Port Orchard Housing Action PlanPort Orchard
Housing Action Plan
1 Second Draft - April 25, 2023
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
Contents
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................4
1 — Background Information.......................................................................................................6
2 — Regulatory Strategies.........................................................................................................18
3 — Programmatic Strategies....................................................................................................34
4 — Citywide Planning Strategies..............................................................................................50
5 — Funding Strategies.............................................................................................................59
6 — Implementation...................................................................................................................71
Abbreviations
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 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
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.
Description
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 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 h
' 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 Page 7
ousing 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
bedrooms
41%
2
bedrooms
27%
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 Page 8
$71,719 $75,600
$59,325
$97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020
$44,074 $46,209
$70,268
$78,969
$67,548
$77,006
on 0 h, on on
Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington
(All Households) (Ownership (Renter Households)
Households)
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 $10,000 per year than countywide
averages.
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
■ Port Orchard
p Kitsap County
1111111111
,C
_�L
1Z
NZ
_�C
_�L
_�e
,L
_�C
,L
O
O
O
OV
CD
r
CDN
On
b4
�C
b4
b4
tH
b4
b4
O
O
O
O
CDLn
CD
�
O
Ln
O
Ln
tH
1
A q
O
N
44
b4
b4
CD
CDC)
N O
b4 O
N
� tyh
O
Ln
b4
Figure 3. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates, Table 819001
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 9
Lower -income Port Orchard residents face significant challenges paying for housing —70
percent of households earning under 30 percent of the MFI spend more than half of their
income on housing costs, and 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of
the MFI spend over 30 percent of their income on housing costs.' This shows a need for
deeply subsidized housing for Port Orchard's lower -income residents, corroborated by
stakeholders who described over 1,000 people on the waiting list for housing vouchers
administered by the Kitsap Housing Authority.
Family size and composition can also affect housing needs, particularly when correlated with
incomes. In Port Orchard, 69 percent of households are family households. Of these, most are
married -couple families, nearly 3,000 households. The remaining 824 are classified as "other
family," which includes single -parent households. Census data indicates about 250 Port
Orchard households are single mothers earning less than the federal poverty level. This is about
five times higher than the number of married -couple households below the poverty level.$ 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 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 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
■Household Income ($1,000s) ■House Price ($1,000s)
$800 - $766
A household earning $100,000
$700 could not afford the median Port
Orchard sales price of $468,000
$600 even though they are earning $575
Median Sales Price ($468) nearly $30,000 more than the
$500
median household income.
�� _
$400 $3�3
$287
$300
Median Household
Income ($71) $192 $200
$200
$96 ', $75 $100 $150
$100 $50
$- ■
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 incl"
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.
11 "Filtering" refers to the process by which new housing units depreciate over time, becoming more affordable to
lower -income households as other new units are added to the supply.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
uding 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 AMI over
the next 20 years.
1,400
N 1,200
O
N
>, 1,000
800
a)
a)
Z 600
rn
c
400
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
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
''ag(
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.
ik-ellbUl* 1 f 4AL L I.id Ld
Port Orchard, WA
City Boundary
nformation retreived from: https://censusreporter.org/profiles
Ceanal
.01
$45,096
$456�600
Pnen area _n rmner n:prr units
Census Tract 921.02
A04
Census Tract 922 Census Tract 923 Census Tract 924
mAa $36299
�a$28.431r n�
$361,600
tAen an va uentn.v:er orr :r.frnu is
$317,700
Nt.A a, va w. ornv.ner r rM � is
'ji
10
$35 085
rtnrH..v � -f �
$33 671
titan a. nr ar>b.
$268,200
NteA an:a w. r.fow:ern rur..1 nr.
$328,800
an vancnf nw:ern rupM u:l:
N
Census Tract 925
Census Tract 928.01
$38,262
$36,995
m�n.avi ry re Ne rarn,
-d�-I v
$350,200
Meeia va u.. o,nv.ne rcr ryi en un
$339,800
MSnrulue�uf mv::�ac rynluni�
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 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 •'
Black households
Hispanic and Latino households
Other / Two or more race households
Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander households
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 Page 14
Figure 9 below shows the same data by total number of households.
White alone
95
Asian 9- 99
98
Black or African American V73
Hispanic or Latino origin
One/Two or more races
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
W 206
W-143
193
�27
1,000
■ Rent ■ Own
2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Households
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- Figure 10. Example of muititamiiy housing.
generational wealth gap if some people are not able
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 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 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 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 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 Zone
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 Page 19
2.1.3 — 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."
