r _ ■� L _ �-+ _ * s . -- ti -� `� - `� - � _ - ., - •■ _ _ - . �. - TT �+' OMF _ _ r � � ' + '�f �..� r. r,rf Jam. * - _ . .tom - , I - I_ 'I N �� L' �- � 1 - L # . r S ,- , -e _ r x �i r` - b' - � ,. �`, , . _w k ; - - �y a1E •�- - r } s �++ rk i , 'r _ r - -�_ . , ,a .4 y-? ks , - . . r -. , ra; i • y•z - ' �{ r ..} i_ .7■ t,,-C t w- . �� - y 1% r'f.s y F- - -; ~ - _ ^� - r _ r r �� +�' r� # ...i E' ' r K �_ � 4 ti r ^F t� �� 'L _ + �t � ^ _ i *� ~%' �' � r tT - _ ti III _rI - . _ ' '* �,r ,t r - * i• _ s _ �#-.;' � { , ;r .{- + _ { W. ' +r T:• f '` _:. ,L r w '_ , � + - _ , '+��• � • � - - _ i . t _- y h - r � - _ Fi;`• - '� • - _ �- ��-� . Ma y ,r 0 �� "�i,.+ 3 .y t r ri . yrd Jk r ri J + +� �■■L '� ,� - v '4 ` r- ; . . ti - { -�•. t - , �� _ i ` �- 4 yi } _ � - _ - -y _ _ - ` .*. . ' . VIIIIIIIIIi . � _ _ q �� b:d it t „r _ ti r r _; ►. _ ti I. y it - * F,i� t F } -� t J _ f F ~ �I r - • .• 4Fa�J_�� M*� �) {a ' } # _r - �,y.#'} �. - a �, _. _ _F - I _ - _ _ - } _ r ��• - + t•+. Fr r' _ _� 0�y ' •ri K .II I} _ ' - , tirF _ - ;fit _ �.+..bi _, ^ - :�+*, �' '+- -. i _ s _� • . �, - ,_ I r F- . � -•� . � - :�� - 3 rt� _ - ,.rr� jFf�r - + .. - - +'-• f f ' ` .. _ � • iL + r = f �'y,., �•� i �. - r ■ f-'• `w �" - - ' . - _ -, t 3- L _ �■y • ,r. . r-. 3. ; - z 1 �1= _ 4 ` L y �k _ y _ _ SFa - • _w -ti � +�. I FJ r { ** fr: 'M� s * s -_■..I ti ,'G � .�. 44 -I _ '/�, `I1 y, I• `r�� r ' f s . . '�4 + +� - - w _ ti _ I- . - _ � Y` �• Y l y - ter. T T - � .. r. --a - ' _ 3Y• _ �ar Y' , #� •III -wr F f . z F z '� �3� _ '_ T'bti �i'� s � - - _'' + - a r •,� r _ w + _ '' +''' �� rr r'� w..W ., - ` !+� +tea., X r `i �' r• -_yT�� _ #y `. ' _ }' �f�� =l 1 - � . - 'ti F '4 _ .. _ ,F , F y ■-'+r�r � ti' � '•#+ '�.� �•� ■ . [ •r r rt i r+ .,, % 9-% .'` - � ' - _ .r. . 9 i . � 1 - ,; r - I& - � y it m - : 3 _ 'F Ol' • , 1 - _ _ y , „ _ • ,� • 1a-.r - r r ti -A. ' {µ d IL``_t �+. * �rf b �' i .'C .' ', •r, •• ti*` ' Y yy,�� _ - - L- - 'L _ .. ' "ti ~ 1 _ �'bVb - -� _. - r� _ Jf - r y .� r ,'. f F ± t _ '�F ' - M _ ' �r y ti i { 19 i' Y• . •�� . I - ��}F� r } ` . - - `'r �"' �r - ,� � '`ti _ t` - t �+� �' i _ , - t I �•. ter.- �'' l+•k� ..t _. �. - +' � �. - �' _` 3 ` _ - rt , r r r 'rd}� •' %J �` ~ k '•' r �' = _ 5C' - L '' - ` y - + �� tit _ L ". i`- J' r Ji'+ J _ _-Y' r '� - _ >� _ _ ',F•- �`' f j fJ ' J T t * �}-i �' _ n _ b �y _ y - • ti ti '�_ ti a .. „ y OI - -� 1• t ,. r r rr r- r ter' � r - 7i ` +r --- r -1_+' r 1 L ".t} �i F +�� ti L ' _ + s ._ �� r r`-' . Fr �� ' _ , ',.� y F. - 'f'b y- ,- k - 1� r _ _ :. , . }n. ti - . ^ ' } r r _ L 1 F �� r ' J ,w i F ^' ' t v 'C � tJf `• ' 31 y 1 _ s - + � I. k,_ -� a 7L. - - ft - 1 _ ,r4 �� -� _ r eY - r+s ,�.1i- r x +'� ,r ...,r- j' a a �i .' �j} _ r, } _ riy�i �3 -* *, �` i „- ' -_ - - ..' T~ I - #r' + wsl f a+r y ' %' {T .. L r•� . - 'r r FT 4 r� ,r - iJMI L ' J'' �y y' % J z f T , ' �:' �` 1 _ yr� # , �`^� y ~ }' 1 - } a k t -:ti + +ter t -�F._ yam+It _ , -' �ny� a - _ L 'r } �` f r _ _ _ _%J ■ - 1- `ems.ti - t� F �`' # f -■:•.: :L _ .. - y.n.� a -r - - v - dw ',F iihh rt ,l • rt r : .4 r ,� �_#Y- _ _ r . � I. ti 4 . S, �' _ _ - ti r 4 F� ,% y _ _ r,,,�;=� - f• '_.' } _ •L'' �vrt ti r.% �b� - y<r %rLIC ■anr- �`Y }'J• :•y A # i }''4 +y. F, t -t^ r - t•_L� fiJ:� '� -'l^ `'r-' _'�' -t;k •, r - F _ * _ti _� .. a:� •�h�' t. �+• _ L-- -. a �h .; ~{ -�.FI At. y ti r . - ti _ � _ rL +1 _ _ - , - _ .. _ 5 lr • ' •- L 'rd t }� L +� r r - - L 't } _ - ti i _ '• � rt . r w - ' ' R 4 a - % 4 F' +i r .i ttJ '4 F••_ i r . f �{ .ri k _ -• - - - `ti - 11 IIIII ��-XII r� ti - - . � ` i y r , + fir' _ _� Y �'• � , �:. i '+ _ .rIIII�ti ,�-r�f S + _ ,� �+ 4 �! r. 'FIIIIIIIIIIIIIi i-R F Jw z .� _ k rJ_ � , . r. - „',: y - a� ,�, JL- ,�. t - -y, rF _ yt•• * +��y, ^ w J -� � , r - .ti _ yd' . r _ -• _ : - - MN_ . 4 _ , _y-.. .:Y = i= '� } J 1 - +a. -�.. r � p - - a _ ' r '� _ L- t a■+._ 'Y�% a .4- _ ~ � x F• . a - ,aL�, z -d - - ~_ a ti. -A"zw •• r• _ # If - l y _ �� L � #� s , I - r � -� n y I � . ,.. � +Al �b r' _ . ¢ - T ` y a by _ � r." ` J• ' z - 3 ti - - - �" r'�r _ r� . t r .rr �r rri .�. - h �. 'J. •�- i r 3 J .. �+ r ..ilf•' 4 _ _ I. 'Y '-` '}� w _ v ( t : • - - _ `� , z - k �. t . - 'C _lk ti fib` ' � ti -r y- M r� -i % n .r _, - `. r , - .!- - ry M • - J.r'4 �4 r * + '•' 1 � ` , ' ti ; r • � - _ 4 r - 4- - �l - - 'I '� .. - - 1� F r r� __ y -rr•' JF -- f 1 F K }, ��'�r L .t n-�•-+-.r•r'_+4 •.war - ... rsy ~� y�+' a 4 �. V _ M1 .w r f t r a"L V• r '••b .y j4J '-w L �. J t` ti T ti " � k - - ,. _ . � ''■� #J } b' _ _ - �%M t ■ I L+s . ask•, - - - + { r• '� Y- . ` - y -r '� + -_I '1l '* - `�,•,r�,F` { .;'S? .� t ri ' _• t- ram. {. . 4 _ A -ib`� `#y •, L z _ �.u, _ . _ _ �'`� _ a p-�1 .••. _ _ �1�^ r � �� - �, L r , t' r _ t . ' - , .: - _ ... %r.�i� '' , �. ', 'LS _ - �iC" _ `yI ' + - L ++`lam' - J M+b y a .r i� . + 4 -ter f z �J4 r \ _ _ r' j - } - - ,� T"'_- J r l ..�+ti'. � F - } '' .{i r< F 7 ; •4 y J •4 ■�,�. + r , r• ti• , Y J . r. 4 r , * '� f _ ^ } n 4 -_' yam■*' „ `,••{ •� J#`;1• j ti ~ ~ti ~ y� �' {--� a• _ y .. _ i.; ! '� +; _ , II r+ rr� - r -I + f 8 _ i r +'�, - r• '•fF y F•. Y - F �I ■ _ r f , .r L t n'.� x - r,• o' �" _ 1 •'f, - ... ,4` - w� ~` -fir - -0 - - _ f. ., t rr L 'Fr r t 4 a M ,yr..+`.-} •' '+ Jfi• r�- # •', .• i•' r r -_. r.rt- '.Y ,v�r'r+ T F - '+a r; t. �4 _•p�;+ ,,�' _ ,•#. � , - J�- t - h■■ s y - � •- ~ ti + Syr .-L,- - - _- ' IIII - _ .f ti r a �rt� " y,� rt '�' + rw J�' + ; a� �I r 1 �i b Y ti 4 ✓ 1 ti + F+ } - , - ii A a j T �l i4r ti : i _ �1. b� a t r I �. r t t� � 'Jam+Y 1` 1 -1. r { F_�4 " F r' i 1 1 �, r r'k M1 . F t + y v ' 5 # {� ,r I � ^ _ '; � � � # � ` + � 4 - _--�_ ' ■ - �, r., # ` r � 1t7 + 1 * J■ ' �` o- ., r�r -itr I +, • 11•.� a . l 'i *.y� _� . I. ■k ; N ' .*W �. # i _ ' - rr . ]_ ' '- -- + 4 = - yam' } •-- # � - r I • + - • r ■ f � .' r-rr. f . r 1 L1 ti rt - s I, r L ya ,.,Y L L 7 r i r � �. r� 3J r -� jy �' r rT J +� L f }y �� 4y ;.'' *v s M t+`bv 3 b ` z rt }a ` _ s I k + ti - - 4'% } � '• , �' - z y-�`- j X of rt s , �' r �' _ n �=r ` f { t T • •`T rt` ; 7 �' k Rr }Rar '. r III r +� . _ r 1 J r - +� +� - - y r r is ~ i�t _. _ i ~ y � -. - k I i ",�a�- - - �,. _ t _ R + , f'i i� +■ +. J • y• - 1 r• f b - 1 . , W6 I • r y •41 r ?�Y •• i �. dl �,-bi i, �'k - a ' u ` F - %-�� v tiF - j ,■�• _ y}��' „fir h w- -# ` .k - - •1 y - 'ram- - `E Jr i ai �. 3 • �, ; YY +� F r .f 1 T F -' -. _ . i a 3 j[ !"F , _ , l ' T - t ''� 1 "�_, r , _ #wr }-� � li�z ter• ~< �. : _ � _ _ } � r t r ;� �� ilk �+ i 1 .' ' - r=_ r r A: +- ��'' S 7 �' _. T ` 4 _.� ' �` v - J+ i ' �Y �. _ r r ' J}' r �ry#� + - -, f + . Y I i �p , r ti _ � i. L ti L {'r � _ _ rF• �- - r: t _ f -. ? i. J i +.. � } �M1� ; •#' y 7 '! �. �' 7 �'■�' - . r . 7 •F _ � '; }� � jy }'I'� -- ^ �"�4 I. ati J. ' . _ 4 ', _ y it t ti _ - air r••.r +ti".�' - _ ,� �•`-w�, -s R •7*' -�at, a. r !• *� r,�1 y- - y - _ br ti *•+ _ -- h r� 1� y- `�� '� _ .. - _ r R ,� S,. i. - 4- ` , JI v b a -+ '`h • J i ' h y v JI[rt L ti t `� `^� r_ - frk � T-A� � ' �T�' T •�fJ rF y a # Ir' �{ •'t s =J " ti . _ * 1. �r� : _� - - FY k �� L f- •.�i �R _ �` �� 4# z . R•"rv� r _ .�-=r�,ay Q�F ,.J f _ - _ Y r- . � • �1 �r'J , , r }J.T. - '� _ o- F 1 , _. J •- R 4' 'F'• Jr � `� L '.'� - '. .. L_�� ti ti ,,,t _* � „y am. ' ti k _. yj ,- r r. rt Y li r+r r '�►- � •I -+* ..y . .i '� � , ■ r .,,5 } r s t ;" ' k 4'- dp • r r`+ - J r _ J' �f_ •:F. .r J. ~ !+ ,. �. .� . _ r _ .I. T 7� i ..," +. � ` a I� ` • ,. ' wr tip •.. a � - . - r } i '� - ; _TT y r }f T}x _ r!'r r' r r L } a ~ r �1. T ■ F *� rr; ■ G i+'�i' i r `t r� ''rl r •• ;} - • �' - 'ry - ti - . r••n �� ,r 1� # , +• { _ r ti ' r + - r ' } �` � A L-&.� _ _ _ .,.r •+tr - - t` t _ r r` `a l Ir f 'F"• _ ` i ari tit • . ~' 3 s' 'w�._. li .� } ???"■+� ` r ''Rr �t f J �r, r .,,. ''4i �! Jr �' �. -I ■ - i •� ` , .� 1 r ` ~ M 7MF' - •• 'i - _ . -. A. . r4 I. �y, - � �L _w ` -el- A. -_.;� - ' 'r , 1- f " ` .All- r JFr r ti 'rti T x .. + *• M • 1 T t 'i o- XL ;" - ' rt -r rr - s ' T J -� fi _ � ^ ti ti J4 - - �- � } . •r � �,�r ,` TIII,ys t ; k _ r ,�, r r r ` �ram a _ r a� r r , �' }• # # ;J . ,Yr' I - _ � �,, ti i ,, ti it � &qTk ,� y, L+� a_ 3 7 } `. 1 � `6 �. ' r - + + * r•r ■•�' T L'O_ _ 4 J•-T y. ' i• Y .. .� - �, .. +� ; �„� `•�`,k . - - ..7 � F 3 * b 'A /� N y,y ,{,F ,aF • r,IIr a j L - >I - ti '� IL � k , r ' r .1 I�� ' ti x y _ 't - _ ti .. ,. ^iW' _ - rL �y - .� 4 � T 3 •J + k �� FFy},, '•1 y'• b r 7 r y1� k • _ J*'+ 'IF - � • l f- x -fk +�� L_ti. � . �F. -- T,�rC 7r< y, y •• , . } - _�_ f Ktr +} �. elc� •� o f t t v �. , Jr s i '* r `' r't i.. i , t {L= -r + r �s - r 4�'' Js� ~ �' ,�i .' { • ti��Y i; 'h } } • xr�. . rY� _ } r [ t G'` _ . - �+A� ti F � r r s k * yy R �.. r' ',i ' �f * ° � �•.r :+�4. .k _ !� ti J �� t -IIy ' rir % ' _ +� - `i•{* a• 1 _ �• ?T . � - r r _ ,4 � F • ' _a 'I y ■ _" 46 y• }, k �4 3 '� ti• -- - ._ ', -L } L ti _ �'T _ 8- -P P. J. -• ■ , { �� 1 J� ��r _ y, r`� { }• Yrf f '`�� 7 • - j Y � t - - L r Z . t �� - _ .. ,F L .- �� - - - I r �i , �i � ,, i 7E III. - - 3. 1 4 }, - i Y f r ti f- L ,, j y y• • r b X �. F L -rvi■■y I - _ - 1 +# - '; } + L #' � i r .f -;.. 4•+ J _ '* �1 i P� i' L -r• J _ ' # +� f ik _ f. 7r� J'' • _ - t ti� - �'Fn z'� J 'F may` �� ; t. -. rf ; ++ I. - •�' z ^ 7'•- _ ti" jrt '-`} vs. _ �L} s� + .� it ! r J �1, _ r f * '7R t �fl k_{ jj ■ - 4 i� - .ti' • ' ' �{ - V � - # •r - - � ti �� ; _ r .. L �11 R ¢ ti T ■ . LL i r` : - •rF ' ' � , * r ' �' - -' '- ` / , 'i ' L -'- i ' � • - 1 �' - , � y * ' 7 . . b- `�} r s + 4 _ -+J '' -r+•• � L .. �4 •y _ �_ ��' - F _ ; - '• w + ,k } + _L•rrF L t �a� rr rrry'F I� ` ,• ,,,f _ �, _ {, ti i� .} .. �4 � tl. { Z ' "�' .•s. 4' r• r i r 'r r r * ' k - 'f _ 1 y, ,rkY L `$ L rti �y t t.�y k _mom - o'. - . - --Jl + • -x a i _ * r �S _ �i -- �„r i... l Ir■ - r.�s� 1� . ' ■ + ',� ti~ ,' *'+ f 'r _ �' f• _ *• } F. � �s ` • • s i L • & - III L '4 � - - . # •ram _ � 't r J'F ,r , r ! 7 J� { ■ k , I f f Fk * +�� nkfti 7. ' r . J� �� - 4 - ~ � � � - t r I. � w�' ~ - ■ � � .:� � � _ � J . �. ti .. { ^ - .r wr. t ti �.�, k 1 �J. Fk ■ f*y ; _ , L * i _ ti *.. 4 t +t- - , �rII -;ZL. t%.4 , E� Y 7F , ±s r r t r 41� { rri `f j �+ JLL y • y + t _ a yy� # k y'i • R % # .` +J � •� * y •� III- _ % , ,. 3 3 . � , ' " . - • - PI - f' ,r -1- J 5+ ji }'� * ��M • IT +y,�y '•f.# : f}t"Y-'.1# • - K rV . ••- ■, i v M _ y. k� ;� ■ ti■r 5 y ':,r � . '. 1 + � r !' } s . ti ` r M + - .a � �` . 14L ■ y ' III ..I v Y t rr✓ rr ' n } _ r .•,,r i y ~. ■t' Ff i.1 J'�• _ _ � +� { N .i,, ■,, \F, J r r L' "� �'tM ' 1 1• J - #_� r K rl a�.R� +'WF }• • _ z 1_7�� - J.� - *~ . ..,,L� b JS w fi r # �% * r-S , f '>r: # r rt �. •:� r '; 4{ T.F � 1 - r -I ti 1� - . i ' 2'! _ 9N L +,y 4 f ' 3 ^ t- z _ _ ,,y } #. .� yr . •. III�� 4_, - *y F 1• J ,�.•: '�rii� 1- 4 S. + }, F - # .} ,t - _ +■ � � •, ti . f ' *+ M-bIl';i _ �- # - ■ J L� ?OF L k r 4 I' y , l z ar"r � • �. ti f ; "; `ti a ff. .: r - * f r[± € rr -+� , r I - 4 ai• ti J. �1 } } fr d i `•� �: � ti ,:I � „+ N' F -. /rlh•' �-+ - 'r •�+ _�- { r 4� Ir # it l 'r a. L-~ _• - •• ` - IL �1 1 �. i%- { o - - t-`tiF +t -+ {. r• +'# �+ ` �- _ •� r �� '. •ti •-� ,! �, � .L 4jF 3 , - . :Jr _ a •f r T• L ' i�•+# �L .T - +' yL :r - r-' - ••'4 t ~ -_ - Y - r' b rt •F77T{{7` 77{{ ` r '. ,i *,}; r F L r� ';' y _ _ 1ti T f ; ti + .e *w J # f 'S '#� r• _ r 1 i{ } ' • , +�� L { '• a1LkY '� �'+"• f i � ti �+ .- r -Al i - � • �� .mi l _ 't-. .t . 1 r _ i� +• y ''f�� JF t �� . rr -r - tiyt� i * k ,ti rt a r r '.� ��y+ p , L 'r`��'■",F { ti R , ,� i t 'ti _ r+ti� . r• . r'' i •�• rF •!! 4- ; F . r■� ■ J y t � .£ •r ; � � f,-• �_'T '� ti ' F JfY ■ _ '� '�'� �` ~ �`�" Y ,f� u ti _y t t • - r •r ,. t + +# J T. "'iiiiii _ti F ■ j r, ' , a 1. 'k. l � ti� * f rr 'd ~ { 1.7■ '• .. 4 . � � " - it � -*& *.• + ► - _ VV 6i%tw i - - y �`.I ,�, yT' S ti +s/ # • t y,,, ` �' t �I•� 4 4 _�� .1 �Y J' _ �M r}} - � � Jr . f ' �- F-� F � � :1 i +� • , � �h#�y 1� � ■�' , L ` � ,r L4fi< �} A �� k � ``�� _ s r `" � � � ; 4} 7�_ z - `r - "` t r r i ` ' }+ k Imo' L, ~# {�CF} r " - ''k.rL k . - ry. l �i' r # .. -..r �5r •T t a y r� _ 44 -•A - - f : { 1 k ' '� h ■ 1�•'' F-`- b"'`�-r i yy y I k .4 } L •�. y 1 • rl r iI,` ' ` - - v. �a ,q � 4 #� - ~ rr%4 r"r v iJkL ■y` ti, _ M1 ` ■ L �„' +F `r. k iyy _ F �b r . i -, ry y ,1 _ , 5 , • } ' _ ,� k ti'° - . •*'� ti r, _ t _ 3 k t `r �`. �` ri+{� ` 4Ic I 11 ;' �t i r � , r r , J k t + L `� r r+".-� �; I. z y r� } �; � ~ +SLi ' . �4 F �k S ~ �' ..I � ; ti � � � . � ` ti _zNti * • it ~ '' IF . ' �_;, � Jt - PI r , Ill - 1 ._ri y }} r n 3 ate, .� �� t' * r - . - �. r b- - "tllJ�, 3 }b I ` �k ; z. - - � r± � ��' �� +� r ` Is ' +r y f mow•' 3µ .- •k;..ri +•u �, yF }fi r + : , • # f ; .. a _ + ~ F •y'- , : * M. i ,, 4 '' M� ti k �.J� yF, _ - - .l w 4I_ �` r,r t 4 - f } +4 . * { ' 1f. # ti k y4 i v+ x k- -I - I .x � - • t * = 4 -up 111111- JF �� "#.. y , ■F -' fJ L �'i �_ + y rr+ ` k b + ^} #_ } k f � r, _ ~. ., - `�. ''.F -0 # . i WONOWO} * 4 .j R '* r # r } * r' . rk +-6 .., x �', f Y L y 4 } y . � ' ~ ~. I � - }' R�'5`' ; 5' `� i ■_ �ti ' . }Will IF - -1 Oull" dolp N IF" #+ r i� =+4i - f rt i 4 *NE f �� .�jti�, i M* �11 . �' _ + ' L �t - , y * +.� �`L • � r, i L y '% • . r T' * '� r ~ + r am ' ^ ' I y { y � .h } r L ' . Jh ..- L I t, �l a,� _ k � � �.I• � L kJk I a * T 3 _' t ]F+F '� r ' -1' ' ~ 1 _ , � i ti k a a- .."+,b'ypx _ at 1 = 5 + , ■ 1 I� r- ; . N.M1 } _ y. # �. ., 3 - _ �'` `-_' �4' a" ylr t fi%. r r� .i . �'' -` , ' * -Al1i' A ` y ~ �yr . IIrll�_ti t ' '{ F F - - , .. 'k �` r. =. y }�{N J's � A {€ y i ti' III F i'FL '� { 1 + l } �L r -_ � { P. ,��i k r L % -as �� } . • , i FIIIIIIL• !.s-`.flM§ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII&7 �� - � I l L r. r y � .', ' .� - � � rT '� +l ,h'~ b ti + 4 �y i S � � J L � �� - , ` - .+ � •• �_ • �'R M1 r J}III M1 iF fIF 1 ab. >. , I' 'J + F - 5 ti k t ' ti y - r ;. 7ti- J i - fa ', _41a R. ,r �1.:: # � 'Ni , ~L •�, � 3 .- ; - L * r ��•� � ki p y {• } *i •Y t�F. { I • .ti ` ■ I L,.. 1 �•�, •� � ti � .`L% Illor mVF v �M1 * } { �F + y r't F ~'. �� •.M1 �r [ "Mns . ' Y L L + ■ t �, ;;�F� ti ter* * tilb� M. ti �ti� ;� y Ill Aft 1 L ti ti �++ } • - VI MW k 3 1 4. % I -W N !. NII 'I , � - -I L�, - % -"Zw ..,7-:7 �.. - + i 1 r F l 'I - y + Sir Ry * ' I f �; }�. '- . ti R Vi,y.kiy� -y �: vK M1 ti , - - i� IL + 5 r + F ` yj �1 - l {Yti • J r I L r -L, �• y I 3� } t-. - t. ", Al. JI , -1 .." d4WO4-�?O' - -1 qft do? - "�� __ - . � - 1 IIIr t +' F� Y + F IM F ■ .y} k bR 1 a 1F * vG F }� r _ ~ .ti,; ♦ ., III M• ' # ■ i s '� 4 Tr'�' L �y{ v _ L 1% _ •- .NAII '+ r + '-`ram rj y ` ` � '!L1 -I + �. % 5 } %r 7 . f. *-. r' :} .R rI F /fir' \ K ^1� ' a III •. ' f ", �' ; + - � � �* .a- 'k f . . . '; .R y -I r a - , # ti: - y # r �IML. .4, ; i y k `� I. z•�. •. � M1 } T4 s1.6 J I r ' L °•ice -' 1 ti' - - 3..�' IWL . y , •xy� i x 1. 1I III L lyb i MV `I k `*4 # i i FL 11 4.+It Lh Iy MI �y -.I - ' 'I ;I� +,IIIII- k .ir' 7 +k ` . y �;% #' J L 4 • ti . i *. k % . .�r,), . NLII �6'k ' . VQ� 'I 1 '1116 'Lr Y �. y err , �} } 1 +_ - _ ti# . � x�.•y * i M1 _ i •tir ti 4 1 ''� x j^ fi ,■F'R� 1' r }� '# r ti . • �} + 4T■b" - L I� _ , -�� .y II - - ' '- - L 1 } • y I , .4•'ft d• .•y # �`11I k lJ . ' ILL _Q F•• 4 T rr� IJrPI .Ly •!� r.Wi4 til - T _ _ L }III�1. �� al -rn y �i. *` % + ' r r+ 4� bf ■L iy •� ' L y� ;, J k {' fib,Id - s k { 'bL�h�''` `% 4.. ti ,..mop rSIS ■ L { + - - - - • . ' :r' S' � • ti J7� _ • � r 1 alb. ti l ,� tea.. -QQ 414-00 037 -04 IL w y Cs' 64.00 l 07 •-QO ir �ry .nlr� " � 067-Cif - ,'�. - 1• 'l r , w • 70-00 ;f Ak +' 00 .1 x' PLAT OF AMHERST I i SHEET 3 of s Tract E from the Amherst Recorded final plat is the proposed parcel to designate.as open space. TRACT E PARCEL CONTAINS NO CRITICAL AREAS OR EASEMENTS. �0\ SEE SHEETS 4 AND 5 4�go° Ole I HATCH LINE 8 200 N O LEGEND': � =MONUMENT FOUND. =SET #4 REBAR WITH RED PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "CONTOUR PLS 38965". X=CITY OF PORT ORCHARD STANDARD MONUMENT TO BE SET.. UE =UTILITY EASEMENT SF = SQUARE FEET Job No. 17— 202 ■ pe/uasaa s;ubla Ili '£04Z jg5ijAdo:D 'uaa;sAs Aaanllap pine bulbewi hae;aladoad s,;l eln �)jl aaalejeQ Aq papinoid s;uawnaoQ Y 04 tiA011, IL JAC Ile 05,E � ,� '�� ,� .��:� �► R `h' s •�'. �:4�+y a rf �r s � i E• - � +x • • ' 073-00 023:59,.,. x • •�•• • k 024.00 J ,. 075 00 025-00 0 Q0 t3 I338 0 .. �, oz$-oo 053.00 OZ •00 .-00 , ?.1 054.00"�p�� 03W0 �. 025-00 �p ew 0 - 05800 • 0 76 0 0.pe04 Ire. 4 ON- 057-00 04 p- li45-0 009.00 0 ( - 030.00 4.49 -00 41% . 05IL r z-°ax 013-00 016.0❑ #r �> 00 057.00 027 :-� 9-0 �• { 0600 Y ti i Soundview Consultants LLC Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Technical Memorandum To: Jim Tosti, Amherst Holdings, LLC File Number: 1564.0004 From: Matt DeCaro, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: June 7, 2019 Rachael Hyland, Soundview Consultants LLC Re: Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment McCormick Planning Area A SW Old Clifton Road and McCormick Woods Drive SW, Port Orchard, WA 98367 Dear Mr. Krabbe, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) conducted a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment of an approximately 19.98-acre property located southeast of the intersection of SW Old Clifton Road and McCormick Woods Drive SW in the City of Port Orchard, Washington (Figure 1). The property consists of one parcel located in the Southeast '/4 of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 1 East, W.M. (Kitsap County Tax Parcel Number 042301-3-010-2006). SVC investigated the site to evaluate if any potentially regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are located on or adjacent to the subject property. This assessment was conducted to support the potential residential redevelopment of the subject property. