Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
021-24 - Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan
Docusign Envelope ID: 666A4BFD-F5BE-4529-A153-D783F78EC437 ORDINANCE NO.021-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2024 UPDATE OF THE PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, CHAPTER 36.70A RCW, AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD 2024 ZONING MAP, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, with the passage of the Washington State Growth Management Act in 1990 (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW, local governments are required to adopt a comprehensive plan that outlines strategies to accommodate the needs of a growing population; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard (City), Washington is a fully planning city under the state Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A Revised Code of Washington (RCW); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (under RCW 36.70A.130) requires that all cities and counties periodically take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive land use plan and development regulations, including critical areas ordinance, to ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, and; WHEREAS, this Ordinance shows completion of the update process required under RCW 36.70A.130, and; WHEREAS, in June 1995, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port Orchard and its urban growth area pursuant to the requirements set forth in the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard completed a periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan in December, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard completed its most recent periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan in June 2016; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has made numerous Comprehensive Plan amendments since 2016 through the annual amendment process; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard seeks to be in compliance with the goals, policies, and procedures of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has actively sought citizen input, utilizing several forms of public informational media and outreach, in addition to the regularly noticed public meetings and public hearings; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a public participation program for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update on December 13, 2022 after holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City Department of Community Development and its consultant held a Comprehensive Plan Update Kick-off Open House public workshop for the Port Orchard Docusign Envelope ID: 666A4BFD-F5BE-4529-A153-D783F78EC437 Ordinance No. 021-24 Page 2 of 6 Comprehensive Plan 2024 Update, including presentation of a project schedule and a public involvement plan; and WHEREAS, after the Comprehensive Plan Update Kick-off Open House public workshop, the City Department of Community and Development supplemented public outreach efforts with an online platform, Social Pinpoint, to allow Port Orchard residents to participate in outreach efforts at their convenience; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2023, in association with the Comprehensive Plan Update Kick-off Open House, Social Pinpoint was utilized for public input; and Social Pinpoint was launched for public input related to the Comprehensive Plan Update Kick-off Open House; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024, the City of Port Orchard Planning Commission held a public meeting to review and discuss the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Introduction, Economic Development, and Utilities Elements; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review the draft Introduction, Utilities and Economic Development Elements; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2024, the City Council Economic Development and Tourism Committee held a public meeting to review the draft Economic Development Element; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2024, a Comprehensive Plan Update Policy Workshop was held by the Department of Community Development and its consultant to provide an opportunity for the public to review, give feedback, and revise policy language in the City's current Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2024, in association with the Comprehensive Plan Update Policy Workshop Social, Pinpoint was utilized for public input; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2024, the City of Port Orchard Planning Commission held a public meeting to review and discuss the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Natural Systems, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation Elements; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review the draft Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, and Transportation Elements; and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, the City of Port Orchard Planning Commission held a public meeting to review and discuss the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, and Climate Elements; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review the draft Land Use, Housing, Climate, and Capital Facilities Elements; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to discuss the draft Bethel Subarea Plans; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the City of Port Orchard Planning Commission held a public meeting to review and discuss the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks and Docusign Envelope ID: 666A4BFD-F5BE-4529-A153-D783F78EC437 Ordinance No. 021-24 Page 3 of 6 Recreation, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, and Climate Elements; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, a 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update — Draft Elements Workshop was held by the Department of Community Development and AHBL to provide an opportunity for the public to review and provide input on the Draft Elements of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, in association with the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Elements Workshop, Social Pinpoint was utilized for public input; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review and discuss the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, and Climate Elements; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to discuss the Bethel Subarea Plans Alternatives; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2024, a 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update — Bethel Subarea Plans Workshop was held by the Department of Community Development and its consultant to provide an opportunity for the public to review and provide input on the draft Bethel Subarea Plans; and WHEREAS, in association with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update— Bethel Subarea Plans Workshop, Social Pinpoint was utilized for public input; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review and discuss the Draft Bethel Subarea Plans, and the Capital Facilities Element; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2024, the City Council held a public work-study meeting to review the draft 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was published for a public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission on the complete draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, and email notice of the hearing and availability of the draft plan was sent to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Washington Department of Transportation, the Suquamish Tribe, Kitsap County, the City of Bremerton, the City of Poulsbo, the City of Bainbridge Island, the South Kitsap School District, the West Sound Utility District, the Puget Sound Regional Council, and South Kitsap Fire and Rescue; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2024, the City