9 1 A — 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 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.17
16 Bellevue Municipal Code LUC 20.20.845.E.2, httl)s:Hbellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.20.845.E.2
17 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.057,
https:Hlibrary.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT23LAUSCO SUBTITLE IIILAUSRE C
H23.42GEUSPR 23.42.057PESUHO
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
Page 21
2.1.6 — 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.
Permanent When a permanent tiny home is placed on a lot with
ADU 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.
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
foundations with all required utility connections.
Consider density provisions, such as limiting tiny
homes to 250-400 square feet of floor area and
counting each home as one -fifth of a dwelling unity
for density purposes. Consider providing basic
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.'$
Consider limiting permanent clusters to lower
intensity residential zones such as R1 and R2.
18 Langley Municipal Code 18.22.290.
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Langley/#!/Langleyl 8/Langley1822.html#18.22.290
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
Page 22
Figure 11. Tiny home options
19 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.054 and 23.42.056.
https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code?nodeld=TIT23LAUSCO SUBTITLE IIILAUSRE C
H23.42GEUSPR
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 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 TIT18DECO CH18.401PLUND
E 18.401.140HOAS
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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.
2.2.1 — 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 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 a common 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.
2.2.3 — Rename the Fourplex Typt
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 Tvpp
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
'age
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.
Ift
020%
Townhouse
None 20 feet min.
Townhouse w/ Live -Work
12 feet 20% 15 feet min. and 30 feet max.
I mvp ; rk
12 feet 2$°!a 15 feet man. -And- 20feet m
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.
I A — Adjust Shopfront House Standard
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 Heighi
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-R — Minimum Private l)seahle nnen Snare
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 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.
— Transparency
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
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.
2.3.1 — 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 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 — Adiust Heiqht Limits and Add Affordable Housinq Bonuses
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.23
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 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.
on
R3
ase Height
Limit
35
ProposedCurrent
Base Height
Limit
45
... Bonus
Limit with 12 or 20 Year
MFTE 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 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'/4 acre or 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.
posed Minimum
Apply only to sites above a certain size as a '4 or % net 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 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
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 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" also
means the following when living together as a single, not -for -profit housekeeping unit:
(1) A group of not moFe than fou related and unrelated adults and their related minor children, -
but not to exceed a total of eight related and unrelated ersonc• or
24 "Does Money Grow on Trees?" Neiman Taber Architects. April 2023.
http://neimanarchitects. blogspot.com/2023/04/does-money-qrows-on-trees. html
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 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 1977.25 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.
2.4.8 — Apply the International Residential Code to Middle Housing
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.27 Making a change for only three- or four -unit buildings may still
provide cost benefits.
25 "Second Egress: Building a Code Change". https:Hsecondegress.ca/Seattle
26 "A Trailblazing Reform Supports Small -Scale Development in Memphis." Strong Towns. January 2022.
https://www.strongtowns.orq/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 Page 38
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
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 �Nr„
to 9 lots). It is recommended that Port
Orchard comply with this statue and also 0—d �`om
make the option available for regular plats
(10 or more lots). Unit lot subdivisions
follow the procedures for the underlying
plat type.
09�oo/g/g
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 — Prohibit 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.
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 — Prohibit 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 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 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.
Inclusion Indicator
Increased housing density
How Port Orchard
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-communitV-
displacement-indicators-of-inclusive-prosperity-i n-u-s-neighborhoods/
33 "Whatever Happened to the Starter Home?" The New York Times. September 2022.
https://www. nytimes.com/2022/09/25/upshot/starter-home-prices. html
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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
The tenant must be notified this is an option in every rent increase
a 12-month period requires landlord to
notice regardless of the increase amount. The assistance can be
pay relocation assistance for
valued in a number of ways — the KCBA model bases it on three
economically -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 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.
1.1.2 - 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
c39
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:Hkenmore.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-
re n to r- l a w s-t h i s-y e a r- h e re s-w h a t-t h ey-d o/
37 "Residential Landlord -Tenant Resources." Washington State Office of the Attorney General.
https://www.atq.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.
39 "Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase." PolicyLink. https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/tools/all-in-
cities/housing-anti-displacement/topa-copa
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 43
ooperatives when tenants work together to purchase a building being converted to
condominiums.
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
40 "Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program." City of Vancouver. httl)s://www.citvofvancouver.us/eph/page/housing-
rehabilitation-loan-program
41 "Home Rehabilitation." City of Spokane. https://my.spokanecity.org/housing/affordable/
42 "Home Rehabilitation Loan Program." Pierce County. https://www.i)iercecountywa.gov/3093/Home-Rehabilitation-
Loan-Program
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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.sightl ine.org/2021 /08/23/how-can-cities-move-the-need le-on-comm unity -land -trusts/
45 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://nlihe.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 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.50
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 use.51
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.
httl)s://homelessnesshousinqproblem.com/
50 "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.kitsapgov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.aspx
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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.scienced irect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S l 05l l 37718302109
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
Page 47
• 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
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
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
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
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.