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 1 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Background Data Prior to the site investigation, staff conducted background research using the City of Port Orchard Environmental Map, Kitsap County Geographic Information System (GIS) data, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing map, and Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey (Attachment B). All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, USFWS, local precipitation data, and various orthophotographic resources. No wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are identified onsite by any of the critical area inventories. The NRCS Soil Survey Map (Attachment B7) identifies two soil map units on the subject property: Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes, and Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, both of which are listed as non-hydric on the Kitsap County Hydric Soils List (MRCS, 2001). No wetlands are identified within 300 feet of the subject property by the USFWS NWI (Attachment B1), Kitsap County wetland inventory (Attachment B2), or City of Port Orchard Environmental Map (Attachment B8). The Kitsap County stream inventory (Attachment B2) and City of Port Orchard Environmental Map identify an off -site stream located approximately 235 feet to the west of the subject property at its closest point. The DNR stream typing map (Attachment B5) identifies this offsite stream as a potential fish habitat (Type F) stream. No actual fish presence is documented within 300 feet of the subject property by the WDFW PHS (Attachment B3) or SalmonScape (Attachment B4) mapping tools. Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at the Sea-Tac International Airport Station in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the site investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summarv'. Percent of Site Visit Day Day 1 Week 2 Weeks Last 30 Days Year to Datez Normal Date of Before Prior Prior (Observed/Normal)Z (Observed/Normal)3 (Last 30 Days/Year)4 4/24/19 0.00 0.00 0.42 2.06 3.59/3.05 28.49/30.46 —117/-93 Notes: 1. Precipitation volume in inches. Data obtained from the NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/=acis.php?wfo=sew) for SeaTac Airport. 2. Year-to-date precipitation is the total for the water year from October 1,1 to the onsite date(s). During the site visit on April 24, 2019, precipitation levels were above statistical normal for the prior 30 days (approximately 117 percent of normal) and within normal range for the 2018/2019 water year (approximately 93 percent of normal). A total of 2.06 inches of rainfall accumulation was reported during the two weeks preceding the site visit which is 155 percent of normal for this time period. These data suggest that recent hydrologic conditions were normal to above normal at the time of the site investigation. Such conditions were considered in making professional wetland determinations. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 2 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Methods A formal investigation was performed by qualified SVC scientists in April 2019. This investigation consisted of walk-through surveys of the subject property and publicly accessible areas within 300 feet of the subject property for potentially regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas within the nearby vicinity of the subject property. Wetlands, streams, and select fish and wildlife habitats and species are regulated features Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) Chapter 20.162 (Critical Areas Regulations) and subject to restricted uses/activities under the same title. Wetland presence/absence was determined in accordance with POMC 20.162.048 and as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wletland Delineation Manual: Wlestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (USACE, 2010) and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA, 2018). Pink surveyor's flagging was labeled alpha -numerically and tied to vegetation or 3-foot lath at formal sampling locations (DP-1 through DP-4) to mark the point where detailed data was collected. Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals to further confirm the wetland absence. The locations of the data plots are illustrated in Attachment A. Offsite wetland boundaries were estimated using aerial photography, topographical maps, and visual observations from accessible areas. Offsite wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, the offsite wetlands were rated and categorized using the Wlashington State Wetlands Rating System for Wlestern Wlashington — Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October2014 (Hruby, 2014) and guidelines established in the POMC 20.162.048.2. Surface water features were evaluated using the DNR Water Typing System as outlined in WAC 222.16 and the definition established in POMC 20.162.070.1. The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visit by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. The experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity. Results The subject property is located in a rural residential and commercial setting and is largely undeveloped with the exception of an existing access road and gravel vehicle parking area along the eastern portion of the property. The subject property is generally bounded by SW Old Clifton Road to the north; McCormick Woods Drive SW to the west with single-family residences beyond; Saint Andrews Drive SW to the south with McCormick Woods Golf Course beyond; and single-family residential areas to the east. The far southeastern portion of the subject property is bisected by a separately -owned commercial property developed with two buildings and associated infrastructure. The subject property is primarily forested. The tree canopy is dominated by grand fir (Abiesgrandis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga memZiesii), and the understory is dominated by evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and western sword fern (Polystichum munitum). In general, topography on the site slopes downward from the southeast to the northwest. A USGS topographic map is provided in Attachment B6. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 3 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Onsite Wetland Absence No potentially regulated wetlands were identified on the subject property. Non -wetland data forms for the four representative data plot locations (DP-1 through DP-4) are provided in Attachment C. Data plots DP-1, DP-2, and DP-4 were excavated on the undeveloped, forested portion of the subject property. No indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology were observed at any of these locations. The vegetative community at these data plots is dominated by facultative and facultative upland species such as grand fir, Douglas fir, salal, and western sword fern. The subsurface generally consists of silty and sandy loam soils lacking active redoximorphic features. No signs of wetland hydrology were observed at these locations despite the recent high rainfall. Data plot DP-3 is located within an onsite non -wetland drainage swale in the far southeastern portion of the property. Hydrophytic vegetation was technically observed due to a dominance of 100 percent facultative and facultative upland vegetation such as red alder, salmonberry, western sword fern, and trailing blackberry. Hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix) was also observed due to borderline hydric soil conditions including 2 percent active redoximorphic features within a 2.5Y 4/2 matrix found at 10 inches below ground surface. However, no primary indicators or wetland hydrology were observed, including surface water, high groundwater table, or saturation within 12 inches of surface. The absence of wetland hydrology is notable as the site visit was conducted during the growing season and following a period of precipitation that was higher than statistical normal. A total of 2.06 inches of rainfall accumulation was reported during the prior two weeks which is 155 percent of normal for this time period. Precipitation levels were also above statistical normal for the prior 30 days (approximately 117 percent of normal). The findings at DP-3 verify the non -wetland nature of the drainage swale which otherwise does not exhibit natural stream characteristics or meet the definition of a typed water. Offsite Wetland Findings During the site investigation, SVC estimated the boundaries of two offsite wetlands (Offsite Wetlands A and B) located several hundred feet to the west of the subject property, on the opposite side of McCormick Woods Drive SW. The identified wetlands appeared to contain indicators of wetland hydrology and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. No other potentially -regulated wetlands were observed on or within 300 feet of the project area. The approximated wetland rating forms and wetland rating maps are provided in Attachments D and E, respectively. [Note: The wetland boundaries were estimated and the ratings approximated based on aerial evaluation, background research, and limited visual observations. SVC reserves the right to modify the findings documented herein if required at a later time.] A summary of the offsite wetland is provided in Table 2 below. Offsite Vetland A Offsite Wetland A is located west of the subject property, approximately 280 feet away from the subject property at its closest point. Hydrology for Wetland A is apparently provided by a stream running through the wetland, surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation appears to be dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), cascara (Frangula purshiana), salmonberry (Bubus rpectabilis), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton anmericanus), and common lady fern (Athyrium cyclosorum). Wetland A is likely a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Emergent, Seasonally Saturated wetland (PSS/EMB). Per POMC 20.162.048.2, Wetland A is likely a Category III riverine wetland with a total habitat score of 6 points. Per POMC 20.162.052.3.c and Table 3, a Category III wetland with 6 habitat points is subject to a 165-foot standard buffer. The maximum potential buffer for Offsite Wetland A does not extend onto the subject property. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 4 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Table 2. Wetland Summary. Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Approximated Wetland Wetland Size (SF) Buffer Width Cowardinl HGM2 WSDOE3 CPort Or Orchard feet (feet) N/A Offsite A PSS/EMB Riverine III III 165 (Offsite) N/A Offsite B PSS/ABBH Depression III III 165 (Offsite) Table 2 Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979) or NWI Class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent; Modifiers for Water Regime: B = Seasonally Saturated, C = Seasonally Flooded. 2. Brinson, M. M. (1993). 3. Current WSDOE wetland rating system for Western Washington (Hruby, 2014). Offsite Wletland B Offsite Wetland B is located west of the subject property, approximately 295 feet away from the subject property at its closest point. Hydrology for Wetland B is apparently provided by the stream running through the wetland, surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by spiraea (Spiraea douglasit). Wetland B is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub/Aquatic Bed, Seasonally Saturated/Permanently Flooded wetland (PSS/ABBH). Per POMC 20.162.048.2, Wetland B is likely a Category III depressional wetland with a total habitat score of 7 points. Per POMC 20.162.052.3.c and Table 3, a Category III wetland with 7 habitat points is subject to a 165-foot standard buffer. The maximum potential buffer for Offsite Wetland B does not encumber the subject property. Offsite Stream Findings The site investigation observed one offsite stream located west of the subject property on the opposite side of McCormick Woods Drive SW. This offsite stream is located approximately 280 feet away from the subject property at its closest point. Vegetation along the stream consists of red alder, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), cascara, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salmonberry, and common lady fern. DNR identifies the stream as a fish habitat (Type F) stream is mapped as originating from a wetland area southwest of offsite Wetland B and flows north underneath SW Old Clifton Road. Per POMC 20.162.072, a Type F stream is subject to a 150-foot buffer. Because the maximum potential buffer for the offsite stream does not project onsite, this technical memorandum does not attempt to verify the typing. Conclusions No potentially regulated wetlands, streams, or other fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas were identified on the subject property during the April 2019 site investigation. Two offsite wetlands and one offsite stream were identified several hundred feet to the west of the site, on the opposite side of McCormick Woods Drive SW. The maximum potential buffers for these offsite critical areas do not encumber the subject property, and no other wetlands or streams were identified within 300 feet of the site. Thus, it appears that future development of the site would be unencumbered by any potentially regulated wetlands, habitat areas, or their associated buffers. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 5 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 If you have any further questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, >C-_ June 7, 2019 Matt DeCaro Date Environmental Planner/Project Manager � / I/ Tune 7, 2019 Rachael Hyland Date Environmental Scientist 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 6 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 References Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. City of Port Orchard. 2019. Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 20.162. Critical Areas Regulations. Current through April 2019. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 1Vetlands and Dee avater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wletlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wletlands and Dee water Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wletlands in Wlashington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wletlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, Washington. April 2005. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Wlashington State Wletland Rating System for Wlestern Wlashington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-29. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wletland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X McMurphy, C. J., Cr. Chien-Lu Ping, Gerry Coleman, and Allen S. Zulauf. 1980. Soil Survey of Kitsap County Area, Wlashington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Washington State University, Agricultural Research Center. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Munsell® Color, 2000. MunseII0 soil color charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2001. Hydric Soils List. Kitsap County, Wlashington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wletlands in Wlashington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. March 2005. Olympia, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wletland Delineation Manual- Wlestern Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 7 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS. 2018. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8. 1. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A 8 Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Attachment A — Existing Conditions Exhibit 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 w .soundviewconsultants.com MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A - EXISTING CONDITIONS MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD & MCCORMICK WOODS DR SW PORT ORCHARD, WA 98367 KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 042301-3-010-2006 DATE: 6/7/2019 JOB: 1564.0004 BY: RJK scALE: 1 " = 300 ' FIGURE NO.1 Attachment B - Background Information This attachment includes a USFWS NWI Map (B1); Kitsap County Wetland and Stream Inventory (B2); WDFW PHS Map (B3); WDFW SalmonScape Map (B4); DNR Stream Typing Map (B5); USGS Topographic Map (B6); NRCS Soil Survey Map (B7); and City of Port Orchard Environmental Map (Bg)• 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Attachment B1— USFWS NWI Map 5/2712019, 3:58:19 PM 1:9,000 0 280 560 1.120 ft 0 Kitsap Parcels —Query result NWI_Puget_Sound Freshwater Pond r i 1 1 1 1 +1 0 85 170 340 m Freshwater Emergent Wetland Riverine Kitsap Parcels _Query result copmyK{c}ao,r-KkWc�nty.Huz,a,Imagery kFreshwater ForestedfShrub Wetland lmffxt� C s hats 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Attachment B2 — Kitsap County Wetland and Stream Inventory 5l27l2019, 3:59A9 PM 1:C].000 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result Kitsap - Streams 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result (F) Fish Habitat Kitsap Wetlands 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 0 280 560 1,120 it 0 a5 170 340 m Copyright [C) 2017 - Ki-p County, Hexagon Imagery Soudui Consultants Soundview Consultants LLC June 7, 2019 Attachment B3 — WDFW PHS Map 512712019, 4:13;40 PM 1:9,028 0 280 560 1.120 ft 0 Kitsap Parcels _query result 0 85 170 340 m 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result Sou : Esn. HERE, G3 in. InL-m , inaer PCorp., GEBCO. USGS, " nfuiew Consultants 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT SOURCE DATASET: PHSPIusPuiblie Ouery ID: P190412132339 REPORT DATE- 04112/2019 1.24 Common Name Site Name Priority Area Accuracy Federal Status Sensitive Data Source Entity Scientific Name Source Dataset Occurrence Type State Status Resolution GeometryType Source Record More Information (URL) PHS Listing Status Notes Source Date Mgmt Recommendations Freshwater ForestedfShrub NIA Aquatic Habitat NA NIA N US Fish and Wildlife Service NWIWetlands Aquatic habitat NIA AS MAPPED Polygons httplfwww.ecy.wa. PHS Listed Freshwater Forested/Shrub NIA Aquatic Habitat NA NIA N US Fish and Wildlife Service NWIWetiands Aquatic habitat NIA AS MAPPED Polygons httplfwww-ecy_wa_ PHS Listed Freshwater Pond NIA Aquatic Habitat NA NIA N US Fish and Wildlife Service NWIWetlands Aquatic habitat NIA AS MAPPED Polygons httplfwww.ecy_wa_ PHS Listed 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Attachment B4 — WDFW SalmonScape Map McCormick Vim" � P%Irk — SW O G1tS16Tw Rd 4��A 4 - G - � PAC o k VA P ��3U Subject Property aGln 0 c rtif Location r- :il Y� 4, u7 4 Y. 15 O x 52 512712019, 4:10:29 PM 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result WDFW - Salmonscape 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 1:9, 028 0 286 w 1,120 ft 0 95 170 340 m Sw=: E91 HERE, Carron, Intem,ap, invzrncnt P Corp., CfHCO3 115G5, Sorndoiew Cansuhanls Soundview Consultants LLC June 7, 2019 Attachment B5 — DNR Stream Typing Map 5/27/2019, 4:01:16 PM 1:9,004 0 280 550 1,120 ft 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result Strearns i Type N, Np, Ns 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result ' Type S U,anknown Type F 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment 85 170 340 m Cwy4K(C) 2017- Xk-p County, Haug- Imagery 5wxMm Consuhants Soundview Consultants LLC June 7, 2019 Attachment B6 — USGS Topographic Map s F 'llV. Q F� hlcCamitk ViLyw Park .— Yam, 5/2712019, 4:12:06 PM 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Gplltifi � 4� I i Q I � I � f Soy Oto Gfttlan Rd 1:9, 028 d 280 560 1,120 ff 0 65 170 340 rn Sours : Esri, HERE, Gamma, InRrtnap, intlevne.^.1 P Corp., C#f}CO3 U5G5, nMe Consuhanm Soundview Consultants LLC June 7, 2019 Attachment B7 — NRCS Soil Survey 5127l2019, 4:08;27 PM 1:9,000 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result 0 Kitsap Parcels _Query result NRCS Soil Survey 280 560 1.126 ft i,.� rl x [Qii Copf4K(C) 2017 -iUsap County, Hexagon Imagery ioudri C—uhant 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Attachment B8 — City of Port Orchard Environmental Map � W HUDSON t Legend City Boundary Flood Hazard Area ® 0 21A Annual Chance Flood Hazard ® FEMA Zone AE ® FEMA Zone A - Floodway Wetlands Watercourses Potential Wetlands Geologic Hazard Areas of Concern - High Hazard Areas Bald Eagle Management Area = Waterhodies r Approximate C� Subject Property sw NMOR CT Location a Note: Map is not to 0 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Attachment C — Non -Wetland Data Forms 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1564.0004 - McCormick Planning Area A City/County: Port Orchard / Kitsap Sampling Date: 04/24/2019 Applicant/Owner: Amherst Holdings, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 U Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Erin Harker Section, Township, Range: 04/23N/01 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Rolling Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.505276 Long:-122.68959373 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ❑x (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: No wetland criteria were observed. Precipitation levels were above statistical normal for the prior 14 days (155 percent of normal) and prior 30 days (117 percent of normal). VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Abies grandis 75 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Thuja plicata 20 Yes FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. 95 Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Vaccinium parvifolium 15 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Gaultheria shallon 10 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4, FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5, FAC species 45 x 3 = 135 25 = Total Cover FACU species 140 x 4 = 560 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Polystichum munitum 40 Yes FACU Column Totals: 185 (A) 695 (B) 2. Linnea borealis 25 Yes FAC 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.76 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 65 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation indicators were observed. *Linnea borealis. assumed to be facultative for scoring purposes. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 U Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 7.5YR 2.5/1 100 / SILo Silty loam with roots and organics 5 - 10 10YR 2/2 100 / McLo Medium loam 10 - 16 10YR 5/4 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M GrSaLo Gravelly sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x Remarks: No hydric soils indicators were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): none Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): none Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): none Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. A total of 2.06 inches of rainfall accumulation was reported during the prior two weeks which is 155 percent of normal for this time period. Precipitation levels were also above statistical normal for the prior 30 days (approximately 117 percent of normal). US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1564.0004 - McCormick Planning Area A City/County: Port Orchard / Kitsap Sampling Date: 04/24/2019 Applicant/Owner: Amherst Holdings, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2U Investigator(s): Rachael Hyland, Erin Harker Section, Township, Range: 04/23N/01 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): HillSlope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.506474 Long:-122.68815483 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ❑x (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: No wetland criteria were observed. Precipitation levels were above statistical normal for the prior 14 days (155 percent of normal) and prior 30 days (117 percent of normal). VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thuja plicata 70 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 70 Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 40 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2, Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4, FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5, FAC species 70 x 3 = 210 40 = Total Cover FACU species 65 x 4 = 260 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Polystichum munitum 25 Yes FACU Column Totals: 135 (A) 470 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.48 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 25 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 75 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation indicators were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2U Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 5YR 2.5/1 100 / SiLo Organics and roots 5 - 10 10YR 3/3 100 / SaLo 10 - 16 10YR 4/3 85 10YR 3/6 15 C M LoSa 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x Remarks: No hydric soils indicators were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): none Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): none Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): none Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. A total of 2.06 inches of rainfall accumulation was reported during the prior two weeks which is 155 percent of normal for this time period. Precipitation levels were also above statistical normal for the prior 30 days (approximately 117 percent of normal). US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1564.0004 - McCormick Planning Area A City/County: Port Orchard / Kitsap Sampling Date: 04/24/2019 Applicant/Owner: Amherst Holdings, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP-3U Investigator(s): Erin Harker, Rachael Hyland Section, Township, Range: 04/23N/01 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.504467 Long:-122.68657892 Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name: Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ❑ No ❑x (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: Not all three wetland criteria observed; only hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil criteria identified. No wetland hydrology present despite precipitation levels that were above statistical normal for the prior 14 days (155 percent of normal) and prior 30 days (117 percent of normal). VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 50 Yes FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. 50 Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Thuja plicata 15 Yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4, FACW species 2 x 2 = 4 5. FAC species 85 x 3 = 255 35 = Total Cover FACU species 25 x 4 = 100 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Polystichum munitum 15 Yes FACU Column Totals: 112 (A) 359 (B) 2, Rubus ursinus 10 Yes FACU 3, Carex sp. 2 NO FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.21 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑x Dominance Test is >50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 27 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 73 Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation criterion observed through dominance test indicator. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-3U Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 / SiLo Charcoal chunks 4-6 2.5Y 4/2 80 / McLo Dual matrix 4-6 2.5Y 3/3 20 / McLo Dual matrix 6 - 10 10YR 3/1 60 / SiLo Dual matrix 6 - 10 5YR 2.5/1 40 / SILO Dual matrix, charcoal in the 5yr 2.5/1 matrix 10 - 16 2.5Y 4/2 98 2.5Y 5/6 1 C M McLo 10YR 3/4 1 C M 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) x❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Remarks: Hydric soils criterion technially observed through F3 indicator. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): none Water Table Present? Yes x❑ No ❑ Depth (inches): 17 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 15 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators observed. A total of 2.06 inches of rainfall accumulation was reported during the prior two weeks which is 155 percent of normal for this time period. Precipitation levels were also above statistical normal for the prior 30 days (approximately 117 percent of normal). US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: 1564.0004 - McCormick Planning Area A City/County: Port Orchard / Kitsap Sampling Date: 04/24/2019 Applicant/Owner: Amherst Holdings, LLC State: WA Sampling Point: DP-4U Investigator(s): Erin Harker, Rachael Hyland Section, Township, Range: 04/23N/01 E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Plateau Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A2 Lat: 47.503677 Long:-122.68975818 Datum: WGS 14 Soil Map Unit Name: Harstine gravelly ashy sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ElNo ❑x (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ❑x No ❑ Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ❑ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No x❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Remarks: No wetland criteria were observed. Precipitation levels were above statistical normal for the prior 14 days (155 percent of normal) and prior 30 days (117 percent of normal). VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Tsuga heterophylla 70 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 70 Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. Gaultheria shallon 70 Yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2• Vaccinium ovatum 20 Yes FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3• OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4• FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5• FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 90 = Total Cover FACU species 160 x 4 = 640 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1 Column Totals: 160 (A) 640 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. ❑ Dominance Test is >50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0' g. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ElProblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. 0 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 Remarks: No hydrophytic vegetation indicators were observed. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-4U Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 2.5YR 2.5/1 100 / McLo Organics with roots 3-4 10YR 3/2 100 / McLo 4-11 10YR 4/4 90 / SaLo 4-11 10YR 5/3 10 / SaLo 11 - 16 2.5Y 5/1 40 / SaLo 11 - 16 10YR 5/6 60 / LoSa 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: None Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x Remarks: No hydric soils indicators were observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (63) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): none Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): none Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No x❑ Depth (inches): none Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ❑x includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators were observed. A total of 2.06 inches of rainfall accumulation was reported during the prior two weeks which is 155 percent of normal for this time period. Precipitation levels were also above statistical normal for the prior 30 days (approximately 117 percent of normal). US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Attachment D — Offsite Wetland Rating Forms 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) Date of site visit: 04/25/19 Rated by Erin Harker, Rachael Hyland Trained by Ecology? ✓ Yes No Date of training 9/14/17 HGM Class used for rating Riverine Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Y ✓ N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRi ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions ✓ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I — Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 X Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential L M L Landscape Potential H M M Value H M H TOTAL Score Based on 7 6 6 19 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H, H, H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H, H, L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frinee Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ❑XNO-goto2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ❑X NO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑XNO-goto4 DYES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, =The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑XNO-goto5 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? =x The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, =x The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) ❑ NO - go to 6 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO-goto7 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO-goto8 Off ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland points = 8 Depressions cover > %: area of wetland points = 4 4 Depressions present but cover < %: area of wetland points = 2 No depressions present points = 0 R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height, not Cowardin classes) Trees or shrubs > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 8 Trees or shrubs > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 2/3 area of the wetland points = 6 Herbaceous plants (> 6 in high) > 1/3 area of the wetland points = 3 Trees, shrubs, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of the wetland points = 0 Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above 14 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H _6-11= M X 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 2 R 2.2. Does the contributing basin to the wetland include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4 Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: X 3-6 = H _1 or 2 = M _0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? 0 Yes=1 No=O R 3.2. Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? 