Planning Department issued a SEPA Determination of Non -Significance based on an Environmental Checklist prepared for the adoption of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, and distributed it to Kitsap County, the City of Bainbridge Island, City of Poulsbo, the City of Bremerton, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department. of Community, Trade, & Economic Development, WA Department of Natural Resources, South Kitsap Fire & Rescue, WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, the Kitsap Public Health District, Kitsap Transit, Housing Kitsap, Puget Sound Energy, Washington Department of Ecology, Suquamish Tribe, the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Kitsap Public Utility District, West Sound Utility District, Washington State Dept. of Docusign Envelope ID: 666A4BFD-F5BE-4529-A153-D783F78EC437 Ordinance No. 021-24 Page 4 of 6 Transportation, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, and Naval Base Kitsap, and published the Determination in the newspaper and on the City website; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development received one timely provided comment from the Suquamish Tribe related to the Determination of Non -significance; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, notice of the proposed adoption of the 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce at least sixty days before the amendments were adopted, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, and Climate Elements, and appendices were sent to the Puget Sound Regional Council for review; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the City of Port Orchard Planning Commission held a public meeting to review and discuss the Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Climate Elements, the Bethel/Lund Subarea Plan, and the Sedgwick/Bethel Subarea Plan, and opened a public hearing and left the record open through October 29, 2024; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review and discuss the Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Climate Elements, and the Bethel/Lund Subarea Plan, and the Sedgwick/Bethel Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, as of the end of the SEPA comment on October 22, 2024, no SEPA appeals had been filed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on October 29, 2024, to discuss public and agency comments received from the Puget Sound Regional Council; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2024, the Planning Commission continued its public hearing on the 2024 periodic update to the comprehensive plan and after receiving no further testimony, closed the public hearing on the 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update, deliberated, and voted six to one to recommend approval of the draft plan to City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2024, the City Council Land Use Committee held a public meeting to review and discuss the Introduction, Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Natural Systems, Economic Development, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Climate Elements, and the Bethel/Lund Subarea Plan, and the Sedgwick/Bethel Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the City Council held a public work-study meeting to review the draft 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update and the Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Department of Commerce acknowledged completion of their review of the Comprehensive Plan on December 4, 2024, and requisite time has now passed to allow this ordinance to be adopted; and Docusign Envelope ID: 666A4BFD-F5BE-4529-A153-D783F78EC437 Ordinance No. 021-24 Page 5 of 6 WHEREAS, on December 10, 2024, the City Council met to discuss the proposed 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update at their regular meeting to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, the public record including public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to adopt the amendments to the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan as set forth in this Ordinance; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: The amendments adopted by this ordinance have been developed through a rigorous public process, have been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act, have the recommendation of the Port Orchard Planning Commission made after holding a public hearing, and are consistent with PRSC's Vision 2025 and the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, and that Port Orchard has fulfilled requirements for the 2024 Periodic Update process as required by the Growth Management Act pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130. The City Council adopts the recitals as additional findings in support of this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Extension of Critical Areas Update Deadline. The City Council finds that the Department of Community Development has made substantial progress on the required Critical Areas Code Update and as such, as documented by the Department of Commerce, is afforded an additional year to complete an its update to the Critical Areas Code (POMC 20.162). SECTION 3. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Appendices. In accordance with the above -described Findings and Conclusions, the City Council hereby amends the text and maps of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan by approving and adopting the following: 1. The 2024 Draft Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Update dated December 2024, including the revised Comprehensive Plan Map and Future Land Use Map and the wording changes incorporated into the draft plan by the City Council on that date. 2. All appendices associated with the Comprehensive Plan: a. AppendixA —The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map b. Appendix B — Plans adopted by Reference, including a new 6-year and 20-year Transportation Improvement Program c. Appendix C— Ruby Creek Subarea Plan d. Appendix D — Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan e. Appendix E - McCormick Village Subarea Plan f. Appendix F— Bethel Lund Subarea Plan g. Appendix G — Sedgwick Bethel Subarea Plan h. Appendix H — Port Orchard Housing Action Plan i. Appendix I — Port Orchard Land Capacity Analysis j. Appendix J — Port Orchard Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis; and The City of Port Orchard 2024 Zoning Map. SECTION 4. Administrative Update Permitted. The City Council authorizes the Development Director to make corrections to the Future Land Use Map in the Land Use Element for consistency with Kitsap County's final 2024 UGA boundaries and zoning, once the County's 2024 Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. Docusign Envelope ID: 666A4BFD-F5BE-4529-A153-D783F78EC437 Ordinance No. 021-24 Page 6 of 6 SECTION S. Severability. If any sentence, section, provision, or clause of this ordinance or its application to any person, entity or circumstance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons, entities, or circumstances is not affected. SECTION 6. Corrections. Upon approval of the city attorney, the city clerk, and/or the code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener's/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto. SECTION 7. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 10th day of December 2024. Signed by: €3F56Ai 8... Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: aj\ut w ouxj- Brandy Wallace, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: F(-Signed by: 7 Charlotte Archer, City Attorney PUBLISHED: December 13, 2024 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 2024 City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan December 2024 Update Acknowledgements The City of Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan would not be possible without the enthusiasm and support of community stakeholders, including the businesses neighbors, and agency partners throughout the Port Orchard community. A special thanks to everyone who contributed their time and effort to the development of this plan. Mayor Rob Putaansuu City Council Members: Mark Trenary Jay Rosapepe Scott Diener Eric Worden Heidi Fenton Fred Chang John Morrissey Planning Commission (2022-2024): Tyler McKlosky Annette Stewart Stephanie Bailey Joe Morrison Wayne Wright Louis Ta Paul Fontenot Bek Ashby Dave Bernstein Phil King City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Community Development Director James Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Shaun Raja, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist, Assistant Planner Josie Rademacher, Assistant Planner Denis Ryan, Public Works Director Chris Hammer, PE, City Engineer Christian Williams, PE, Asst. City Engineer Noah Crocker, Finance Director Consultant Team: AHBL, Inc. MAKERS Transportation Solutions Inc. Leland Consulting Group Farallon Consulting Table of Contents Chapter1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1-0 1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................1-0 1.2 2044 Targeted Outcomes...........................................................................................................1-0 1.3 Centers.......................................................................................................................................1-2 1.4 Port Orchard History..................................................................................................................1-2 1.5 The Context of Planning in Port Orchard...................................................................................1-4 1.6 Community Involvement in the 2044 Update...........................................................................1-8 1.7 Organization of the Plan..........................................................................................................1-10 Chapter2 Land Use..................................................................................................................................2-11 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................2-11 2.2 Key Issues and Concepts..........................................................................................................2-11 2.3 Land Use Designations.............................................................................................................2-13 2.4 Zoning and Current Land Use Characteristics..........................................................................2-15 2.5 Buildable Land Capacity...........................................................................................................2-16 2.6 Overlay Districts.......................................................................................................................2-17 2.7 Land Use Goals and Policies.....................................................................................................2-17 2.8 The Centers Strategy................................................................................................................2-22 Chapter3 Housing....................................................................................................................................3-39 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................3-39 3.2 Conditions and Trends.............................................................................................................3-40 3.3 Housing Affordability...............................................................................................................3-45 3.4 Housing Projection...................................................................................................................3-49 3.5 Housing Capacity by Income Band...........................................................................................3-50 3.6 Housing Goals and Policies.......................................................................................................3-52 Chapter4 Parks and Recreation..............................................................................................................4-56 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................4-56 4.2 Public Involvement...................................................................................................................4-56 4.3 Parks Vision — Connections......................................................................................................4-57 4.4 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................4-57 4.5 Future Planned Parks Facilities................................................................................................4-57 4.6 Challenges and Opportunities..................................................................................................4-58 4.7 Parks and Recreation Goals and Policies.................................................................................4-59 ChapterS Natural Systems......................................................................................................................S-64 5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................5-64 5.2 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................5-65 5.3 Critical Areas and Shorelines....................................................................................................5-66 5.4 Natural Systems Goals and Policies.........................................................................................5-70 Chapter 6 Economic Development..........................................................................................................6-83 6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................6-83 6.2 Economic Conditions................................................................................................................6-84 6.3 Challenges................................................................................................................................6-89 6.4 Economic Development Goals and Policies.............................................................................6-89 Chapter7 Utilities....................................................................................................................................7-94 7.1 City -Managed Utilities.............................................................................................................7-95 7.2 Non -City Managed Utilities......................................................................................................7-95 7.3 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................................7-96 7.4 Relationship to Centers............................................................................................................7-98 7.5 Future Needs............................................................................................................................7-98 7.6 Utilities Goals and Policies.....................................................................................................7-100 Chapter8 Transportation......................................................................................................................8-103 8.1 Transportation Element Context.............................................................................................8-103 8.2 Transportation Vision.............................................................................................................8-103 8.3 Transportation System Inventory..........................................................................................8-104 8.4 Nonmotorized System Vision.................................................................................................8-114 8.5 Level of Service......................................................................................................................8-122 8.6 Traffic Forecasting..................................................................................................................8-130 8.7 Transportation System Needs................................................................................................8-135 8.8 Transportation Demand Management..................................................................................8-139 8.9 Financial Analysis and Concurrency.......................................................................................8-143 8.10 Intergovernmental Coordination...........................................................................................8-149 8.11 Equity Framework for Transportation Planning....................................................................8-150 8.12 Transportation Goal and Policies...........................................................................................8-151 Chapter9 Capital Facilities.....................................................................................................................9-154 9.