4.2.1 — 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).53
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/agency-
information/planning/Irtp
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 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.
Figure 17. The vicinity of Givens Playfield (Google Maps)
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 54
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.
G
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 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.54, 55 A related option is to add maximum parking requirements, especially for the
most intense uses such as retail.56
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.57 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.58
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 becvgm8ebznwi2/ITE%20iournal.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 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 — Disnosition Police
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 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.
1�c
Figure 20. City owned property at the Tremont and Pottery Roundabout
4.3.4 — Mitchell Avenue Property (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
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 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.
Figure 21. City owned property off of Mitchell Avenue
6o"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 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 — 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 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
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.
" — 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 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/7k5p88Vv4lm8ot882gbtzafwzlofkfO5.pdf
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 MR.
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/9ig7p2ebm467ddpmb1c5u3d4ei22cs1n as well as starting on p. 37 of
Commerce's MFTE guidebook here: https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/i'5o8One5e1740mmh6uO5grmkO47g3cw
63 The JLARC audit's findings can be found at: https://leg.wa.gov/'Iarc/taxReports/2019/MFTE/f ii/default.html
64 Following HUD's definition of a "cost -burdened" household
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
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.65
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
city's established "centers" and the outline of areas eligible for MFTE development at a larger
scale would streamline the process for potential developers.
r
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
65 A comprehensive list of 2021 legislative changes to the MFTE program can be found here:
https://deptofcommerce.box.com/shared/static/7k5p88Vv4l m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkf05.pdf
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 '/z 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.66
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://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/frequent-transit-service-study/
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 10th and 11th 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 10th and 11th years of the program that it will
expire in the 121h 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 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 CFCs would need to be rebalanced elsewhere for
market -rate development.
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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-lend ing/ban ks-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.org/post/choif-three-year-impact-report
69 "Washington Housing Initiative Impact Pool: 2021 Impact Report." JBG Smith.
https://www.washingtonhousinginitiative.com/ files/ugd/36926a 182d6b3b6e814466a17bf33ec1616407.pdf
70 "Tax Increment Financing (TIF)". Municipal Research Service Center. https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-
Topics/Economic-Development/Financing-Economic-Development/Tax-Increment-Financing.aspx
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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."
htti)s://storage.googleapis.com/l)roudcity/I)ortorchardwa/uploads/2021 /07/FINAL-ADOPTED-Downtown-Subarea-
Plan-and-Rees-reduced.pdf
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 -- ULI.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://viIlahomes.com/blog/adu-aid-programs/
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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 understate Iaw.78, 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. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-
infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-fund/
78 "Washington state's condo law changes could ease restrictions." Spokane Journal of Business, November 2021.
https://www.spokanemou rnal.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.nVtimes.com/2022/11/27/us/Iiving-aIone-aging.htmI
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 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.
Priorit .. Cos
Department ..
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,
and future ordinances
Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023
P
Priorit .. Cos
Description Y De.. ..
4.4 McCormick East Medium
Planning 12-24 $$ Comprehensive Plan
Future Neighborhood
Services months major periodic update
Planning
Funding Strategies
5.1
Adjust the multifamily
High
Planning
0-6
$
MFTE ordinances
tax exemption program
Services (with
months
City Treasurer
and City
Council)
5.2
Development fee
Low
Planning
0-6
$
Fee schedule
adjustments
Services
months
updates
5.3
Local bank funding
Low
City Council
Ongoing
$
Partnerships
(with Planning
Services)
5.4
Tax increment
Medium
Planning
6-12
$
Further study and
financing
Services (with
months
future ordinance
City Treasurer)
5.5
Funding for ADU
Medium
Planning
6-12
$$
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
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
Performance Metric
Target
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
Number of mixed -use and urban style
One development every two years
housing types accessible
to a greater variety of
apartment with structured parking
incomes, for both rental
permitted
and homeownership
opportunities
Annual median home price increases
Slow down and stabilize
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
Housing diversity
10-20% of new housing units are in
development
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
housing
20-year targets
MFTE program participation
25-50 new affordable units per year
added from MFTE projects
Figure 25. Monitoring matrix
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 (POMC 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 6
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.
Building
MWilding Type
Types -O
-��j
Residential Zone,4111iff—
R3 R4 097
R6
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.