1 Yes=1 No=O R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? (answer 2 YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which the unit is found) Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 = H 1= M 0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 7 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) RIVERINE AND FRESHWATER TIDAL FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points = 9 2 If the ratio is 10-20 points = 6 If the ratio is 5-<10 points = 4 If the ratio is 1-<5 points = 2 If the ratio is < 1 points = 1 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have >90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes). 4 Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 7 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 4 Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0 Total for R 4 Add the points in the boxes above 6 Rating of Site Potential If score is:_12-16 = H X 6-11= M _0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 0 R 5.2. Does the up -gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 R 5.3. Is the up -gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 0 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is:_3 = H X 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. The sub -basin immediately down -gradient of the wetland has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 1 Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H X 1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches maybe combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y, cc or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 x Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 x Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 1 x Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 x Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 1 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. CD (::::0:) 1 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row ♦.. are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. x Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). x Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 2 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above g Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H _7-14 = M X 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 10.92 % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) 0/21 = 10.92 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 35.99 % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) �2] = 45.365 /o Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 0 S 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 12 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H X 1-3 = M _< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 x It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: X 2 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http: //wdfw.wa. govlconservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). X Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, O Vegetated, and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑ Yes —Go to SC 1.1 ❑x No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes = Category I ❑No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? OThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) OAt least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. OThe wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes = Category I ❑No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes — Go to SC 2.2 pNo — Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes = Category I pNo = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf ❑Yes — Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ❑x No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑Yes = Category I ❑x No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes — Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No — Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes — Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑No — Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ❑Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes = Category I ❑x No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑Yes - Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than Vio ac (4350 ftz) ❑Yes = Category I ❑No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑Yes - Go to SC 6.1 x❑No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes = Category I ❑No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes = Category II ❑No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes = Category III ❑No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland A (Approximated) This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) RATING SUMMARY - Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) Date of site visit: 04/25/19 Rated by Erin Harker, Rachael Hyland Trained by Ecology? ✓ Yes No Date of training 9/14/17 HGM Class used for rating Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes?Y ✓ N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ESRi ArcGIS OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions ✓ or special characteristics_) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS Category I — Total score = 23 - 27 Category II — Total score = 20 - 22 X Category III —Total score = 16 - 19 Category IV — Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Hydrologic Habitat Water Quality Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential L M M Landscape Potential L M M Value H M H TOTAL Score Based on 5 6 7 18 Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above N/A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H, H, H 8 = H, H, M 7 = H, H, L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L 1 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to anotherfigure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Frinee Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to anotherfigure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ❑XNO-goto2 ❑ YES - the wetland class is Tidal Fringe - go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ❑NO - Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) ❑YES - Freshwater Tidal Fringe Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ❑X NO - go to 3 ❑YES - The wetland class is Flats Ifyour wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at anytime of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ❑At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ❑XNO-goto4 DYES - The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ❑The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, =The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ❑XNO-goto5 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ❑The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ❑The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) ❑X NO - go to 6 ❑YES - The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at sometime during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ❑NO-goto7 ❑X YES - The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ❑NO-goto8 ❑ YES - The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE Ifyou are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or ifyou have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. 1 points = 2 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 1 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions). Yes = 4 No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub -shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > % of area points = 3 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants <1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 4 0 Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < % total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Site Potential If score is:12-16 = H 6-11 = M X 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M X 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 0 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub -basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES 2 if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Value If score is: X 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page E Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletpoints = 2 Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch points = 1 Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing points = 0 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 3 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland points = 3 Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in) points = 0 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit points = 5 3 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire wetland is in the Flats class points = 5 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H x 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? Yes = 1 No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H X 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • Flooding occurs in a sub -basin that is immediately down -gradient of unit. points = 2 • Surface flooding problems are in a sub -basin farther down -gradient. points = 1 1 Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub -basin. points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? 0 Yes=2 No=O Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: _2-4 = H X 1 = M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 0 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches maybe combined for each class to meet the threshold of Y, cc or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. x Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 x Scrub -shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 1 Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). x Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 1 x Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake Fringe wetland 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ftz. Different patches of the some species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle 2 If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. CD (::::0:) 1 None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row ♦.. are HIGH = 3points Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. x Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). x Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) 4 Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) x At least % ac of thin -stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) x Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above g Rating of Site Potential If score is:_15-18 = H X 7-14 = M _0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: 10.92 % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) 00/21 = 10.92 % If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: 35.99 % undisturbed habitat + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses) �/2] = 45.365 % Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) 0 S 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 12 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-6 = H X 1-3 = M _< 1= L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 x It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) — It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) — It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species 2 — It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources — It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: X 2 = H _1= M _0 = L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Record the rating on the first page 14 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http//wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http: //wdfw.wa. govlconservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. — Old-growth/Mature forests: Old -growth west of Cascade crest - Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests - Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old -growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 - see web link above). X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. — Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 - see web link above). X Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report - see web link on previous page). — Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. — Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. — Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. X Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? 0 The dominant water regime is tidal, O Vegetated, and 0 With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ❑ Yes —Go to SC 1.1 ❑x No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ❑Yes = Category I ❑No - Go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? OThe wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) OAt least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. OThe wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ❑Yes = Category I ❑No = Category II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes — Go to SC 2.2 pNo — Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ❑Yes = Category I pNo = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://wwwl.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf ❑Yes — Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ❑x No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ❑Yes = Category I ❑x No = Not a WHCV SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ❑Yes — Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No — Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ❑Yes — Go to SC 3.3 ❑x No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ❑Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑No — Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ❑Yes = Is a Category I bog ❑No = Is not a bog Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form — Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. — Old -growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. — Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). El Yes = Category I ❑x No = Not a forested wetland for this section SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks —The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ❑Yes - Go to SC 5.1 ❑x No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? —The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). —At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. —The wetland is larger than Vio ac (4350 ftz) ❑Yes = Category I ❑No = Category II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: — Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 — Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 — Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ❑Yes - Go to SC 6.1 x❑No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ❑Yes = Category I ❑No - Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ❑Yes = Category II ❑No - Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ❑Yes = Category III ❑No = Category IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter "Not Applicable" on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland name or number Offsite Wetland B (Approximated) This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 18 Rating Form - Effective January 1, 2015 Attachment E — Offsite Wetland Rating Maps 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A - COWARDIN MAP Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 w .soundviewconsultants.corn MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD & MCCORMICK WOODS DR SW PORT ORCHARD, WA 98367 KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 042301-3-010-2006 DATE:6/7/2019 JOB:1564.0004 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 " = 225 ' FIGURE NO. 1 of 5 MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A - HYDROPERIOD MAP Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 w .soundviewconsultants.corn MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD & MCCORMICK WOODS DR SW PORT ORCHARD, WA 98367 KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 042301-3-010-2006 DATE:6/7/2019 JOB:1564.0004 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 " = 225 ' FIGURE No-2 of 5 MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A - CONTRIBUTING BASIN MAP Wetland Rating Map a- v C3 Wetland (Estimated Only - Not Delineated) a Contributing Basin � A Ifl L�J} Site Boundary 4. r� t3 O j . D.4.0 70 D.4.3 Area of Contributing Basin (SF) 12,897,906 Area of Wetland A - Not Delineated (SF) —2,554 Percent of Wetland A within Contributing Basin 0.020% Area of Wetland B - Not Delineated (SF) —259,074 Percent of Wetland B within Contributing Basin 2.009% Soundview Consultants LLC 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 w .soundviewconsultan ts.com MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD & MCCORMICK WOODS DR SW PORT ORCHARD, WA 98367 KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 042301-3-010-2006 DATE:6/7/2019 JOB:1564.0004 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 " = 1,000 ' FIGURE No-3 of 5 MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A - HABITAT MAP H.2.0 Wetland A & B H.2.1 Abutting Undisturbed Habitat 10.92% Abutting Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 0.00% Accessible Habitat 10.92% H.2.2 Undisturbed Habitat 35.99% Moderate & Low Intensity Land Uses 18.75% Undisturbed Habitat in 1 KM Polygon 45.36% H.2.3 High Intensity Land Use in 1 KM Polygon 45.271/o Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 w .soundviewconsuhants.corn MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD & MCCORMICK WOODS DR SW PORT ORCHARD, WA 98367 KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 042301-3-010-2006 DATE:6/7/2019 JOB:1564.0004 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 " = 1,400' F7774 of 5 MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A - 303(D) MAP 110 SITE Wetland Rating Map Sub Basin ' . Water Quality Improvement Project �f Category 4A Assessed Waters 0 1 2 4 Miles. j :.. Category 5 Assessed Waters I i i i I iI l illdk r 45892 4A Bacteria Water PORT ORCHARD, AGATE PASSAGE, AND RICH PASSAGE Marine (Full Grids) 7617 4A Bacteria Water BLACKJACK CREEK Rivers/Streams 38927 4A Bacteria Water SACCO CREEK Rivers/Streams 38934 4A Bacteria Water KARCHER CREEK Rivers/Streams 74251 4A Bacteria Water BLACKJACK CREEK Rivers/Streams 38799 4A Bacteria Water SINCLAIR INLET Marine (Full Grids) 7615 4A Bacteria Water BLACKJACK CREEK Rivers/Streams 38405 4A Bacteria Water ANNAPOLIS CREEK Rivers/Streams 7604 4A Bacteria Water ANNAPOLIS CREEK Rivers/Streams 38859 4A Bacteria Water ROSS CREEK Rivers/Streams 46113 4A Bacteria Water BLACKJACK CREEK Rivers/Streams Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 w .soundviewconsuhants.corn MCCORMICK PLANNING AREA A SW OLD CLIFTON ROAD & MCCORMICK WOODS DR SW PORT ORCHARD, WA 98367 KITSAP COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 042301-3-010-2006 DATE:6/7/2019 JOB:1564.0004 BY: DLS SCALE: 1 " = 2 mi FIGURE No-5 of 5 Attachment F — Qualifications All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland determinations, OHW determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Technical Memorandum prepared for McCormick Planning Area A, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Matt DeCaro of SVC. In addition, site inspections were performed by Erin Harker and Rachael Hyland, and report preparation was performed by Laura Livingston. Matt DeCaro Environmental Planner / Project Manager Professional Experience: 10+ years Matt DeCaro is an Environmental Planner and Project Manager with a diverse background in stream ecology, water quality, wetland science, environmental due diligence, and site remediation. Matt currently provides permitting and regulatory compliance assistance for land use projects from their planning stages through review, approval, and construction. Matt performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish & wildlife habitat assessments; provides land use planning assistance for residential, commercial, and industrial projects; conducts code and regulation analysis; prepares reports and permit applications; and provides restoration and mitigation design. Matt earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a focus in Environmental Science from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, with additional graduate -level coursework and research in aquatic restoration and salmonid ecology. Matt has received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), and he is a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist. Matt has been formally trained in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark by the Washington State Department of Ecology. He has attended USFWS survey workshops for multiple threatened and endangered species, and he is a Senior Author of WSDOT Biological Assessments. Matt holds 40-hour HAZWOPER training and has managed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, subsurface investigations, and contaminant remediation projects throughout the Pacific Northwest. His diverse experience also includes NEPA compliance for federal projects; noxious weed abatement; army ant research in the Costa Rican tropical rainforest; spotted owl surveys on federal and private lands; and salmonid spawning and migration surveys. Erin Harker Wetland Scientist Professional Experience: 4 years Erin Harker is a Wetland Scientist with diverse ecological experience in both field and laboratory settings in the Pacific Northwest. She has gained hands-on experience involving research on water quality, salmon runs, amphibian surveys, restoration project performance, and marine mammal hydro - acoustics. Erin is proficient in collecting and analyzing environmental data; riparian restoration and wetland mitigation monitoring principles and techniques; analyzing local, state, and federal environmental code and regulations; and technical writing. Erin has additional experience engaging students and volunteers in a suite of environmental curriculums. She currently performs wetland, ordinary high water, and forensic delineations, in addition to assisting clients through the various stages of land use planning by conducting environmental code analysis; preparing environmental assessments, mitigation reports, and biological evaluations; and completing permit applications. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 Erin graduated from Western Washington University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science with a Marine Ecology focus. She has received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mtns, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement) and formal training through the WSDOE and Coastal Training Program in conducting forage fish surveys; using the credit -debit system for estimating wetland mitigation needs, determining the ordinary high water mark; Puget Sound coastal processes; conducting eelgrass delineations; using the 2014 wetland rating system; using field indicators for hydric soils; and administering permits in the shoreline jurisdiction. Rachael Hyland Environmental Scientist Professional Experience: 5 Rachael Hyland is a wetland profession in training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists and a Certified Associated Ecologist through the Ecological Society of America. Rachael has a background in wetland and ecological habitat assessments in various states, most notably Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Washington. She has experience in assessing tidal, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and site assessments. She also has extensive knowledge of bats and White Nose Syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus destructans), a fungal disease affecting bats, which was recently documented in Washington. Rachael earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut, with additional ecology studies at the graduate level. Rachael has completed Basic Wetland Delineator Training with the Institute for Wetland Education and Environmental Research, received 40-hour wetland delineation training (Western Mountains, Valleys, & Coast and Arid West Regional Supplement), and received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the Using the Revised 2014 Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. Laura Livingston Staff Environmental Planner Professional Experience: 2 years Laura Livingston is a Staff Environmental Planner with a background in water quality monitoring, invasive species monitoring, wildlife monitoring, wilderness stewardship, and erosion control projects. Laura has field experience working on natural resources projects, with an emphasis on stream and river projects, in the Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest United States. She has also worked on a variety of environmental science research, grant, and teaching projects requiring scientific writing, science communication, laboratory work, and statistical analysis. She currently performs fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process. Laura earned a Master of Science degree in Environmental Science from Washington State University, Pullman. In addition she has received training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in How to Administer Development Permits in Western Washington's Shorelines, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark, the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System, and Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation. 1564.0004 McCormick Planning Area A Soundview Consultants LLC Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment June 7, 2019 mom I LW RILEYGROUP GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED BY: THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 BOTHELL WAY NORTHEAST BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 PREPARED FOR: WINDWARD REAL ESTATE 805 KIRKLAND AVENUE, SUITE 200 KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98033 RGI PROJECT No. 2019-088 MCCORMICK WOODS PARCEL A MCCORMICK WOODS DRIVE SW & ST. ANDREWS DRIVE SW PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON MAY 29, 2019 Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone 425.415.0551 * Fax 425.415.0311 www.riley-group.com May 29, 2019 Mr. James Tosti Windward Real Estate 805 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Subject© Geotechnical Engineering Report McCormick Woods Parcel A McCormick Woods Drive SW & St. Andrews Drive SW Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project Y�o. 2019-088 Dear Mr. Tosti: As requested, The Riley Group, Inc. (RGI) has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for the McCormick Woods Parcel A project located at McCormick Woods Drive SW & St. Andrews Drive SW, Port Orchard, Washington. Our services were completed in accordance with our proposal PRP2019-124 dated April 10, 2019 and authorized by you on April 16, 2019. The information in this GER is based on our understanding of the proposed construction, and the soil and_ groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits completed by RGI at the site On April 30, 2019. RGI recommends that you submit the project plans and specifications to RGI for a general review so that we may confirm that the recommendations in this GER are interpreted and implemented properly in the construction documents. RGI also recommends that a representative of our firm be present on site during portions of the project construction to confirm that the soil and groundwater conditions are consistent with those that form the basis for the engineering recommendations in this GER. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, THE RILEY GROUP, INC. • • �\� �� 1�, , ��- .;�. ....r- 1�'`� �� • • � • � • � , I ERI� L. WOODS Eric L. Woods, LG Project Geologist 1� r�0 � L. s/29/�y Kristina M. Weller, PE Principal Geotechnical Engineer • �. -� : },, � . . C . _ .c N'. �� .. . Corporate Office 17522 Bothell Way Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Phone 425.415.0551 � Fax 425.415.0311 www. riley-group. com Geotechnical Engineering Report i McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington May 29, 2019 RGI Project No. 2019-088 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................1 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................1 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION................................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................................................2 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................2 4.1 SURFACE..................................................................................................................................................2 4.2 GEOLOGY.................................................................................................................................................2 4.3 SOILS.......................................................................................................................................................3 4.4 GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................................................3 4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................................................................3 4.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS..........................................................................................................................4 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................4 5.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................4 5.2 EARTHWORK.............................................................................................................................................5 5.2.1 Erosion and Sediment Control.....................................................................................................5 5.2.2 Stripping.......................................................................................................................................6 5.2.3 Excavations...................................................................................................................................6 5.2.4 Site Preparation...........................................................................................................................7 5.2.5 Structural Fill................................................................................................................................7 5.2.6 Cut and Fill Slopes........................................................................................................................9 5.2.7 Wet Weather Construction Considerations.................................................................................9 5.3 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 10 5.4 RETAINING WALLS...................................................................................................................................11 5.5 SLAB -ON -GRADE CONSTRUCTION............................................................................................................... 11 5.6 DRAINAGE..............................................................................................................................................12 5.6.1 Surface.......................................................................................................................................12 5.6.2 Subsurface..................................................................................................................................12 5.6.3 Infiltration..................................................................................................................................12 5.7 UTILITIES................................................................................................................................................12 5.8 PAVEMENTS............................................................................................................................................13 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES..................................................................................................................13 7.0 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................14 LIST OF FIGURES AND APPENDICES Figure1.....................................................................................................................Site Vicinity Map Figure 2............................................................................................... Geotechnical Exploration Plan Figure 3...............................................................................................Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 4....................................................................................................Typical Footing Drain Detail Appendix A..........................................................................Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing mom 1 LW RILEYGRDIIR Geotechnical Engineering Report ii May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 Executive Summary This Executive Summary should be used in conjunction with the entire Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the GER must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Section 7.0 should be read for an understanding of limitations. RGI's geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of eight test pits to approximate depths of 6 to 13.5 feet below existing site grades. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for development of the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: Soil Conditions: The soils encountered during field exploration include loose to medium dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel over medium dense to dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel and dense glacial till. Groundwater: Groundwater seepage was encountered at one test pit location at a depth of five feet during our subsurface exploration. Foundations: Foundations for the proposed building may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense native soil or structural fill. Slab -on -grade: Slab -on -grade floors and slabs for the proposed building can be supported on medium dense to dense native soil or structural fill. Pavements: The following pavement sections are recommended: ➢ For heavy truck traffic areas: 3 inches of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) over 6 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) ➢ For general parking areas: 2 inches of HMA over 4 inches of CRB ➢ For concrete pavement areas: 5 inches of concrete over 4 inches of CRB 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 1.0 Introduction This Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) presents the results of the geotechnical engineering services provided for the McCormick Woods Parcel A in Port Orchard, Washington. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess subsurface conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations for the construction of a 55 lot residential development with an access roadway, associated utilities, and stormwater ponds. Our scope of services included field explorations, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this GER. The recommendations in the following sections of this GER are based upon our current understanding of the proposed site development as outlined below. If actual features vary or changes are made, RGI should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, RGI requests to review the site grading plan, final design drawings and specifications when available to verify that our project understanding is correct and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the project design and construction. 2.0 Project description The project site is located on the northeast corner of McCormick Woods Drive SW & St. Andrews Drive SW in Port Orchard, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The site is currently occupied by a vehicle storage lot in the east -central portion of the property. The remainder of the property is forested. RGI understands the site is to be developed with a 55 lot residential development. An access road will wind through the site with entrance/exit areas on McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW. A stormwater pond will be located in the northern portion of the site. At the time of preparing this GER, building plans were not available for our review. Based on our experience with similar construction, RGI anticipates that the proposed residences will be supported on perimeter walls with bearing loads of two to six kips per linear foot, and a series of columns with a maximum load up to 30 kips. Slab -on -grade floor loading of 250 pounds per square foot (psf) are expected. 3.0 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION On April 30, 2019, RGI observed the excavation of eight test pits. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 2 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 Field logs of each exploration were prepared by the geologist that continuously observed the excavation. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during excavation as well as our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The test pit logs included in Appendix A represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and analysis of the samples. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING During the field exploration, a representative portion of each recovered sample was sealed in containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual and laboratory examination. Selected samples retrieved from the test pits were tested for moisture content and grain size analysis to aid in soil classification and provide input for the recommendations provided in this GER. The results and descriptions of the laboratory tests are enclosed in Appendix A. 4.0 Site Conditions 4.1 SURFACE The subject site is an irregular -shaped parcel of land approximately 19.98 acres in size. The site is bound to the north by SW Old Clifton Road, to the east by a commercial and residential development, to the south by St. Andrews Drive SW, and to the west by McCormick Woods Drive SW. The site is occupied by a vehicle storage lot in the east -central portion of the site, with an access road extending north from St. Andrews Drive SW to the lot along the eastern property line. The remainder of the property is undeveloped. The site topography is comprised of an upper southeastern and lower northwestern bench area separated by a northwest -facing slope. The upper and lower bench areas slope generally northwest at gradients of less than 10 percent. The slope area extends through the site from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, descending northwest at gradients of about 20 to 25 percent, with localized areas up to 33 percent. The site is vegetated with medium- to large -diameter trees with a fern and mixed brush undergrowth. 4.2 GEOLOGY Review of the Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits in the Seattle 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Washington, by James C. Yount, etc. (1993) indicates that the soil in the project vicinity is mapped as Vashon Till (Qvt), which is a nonsorted, nonstratified mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited by the Vashon ice sheet. These descriptions are generally similar to the findings in our field explorations. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 3 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington May 29, 2019 RGI Project No. 2019-088 4.3 SOILS The soils encountered during field exploration include loose to medium dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel over medium dense to dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel and dense glacial till. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in the test pits logs included in Appendix A. Sieve analysis was performed on eight selected soil samples. Grain size distribution curves are included in Appendix A. 4.4 GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was encountered at one test pit location at a depth of five feet during our subsurface exploration. It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the explorations were performed. In addition, perched water can develop within seams and layers contained in fill soils or higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the logs. Groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 4.5 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), RGI recommends the follow seismic parameters for design. Table 12015 IBC Parameter Site Soil Class' Value DZ Site Latitude 47.50320 N Site Longitude 122.69030 W Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (g) 1.631 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 (g) 0.567 Adjusted Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SMs (g) 1.631 Adjusted 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SM1 (g) 0.983 1. Note: In general accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10. The Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. 2. Note: The 2015 IBC and ASCE 7-10 require a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope of our services does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Test pits extended to low ,- RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 4 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 a maximum depth of 13.5 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations from a seismic event. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction, thus reducing or eliminating the soil's strength. RGI reviewed the results of the field and laboratory testing and assessed the potential for liquefaction of the site's soil during an earthquake. Since the site is underlain by glacially consolidated deposits and does not have an established shallow groundwater table, RGI considers that the possibility of liquefaction during an earthquake is minimal. 4.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS Regulated geologically hazardous areas include erosion, landslide, earthquake, or other geological hazards. Based on review of Section 20.162.076 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC), sites are to be observed to determine if geologically hazardous areas are present on the site and if they are, they shall be categorized as being Geologically Hazardous Areas or Areas of Geologic Concern. Reconnaissance of the site slopes showed stable conditions with no signs of past movement. Springs were not observed at the site. One area in the southwestern portion of the site contains slopes greater than 30 percent, and appear to be the result of a cut for McCormick Woods Parcel A Drive SW, that was cut at about a 3H:1V slope into glacially consolidated soils. The slope is about 10 feet in height and is vegetated with grass. Based on site observations and review of the POMC, the site does not contain Geologically Hazardous Areas or Areas of Geologic Concern. 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations 5.1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Based on our study, the site is suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical standpoint. Foundations for the proposed residences can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense native soil or structural fill. Slab -on - grade floors and pavements can be similarly supported. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 5 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 Detailed recommendations regarding the above issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 5.2 EARTHWORK Site earthwork will include stripping the site, excavating the infiltration pond, installing utilities, grading the lots, and excavating residence foundations. 5.2.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend on construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing and weather. The impacts on erosion -prone areas can be reduced by implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city and/or county standards. RGI recommends the following erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs): ➢ Scheduling site preparation and grading for the drier summer and early fall months and undertaking activities that expose soil during periods of little or no rainfall ➢ Retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible ➢ Establishing a quarry spall construction entrance ➢ Installing siltation control fencing or anchored straw or coir wattles on the downhill side of work areas ➢ Covering soil stockpiles with anchored plastic sheeting ➢ Revegetating or mulching exposed soils with a minimum 3-inch thickness of straw if surfaces will be left undisturbed for more than one day during wet weather or one week in dry weather ➢ Directing runoff away from exposed soils and slopes ➢ Minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils and cover excavation surfaces with anchored plastic sheeting (Graded and disturbed slopes should be tracked in place with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track marks provide a texture to help resist erosion and channeling. Some sloughing and raveling of slopes with exposed or disturbed soil should be expected.) ➢ Decreasing runoff velocities with check dams, straw bales or coir wattles ➢ Confining sediment to the project site ➢ Inspecting and maintaining erosion and sediment control measures frequently (The contractor should be aware that inspection and maintenance of erosion control BMPs is critical toward their satisfactory performance. Repair and/or replacement of dysfunctional erosion control elements should be anticipated.) 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 6 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 Permanent erosion protection should be provided by reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. 5.2.2 STRIPPING Stripping efforts should include removal of pavements, vegetation, organic materials, and deleterious debris from areas slated for building, pavement, and utility construction. The test pits encountered 6 to 8 inches of topsoil and rootmass. Deeper areas of stripping may be required in forested or heavily vegetated areas of the site. 5.2.3 EXCAVATIONS All temporary cut slopes associated with the site and utility excavations should be adequately inclined to prevent sloughing and collapse. The site soils consist of loose to medium dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel over medium dense to dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel and dense glacial till. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet but less than 20 feet in depth, the temporary side slopes should be laid back with a minimum slope inclination of 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner, or excavations greater than 20 feet in depth are planned, using temporary shoring to support the excavations should be considered. For open cuts at the site, RGI recommends: ➢ No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies are allowed at the top of cut slopes within a distance of at least five feet from the top of the cut ➢ Exposed soil along the slope is protected from surface erosion using waterproof tarps and/or plastic sheeting ➢ Construction activities are scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is minimized ➢ Surface water is diverted away from the excavation ➢ The general condition of slopes should be observed periodically by a geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability and erosion control measures In all cases, however, appropriate inclinations will depend on the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during earthwork. Ultimately, the site contractor must be responsible for maintaining safe excavation slopes that comply with applicable OSHA or WISHA guidelines. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 7 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington May 29, 2019 RGI Project No. 2019-088 5.2.4 SITE PREPARATION After stripping, grubbing, and prior to placement of structural fill, RGI recommends proofrolling building and pavement subgrades and areas to receive structural fill. These areas should moisture conditioned and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition in order to achieve a minimum compaction level of 95 percent of the modified proctor maximum dry density as determined by the American Society of Testing and Materials D1557-09 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (ASTM D1557). Proofrolling and adequate subgrade compaction can only be achieved when the soils are within approximately ± 2 percent moisture content of the optimum moisture content. Soils which appear firm after stripping and grubbing may be proofrolled with a heavy compactor, loaded double -axle dump truck, or other heavy equipment under the observation of an RGI representative. This observer will assess the subgrade conditions prior to filling. The need for or advisability of proofrolling due to soil moisture conditions should be determined at the time of construction. In wet areas it may be necessary to hand probe the exposed subgrades in lieu of proofrolling with mechanical equipment. If fill is placed in areas of the site where existing slopes are steeper than 5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), the area should be benched to reduce the potential for slippage between existing slopes and fills. Benches should be wide enough to accommodate compaction and earth moving equipment, and to allow placement of horizontal lifts of fill. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to reveal firm, non -yielding, non -organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. In order to maximize utilization of site soils as structural fill, RGI recommends that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of warm and dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork will require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. 5.2.5 STRUCTURAL FILL Once stripping, clearing and other preparing operations are complete, cuts and fills can be made to establish desired lot and roadway subgrades. Prior to placing fill, RGI recommends proof -rolling as described above. RGI recommends fill below the foundation and floor slab, behind retaining walls, and below pavement and hardscape surfaces be placed in accordance with the following recommendations for structural fill. The structural fill should be placed after completion of site preparation procedures as described above. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 8 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 The suitability of excavated site soils and import soils for compacted structural fill use will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense, non -yielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percent above or below optimum. Optimum moisture content is that moisture that results in the greatest compacted dry density with a specified compactive effort. Non -organic site soils are only considered suitable for structural fill provided that their moisture content is within about two percent of the optimum moisture level as determined by ASTM D1557. Excavated site soils may not be suitable for re -use as structural fill depending on the moisture content and weather conditions at the time of construction. If soils are stockpiled for future reuse and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be protected with plastic sheeting that is securely anchored. Even during dry weather, moisture conditioning (such as, windrowing and drying) of site soils to be reused as structural fill may be required. Even during the summer, delays in grading can occur due to excessively high moisture conditions of the soils or due to precipitation. If wet weather occurs, the upper wetted portion of the site soils may need to be scarified and allowed to dry prior to further earthwork, or may need to be wasted from the site. Some of the site soils are moisture sensitive and may require moisture conditioning prior to use as structural fill. If the on -site soils are or become unusable, it may become necessary to import clean, granular soils to complete site work that meet the grading requirements listed in Table 2 to be used as structural fill. Table 2 Structural Fill Gradation U.S. Sieve Size 4 inches Percent Passing 0teIl] No. 4 sieve 22 to 100 No. 200 sieve 0 to 5* *Based on minus 3/4 inch fraction. Prior to use, an RGI representative should observe and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill materials should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted as specified in Table 3. The soil's maximum density and optimum moisture should be determined by ASTM D1557. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 9 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington May 29, 2019 RGI Project No. 2019-088 Table 3 Structural Fill Compaction ASTM D1557 Location Foundations Retaining Wall Backfill Slab -on -grade General Fill (non- structural areas) Minimum Moisture Content Material Type Compaction Range Percentage On -site granular or approved 95 +2 -2 imported fill soils: 92 +2 2 On -site granular or approved imported fill soils: 95 +2 -2 On -site granular or approved imported fill soils: On -site soils or approved 90 +3 -2 imported fill soils: Pavement — Subgrade On -site granular or approved and Base Course imported fill soils: 95 +2 -2 Placement and compaction of structural fill should be observed by RGI. A representative number of in -place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to confirm that the recommended level of compaction is achieved. 5.2.6 CUT AND FILL SLOPES All permanent cut and fill slopes (except interior slopes of detention pond) should be graded with a finished inclination no greater than 2H:1V. The interior slopes of the detention or infiltration pond must be graded with a slope gradient no steeper than 3H:1V. Upon completion of construction, the slope face should be trackwalked, compacted and vegetated, or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. All fill placed for slope construction should meet the structural fill requirements as described in Section 5.2.5. Final grades at the top of the slopes must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow in an uncontrolled fashion over the slope face. If it is necessary to direct surface runoff towards the slope, it should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe of the slope. 5.2.7 WET WEATHER CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS RGI recommends that preparation for site grading and construction include procedures intended to drain ponded water, control surface water runoff, and to collect shallow subsurface seepage zones in excavations where encountered. It will not be possible to successfully compact the subgrade or utilize on -site soils as structural fill if accumulated water is not drained prior to grading or if drainage is not controlled during construction. Attempting to grade the site without adequate drainage control measures will reduce the now LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 10 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 amount of on -site soil effectively available for use, increase the amount of select import fill materials required, and ultimately increase the cost of the earthwork phases of the project. Free water should not be allowed to pond on the subgrade soils. RGI anticipates that the use of berms and shallow drainage ditches, with sumps and pumps in utility trenches, will be required for surface water control during wet weather and/or wet site conditions. 5.3 FOUNDATIONS Following site preparation and grading, the proposed residence foundations can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on medium dense native soil or structural fill. Loose, organic, or other unsuitable soils may be encountered in the proposed building footprint. If unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. If loose soils granular soils are encountered, the soil should be moisture conditioned and compacted to the requirements of structural fill. Perimeter foundations exposed to weather should be at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within 5 feet of the foundation for perimeter (or exterior) footings and finished floor level for interior footings. Table 4 Foundation Design Design Parameter Value Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf1 Friction Coefficient 0.30 Passive pressure (equivalent fluid pressure) 250 pcf2 Minimum foundation dimensions Columns: 24 inches Walls: 16 inches 1. psf = pounds per square foot 2. pcf = pounds per cubic foot The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable capacity may be used. At perimeter locations, RGI recommends not including the upper 12 inches of soil in the computation of passive pressures because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. The passive pressure value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent soil or backfilled with 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 11 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 structural fill as described in Section 5.2.5. The recommended base friction and passive resistance value includes a safety factor of about 1.5. With spread footing foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations in this section, maximum total and differential post -construction settlements of 1 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively, should be expected. 5.4 RETAINING WALLS If retaining walls are needed for the residences or for walls in the detention or infiltration pond, RGI recommends cast -in -place concrete walls be used. For grade chances outside of building areas, modular block walls or MSE walls may also be used. The magnitude of earth pressure development on retaining walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. RGI recommends placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Wall drainage will be needed behind the wall face. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is shown in Figure 3. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended, and drainage properly installed, RGI recommends using the values in the following table for design. Table 5 Retaining Wall Design Design Parameter Value Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf Active Earth Pressure (unrestrained walls) 35 pcf At -rest Earth Pressure (restrained walls) 50 pcf For seismic design, an additional uniform load of 7 times the wall height (H) for unrestrained walls and 14H in psf for restrained walls should be applied to the wall surface. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.3. 5.5 SLAB -ON -GRADE CONSTRUCTION Once site preparation has been completed as described in Section 5.2, suitable support for slab -on -grade construction should be provided. RGI recommends that the concrete slab be placed on top of medium dense native soil or structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, RGI recommends placing a four -inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free -draining sand or gravel that has less than five percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 12 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, an 8- to 10-millimeter thick plastic membrane should be placed on a 4-inch thick layer of clean gravel. For the anticipated floor slab loading, we estimate post -construction floor settlements of 1/4- to 1/2-inch. 5.6 DRAINAGE 5.6.1 SURFACE Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building area. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. For non -pavement locations, RGI recommends providing a minimum drainage gradient of 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of 1 percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. 5.6.2 SUBSURFACE RGI recommends installing perimeter foundation drains. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The foundation drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. 5.6.3 INFILTRATION Infiltration is feasible at the site, and an evaluation of the infiltration in the pond area is underway and will be provided under separate cover. 5.6.4 DISPERSION Based on the preliminary site plan, dispersion may be used in Tract B for the roof downspouts for the upslope lots. Based on our site observations, dispersion should be feasible on the slopes in this area. 5.6.5 UTILITIES Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. For site utilities located within the right-of-ways, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with City of Port Orchard specifications. At a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2.5. Where utilities occur below unimproved areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil's maximum density as determined by the referenced ASTM D1557. As noted, soils excavated on site should be suitable for use as backfill material. If on -site soils are or 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 13 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 become unusable, imported structural fill meeting the gradation provided in Table 2 should be used for trench backfill. 5.7 PAVEMENTS Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.2 and as discussed below. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proof -rolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. 5.7.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS With the pavement subgrade prepared as described above, RGI recommends the following pavement sections for parking and drive areas paved with flexible asphalt concrete surfacing. ➢ For drive areas: 3 inches of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) over 6 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) ➢ For general parking areas: 2 inches of HMA over 4 inches of CRB 5.7.2 CONCRETE PAVEMENTS With the pavement subgrade prepared as described above, RGI recommends the following pavement sections for parking and drive areas paved with concrete surfacing. ➢ For concrete pavement areas: 5 inches of concrete over 4 inches of CRB The paving materials used should conform to the WSDOT specifications for HMA, concrete paving, CRB surfacing (9-03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing), and gravel base (9-03.10 Aggregate for Gravel Base). Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly -drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, surface drainage gradients of no less than 2 percent are recommended. Also, some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. 6.0 Additional Services RGI is available to provide further geotechnical consultation throughout the design phase of the project. RGI should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Geotechnical Engineering Report 14 May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 RGI is also available to provide geotechnical engineering and construction monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the earthwork and construction depends on proper site preparation and procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may arise in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring services are not part of this scope of work. 7.0 Limitations This GER is the property of RGI, Windward Real Estate, and its designated agents. Within the limits of the scope and budget, this GER was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area at the time this GER was issued. This GER is intended for specific application to the McCormick Woods Parcel A project in Port Orchard, Washington, and for the exclusive use of Windward Real Estate and its authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (for example, mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, we can provide a proposal for these services. The analyses and recommendations presented in this GER are based upon data obtained from the explorations performed on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, RGI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this GER prior to proceeding with construction. It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designers, contractors, subcontractors, are made aware of this GER in its entirety. The use of information contained in this GER for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. 1 LW RILEYGROUP 0 W J O CIL: O C) � O SISKIN CIR SW o° t Nor�h �I I ]'ART Lake w -ORCHARD f: USGS, 2014, Bremerton West, Washington Approximate Scale: 1"=1000' USGS, 2017, Burley, Washington 7.5-Minute Quadrangle 0 500 1000 2000 N Corporate Office McCormick Woods Parcel A Figure 1 17522 Bothell Way Northeast RGI Project Number: Date Drawn: -Bothell, Washington 98011 2019-088 Site Vicinity Map Phone: 425.415.0551 05�2019 RILEYGROUP Fax: 425.415.0311 Address: McCormick Woods Dr. Southwest & St. Edwards Dr., Port Orchard, Washington 98367 /opo F (vO •� tmt, � tj7P-4� TITIP Aq JP TP- od Ar F (fib .% �• °' s F 7` 5 �d bi 11 �d\51 44 > � /\ •moo° / ��. o.� mow... \/'J' •,a.. / ... r� / i Q = Test pit by RGI, 04/30/19 Approximate Scale: 1"=200' — — = Site boundary 0 100 200 400 N Corporate Office McCormick Woods Parcel A Figure 2 17522 Bothell Way Northeast -Bothell, Washington 98011 RGI Project Number: Geotechnical Exploration Plan Date Drawn: Phone: 425.415.0551 2019-088 05/2019 RILEYGROUP Fax: 425.415.0311 Address: McCormick Woods Dr. Southwest & St. Edwards Dr., Port Orchard, Washington 98367 12" Minimum Wide Free -Draining Gravel I Slope to Drain �+ vidIIIULei rv%, Perforated Pipe Not to Scale I Slope )rt for ate )ns) ural Import) Corporate Office McCormick Woods Parcel A Figure 3 17522 Bothell Way Northeast RGI Project Number: Date Drawn: -Bothell, Washington 98011 2019-088 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Phone: 425.415.0551 05�2019 RILEYGROUP Fax: 425.415.0311 Address: McCormick Woods Dr. Southwest & St. Edwards Dr., Port Orchard, Washington 98367 - - . ice v— 1— I — VI -I Not to Scale Corporate Office McCormick Woods Parcel A Figure 4 17522 Bothell Way Northeast RGI Project Number: Date Drawn: -Bothell, Washington 98011 2019-088 Typical Footing Drain Detail Phone: 425.415.0551 05�2019 RILEYGROUP Fax: 425.415.0311 Address: McCormick Woods Dr. Southwest & St. Edwards Dr., Port Orchard, Washington 98367 Geotechnical Engineering Report May 29, 2019 McCormick Woods Parcel A, Port Orchard, Washington RGI Project No. 2019-088 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING On April 30, 2019, RGI performed field explorations using a tracked excavator. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by observing the excavation of eight test pits to a maximum depth of 13.5 feet below existing grade. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by measurements from existing property lines and paved roads. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration and classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test exploration, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Representative soil samples obtained from the explorations were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. As a part of the laboratory testing program, the soil samples were classified in our in house laboratory based on visual observation, texture, plasticity, and the limited laboratory testing described below. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM D2216-10 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216) on representative samples obtained from the exploration in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The moisture content of typical sample was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses was determined using D6913-04(2009) Standard Test Methods for Particle -Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis (ASTM D6913) on eight of the samples. 1 LW RILEYGROUP Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-1 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Mixed Brush/Ferns Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 7 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 411 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Seepage at 5' Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w0. a E ° 0 C w H Z >, O U N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z) O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 411 0 Tpsl 8" topsoil SM Reddish brown silty SAND with some gravel, loose, moist Becomes medium dense 19% moisture, 19% fines sM Gray silty SAND with trace gravel, dense, moist, (Glacial Till), moderately cemented Becomes wet 17% moisture ao5 5 Contains sand lens with light groundwater seepage 11% moisture Test pit terminated at 7' 401 to — The Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-2 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Ferns/Moss Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 10.5 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 387 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w0. a E ° 0 C w H Z >, O U N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 387 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil sM Reddish brown silty SAND with some gravel, loose, moist Becomes medium dense 10% moisture sl= .. Gray SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist 4% moisture 382 5- •; • •� 4 3% moisture .. Increasing in gravel sM Tan mottled silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, 377 10 moist to wet 21%moisture Test pit terminated at 10.5' The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-3 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Ferns/Mixed Brush Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 10 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 386 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w0. a E ° 0 C w H Z >, O U N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 386 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil sM Reddish brown silty SAND, loose, moist 11 % moisture Becomes medium dense sp-sM • Gray SAND with some silt, medium dense, moist • •� 18% moisture 381 5 • • • • •4 10% moisture 376 10 Test pit terminated at 10' The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-4 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Ferns/Mixed Brush Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 12.5 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 379 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w0. a E ° 0 C w H Z >, O U N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z) O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 379 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil sM Reddish brown silty SAND, loose, moist Becomes medium dense 11 %moisture sM Tan silty SAND with trace gravel, medium dense, moist, lightly cemented 7% moisture sp-sM ♦ Gray SAND with some silt and gravel, medium dense to dense, moist • 7% moisture, 9% fines 374 5 Becomes dense, well cemented ., ♦• 9% moisture, 11 % fines sw-sM Gray SAND with some silt and trace gravel, medium dense ♦ to dense, moist i 8% moisture, 12% fines 369 10 6% moisture • 7% moisture Test pit terminated at 12.5' The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-5 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Ferns/Mixed Brush/Moss Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 13.5 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 376 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w C a E ° 0 C w H Z >, —J O O N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z) O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 376 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil SM Reddish brown silty SAND with trace gravel, loose, moist Becomes medium dense 10% moisture SM Gray silty SAND with some gravel, dense, moist (Glacial Till) 8% moisture, 23% fines Moderately cemented 371 5 7% moisture, 8%fines SP-SM . • Gray SAND with some silt and trace gravel, dense, moist .. *. Contains silty SAND interbeds ., 7% moisture, 7% fines SP-SM Gray SAND with some silt and gravel, dense, moist 366 10 4 • .. �. 6% moisture ., .4 5% moisture Test pit terminated at 13.5' The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-6 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Ferns/Moss Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 11.5 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 380 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w0. a E ° 0 C w H Z >, O U N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 380 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil SM Reddish brown silty SAND, loose, moist Becomes tan, medium dense 17% moisture 8% moisture SP-SM • Gray SAND with some silt and trace gravel, medium dense, moist 375 5 Lightly cemented •, ♦ ♦ 7% moisture SIP SAND with trace silt, medium dense, moist .. Becomes wet •4 20% moisture 370 10 4•� Light groundwater seepage SP-SM �• Gray SAND with some silt, dense, moist to wet, well 10% moisture cemented Test pit terminated at 11.5' The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-7 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Mixed Brush/Ferns/Moss Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 10 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 408 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w C a E ° 0 C O w H O Z N >, U) —J U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z) O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 408 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil sM Reddish brown silty SAND with some gravel, loose, moist Becomes medium dense sp-sM • Gray gravelly SAND with some silt, medium dense, moist • • 6% moisture 403 5 • • • 9% moisture sM Gray silty SAND with some gravel, very dense, moist (Glacial Till) 398 10 Test pit terminated at 10' The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 Project Name: McCormick Woods Test Pit No.: TP-8 Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 Date(s) Excavated: 4/30/2019 Logged By ELW Surface Conditions: Ferns/Mixed Brush Excavation Method: Test Pit Bucket Size: 4' Total Depth of Excavation: 6 feet bgs Excavator Type: Tracked Excavator Excavating Contractor: Client Approximate 413 Surface Elevation Groundwater Level: Not encountered Sampling Grab Method(s) Compaction Method Bucket tamp Test Pit Backfill: Cuttings Location McCormick Woods Drive SW and St. Andrews Drive SW w0. a E ° 0 C w H Z >, O U N U) U_ > L Q E fl E U) U L m w 0 in Un Z) O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS 413 0 Tpsl 6" topsoil SM Reddish brown silty SAND with some gravel, loose, moist Becomes medium dense 13% moisture SP-SM •4 Gray SAND with some silt and gravel, dense, moist '4 Very dense, well cemented �• 8% moisture, 7% fines 408 5 Test pit terminated at 6' 403 to — The Project Name: McCormick Woods 1 M Key to Logs Project Number: 2019-088 Client: Windward RILE, ROUP Sheet 1 of 1 w0. E 0 C w H Z >, O U N U U (6 L a C L > Q E E U m a) M co W 0 (n o7 Z) 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet). 2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. LIJ Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. ® Sample Number: Sample identification number. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ® Silty SAND (SM) •� 4 • •• Poorly graded SAND (SP) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Auger sampler CME Sampler Bulk Sample Grab Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ 2.5-inch-OD Modified brass rings California w/ brass liners GENERAL NOTES B5 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material. 6 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. �7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. ® REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) • Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) •� Well graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM) • Topsoil Pitcher Sample 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube (Thin -walled, fixed head) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a w stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata —?— Queried contact between strata 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. The Riley Group, Inc. 17522 Bothell Way NE, Bothell, WA 98011 THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425) 415-0311 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS II ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 PROJECT TITLE PROJECT NO. TECH/TEST DATE McCormick Woods 2019-088 LW 5/1/2019 WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) (w1) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) (w2) Weight of Tare (gm) (w3) Weight of Water (gm) (w4=w1-w2) Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w5=w2-w3) Moisture Content (%) (w4/w5)*100 372.8 334.7 132.9 38.1 201.8 19 % COBBLES % C GRAVEL % F GRAVEL % C SAND % M SAND % F SAND % FINES % TOTAL D10 (mm) D30 (mm) D60 (mm) Cu Cc 12.0" 3.0" 2.5" 2.0" 1.5" 1.0" 0.75" 0.50" 0.375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 0.0 0.0 15.3 13.0 16.5 36.7 18.6 100.0 o� P A S S I N G #100 #200 PAN SAMPLE ID/TYPE SAMPLE DEPTH DATE RECEIVED TIP-1 1 2 Feet 4/30/2019 Weight Of Sample (gm) Tare Weight (gm) (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) SIEVE ANALYSIS Cumulative Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare 1(wt rPt/W61•1001 (100-%ret) 132.9 0.00 0.00 100.00 132.9 0.00 0.00 100.00 132.9 0.00 0.00 100.00 132.9 0.00 0.00 100.00 145.7 12.80 6.34 93.66 163.7 30.80 15.26 84.74 190.0 57.10 28.30 71.70 223.2 90.30 44.75 55.25 276.3 143.40 71.06 28.94 297.2 164.30 81.42 18.58 334.7 201.80 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75" .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Silty SAND with some gravel USCS SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW 334.7 132.9 201.8 :obbles :oarse gravel :oarse gravel :oarse gravel :oarse gravel :oarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel :oarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.1 0.01 0.001 mom ,- RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-4 SAMPLE DEPTH 4 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 721.6 (w1) 763.9 133.3 (w2) 721.6 Tare Weight (gm) 588.3 (w3) 133.3 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 42.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 588.3 Cumulative i)*100 7 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wtret/w6)*1001 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 5.2 3.0" • F GRAVEL 21.3 2.5" % C SAND 7.6 2.0" • M SAND 19.6 1.5" % F SAND 37.2 1.0" • FINES 9.0 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) 0.08 #4 D30 (mm) 0.24 #10 D60 (mm) 1.3 #20 Cu 16.3 #40 Cc 0.6 #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 164.1 30.80 5.24 94.76 239.2 105.90 18.00 82.00 289.5 156.20 26.55 73.45 334.3 201.00 34.17 65.83 449.9 316.60 53.82 46.18 638.7 505.40 85.91 14.09 668.9 535.60 91.04 8.96 721.6 588.30 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Poorly graded SAND with some silt and gravel USCS SP-SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-4 SAMPLE DEPTH 6 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 500.1 (w1) 534.7 133.3 (w2) 500.1 Tare Weight (gm) 366.8 (w3) 133.3 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 34.6 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 366.8 Cumulative i)*100 9 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wtret/w6)*1001 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 0.0 3.0" • F GRAVEL 17.1 2.5" % C SAND 14.5 2.0" • M SAND 26.1 1.5" % F SAND 31.8 1.0" • FINES 10.5 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) 0.07 #4 D30 (mm) 0.24 #10 D60 (mm) 1.3 #20 Cu 18.6 #40 Cc 0.6 #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 156.8 23.50 6.41 93.59 196.2 62.90 17.15 82.85 249.3 116.00 31.62 68.38 345.0 211.70 57.72 42.28 435.5 302.20 82.39 17.61 461.6 328.30 89.50 10.50 500.1 366.80 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Poorly graded SAND with some silt and gravel USCS SP-SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-4 SAMPLE DEPTH 8 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 521.5 (w1) 553.1 133.8 (w2) 521.5 Tare Weight (gm) 387.7 (w3) 133.8 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 31.6 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 387.7 Cumulative i)*100 8 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wt ret/w6) * 100 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 0.0 3.0" • F GRAVEL 11.8 2.5" % C SAND 4.1 2.0" % M SAND 20.1 1.5" % F SAND 52.1 1.0" • FINES 11.9 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) 0.06 #4 D30 (mm) 0.2 #10 D60 (mm) 0.39 #20 Cu 6.5 #40 Cc 1.7 #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 133.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 133.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 158.9 25.10 6.47 93.53 179.4 45.60 11.76 88.24 195.2 61.40 15.84 84.16 273.1 139.30 35.93 64.07 456.1 322.30 83.13 16.87 475.2 341.40 88.06 11.94 521.5 387.70 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Well graded SAND with some silt and trace gravel USCS SW-SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-5 SAMPLE DEPTH 3.5 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 519.3 (w1) 551.0 123.7 (w2) 519.3 Tare Weight (gm) 395.6 (w3) 123.7 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 31.7 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 395.6 Cumulative i)*100 8 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wt ret/w6) * 100 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 9.1 3.0" • F GRAVEL 9.3 2.5" % C SAND 3.5 2.0" % M SAND 12.0 1.5" % F SAND 42.7 1.0" • FINES 23.3 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) #4 D30 (mm) #10 D60 (mm) #20 Cu #40 Cc #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 123.7 0.00 0.00 100.00 123.7 0.00 0.00 100.00 123.7 0.00 0.00 100.00 159.7 36.00 9.10 90.90 184.2 60.50 15.29 84.71 196.5 72.80 18.40 81.60 210.5 86.80 21.94 78.06 257.9 134.20 33.92 66.08 383.8 260.10 65.75 34.25 427.0 303.30 76.67 23.33 519.3 395.60 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Silty SAND with some gravel USCS SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-5 SAMPLE DEPTH 7 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 647.3 (w1) 685.2 125.2 (w2) 647.3 Tare Weight (gm) 522.1 (w3) 125.2 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 37.9 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 522.1 Cumulative i)*100 7 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wtret/w6)*1001 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 5.4 3.0" • F GRAVEL 7.9 2.5" % C SAND 4.5 2.0" % M SAND 27.2 1.5" % F SAND 47.0 1.0" • FINES 8.1 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) 0.1 #4 D30 (mm) 0.23 #10 D60 (mm) 0.55 #20 Cu 5.5 #40 Cc 1.0 #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 125.2 0.00 0.00 100.00 125.2 0.00 0.00 100.00 125.2 0.00 0.00 100.00 153.3 28.10 5.38 94.62 167.1 41.90 8.03 91.97 194.3 69.10 13.24 86.76 217.9 92.70 17.76 82.24 359.8 234.60 44.93 55.07 581.1 455.90 87.32 12.68 605.0 479.80 91.90 8.10 647.3 522.10 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Poorly graded SAND with some silt and trace gravel USCS SP-SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-5 SAMPLE DEPTH 9 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 659.3 (w1) 697.0 132.3 (w2) 659.3 Tare Weight (gm) 527.0 (w3) 132.3 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 37.7 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 527.0 Cumulative i)*100 7 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wtret/w6)*1001 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 15.9 3.0" • F GRAVEL 13.2 2.5" % C SAND 6.4 2.0" % M SAND 23.5 1.5" % F SAND 33.9 1.0" • FINES 7.2 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) 0.15 #4 D30 (mm) 0.29 #10 D60 (mm) 1.5 #20 Cu 10.0 #40 Cc 0.4 #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 132.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 132.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 132.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 216.2 83.90 15.92 84.08 250.3 118.00 22.39 77.61 285.7 153.40 29.11 70.89 319.3 187.00 35.48 64.52 443.2 310.90 58.99 41.01 605.1 472.80 89.72 10.28 621.6 489.30 92.85 7.15 659.3 527.00 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Poorly graded SAND with some silt and gravel USCS SP-SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 17522 Bothell Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 PHONE: (425) 415-0551 FAX: (425)415-0311 PROJECT TITLE McCormick Woods PROJECT NO. 2019-088 TECH/TEST DATE LW WATER CONTENT (Delivered Moisture) Wt Wet Soil & Tare (gm) Wt Dry Soil & Tare (gm) Weight of Tare (gm) Weight of Water (gm) (w� Weight of Dry Soil (gm) (w. Moisture Content (%) (w4, GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D421, D422, D1140, D2487, D6913 SAMPLE ID/TYPE TP-8 SAMPLE DEPTH 4.5 Feet 5/1/2019 DATE RECEIVED 4/30/2019 Total Weight Of Sample Used For Sieve Corrected For Hygroscopic Moistu Weight Of Sample (gm) 403.7 (w1) 434.4 15.8 (w2) 403.7 Tare Weight (gm) 387.9 (w3) 15.8 (W6) Total Dry Weight (gm) i1-w2) 30.7 SIEVE ANALYSIS i2-w3) 387.9 Cumulative i)*100 8 Wt Ret Wt-Tare (%Retained) % PASS +Tare f(wtret/w6)*1001 (100-9/oret) % COBBLES 0.0 12.0" % C GRAVEL 8.6 3.0" • F GRAVEL 17.4 2.5" % C SAND 13.5 2.0" % M SAND 22.8 1.5" % F SAND 30.6 1.0" • FINES 7.0 0.75" % TOTAL 100.0 0.50" 0.375" D10 (mm) 0.1 #4 D30 (mm) 0.3 #10 D60 (mm) 2 #20 Cu 20.0 #40 Cc 0.5 #60 100 90 80 P 70 A 60 S 50 40 S 30 1 20 N 10 0 #100 #200 PAN 15.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 15.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 15.8 0.00 0.00 100.00 49.3 33.50 8.64 91.36 86.2 70.40 18.15 81.85 116.8 101.00 26.04 73.96 169.3 153.50 39.57 60.43 257.8 242.00 62.39 37.61 352.8 337.00 86.88 13.12 376.6 360.80 93.01 6.99 403.7 387.90 100.00 0.00 12" 3" 2" 1".75 .375" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 G 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain size in millimeters DESCRIPTION Poorly graded SAND with some silt and gravel USCS SP-SM Prepared For: Windward Reviewed By: KW cobbles coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel coarse gravel fine gravel fine gravel fine gravel coarse sand medium sand medium sand fine sand fine sand fine sand fines silt/clay 0.001 mom ,_ RILEYGROUP