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................9-154 9.2 Financial Overview.................................................................................................................9-155 9.3 Planning Connections.............................................................................................................9-156 9.4 Functional Plans.....................................................................................................................9-156 9.5 Future Needs.................................................................................... 9.6 Capital Facilities Goals and Policies .................................................. 9.6 Capital Facilities............................................................................... Chapter 10 Climate Change............................................................................. 10.1 Introduction..................................................................................... 10.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................. 10.3 Climate Resilience............................................................................ 10.4 Baseline Conditions.......................................................................... 10.5 Goals and Policies............................................................................ .................................. 9-15 6 ..................................9-158 .................................. 9-162 ................................10-182 ................................10-182 ................................10-183 ................................10-183 ................................10-185 ................................10-189 Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Introduction Port Orchard is a small but growing city in the Puget Sound region of Washington State. It is near major urban and employment centers and enjoys an outstanding natural setting. Port Orchard's residents have a strong community spirit and value the area's important maritime history. These aspects contribute to a high quality of life that influences people's choice to live and work in Port Orchard. Like most cities in the Puget Sound region, rapid population growth in the last decade has contributed to increasing demands for goods, services, housing, and infrastructure. These demands on the local community represent some of the biggest challenges facing the City since it last undertook updating its Comprehensive Plan in 2016. Downtown Port Orchard has continued to be a focal point with its waterfront location and access to transit, including passenger ferry service with connections to downtown Seattle. How Port Orchard manages its growth in the years to come is crucial to the City's businesses and residents. Bolstered by its rich history, active community participants, and scenic location, Port Orchard has the opportunity to build on its many assets to create a more connected and vibrant city. There are great opportunities to continue revitalizing the downtown area, draw more attractions to the city, and encourage appreciation for Port Orchard's natural resources and friendly, close-knit community. The City will take strategic steps to identify and strengthen the relationship between the built environment, natural environment, community members, and government to further the goals of a cohesive community based on a deep understanding of the need to balance development with the preservation of unique and critical environmental resources. 1.1.1 Statement of Purpose and Intent The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan establishes a framework for addressing the challenges of today and the future. The Plan integrates the desires of the community and best practices in contemporary city planning, making the government more responsive to the needs of the community and more connected with residents. Used properly, this document will guide decision -making and development in Port Orchard by ensuring that ordinances, regulations, programs, and projects are developed in accordance with community values and goals. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan specify measurable, achievable actions that most effectively utilize resources, retain the small-town character of Port Orchard, and build a stronger community. Developed with significant public input and City leaders' review, this document will guide Port Orchard's development and growth patterns for the next 20 years through 2044. This document will update the existing Comprehensive Plan, which was last fully updated in 2016. 1.2 2044 Targeted Outcomes With continued hard work that is focused and coordinated in accordance with the goals and policies in this comprehensive plan, Port Orchard will remain one of the best small cities in Washington State. By careful planning, Port Orchard's increasing number of residents will enjoy a sustained high quality of life that is founded upon its supportive community, healthy economy, and pristine environment. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-0 Using the community's vision forth e future, by the year 2044 the City will have built upon these positive attributes and will have achieved the following: • Port Orchard has retained its small-town character and strong community spirit. • The historic downtown is attractive and vibrant. • Efficient patterns of development have reduced real per capita infrastructure costs. • Housing has remained available to all members of the community, and the diversity of housing types has expanded. • Housing has remained available and affordable to all members of the community, and the diversity of housing types and densities has expanded. • Walking, biking, driving, and transit infrastructure make it easy to get around the city. • Port Orchard's waterfront and open space resources are highly enjoyable by the community. • Community organizations are better empowered to coordinate events and activities. • Residents continue to enjoy a comfortable and productive relationship with City government. • Residents have access to well -paying jobs, have short commutes, and choose to shop locally. • Local businesses are supported by the community and government policies that promote economic development. • Residents are better informed and connected to the planning process. • Port Orchard's critical areas, shorelines, and other natural resources are appropriately protected with no net loss to critical areas and their functions, and where feasible critical areas and shorelines are restored or enhanced. • Native American cultural and historic resources (archeological sites) will be protected through conditions on development approvals that require identification and preservation of designated sites, along with notification to the State and the Suquamish Tribe. • Impacts to natural systems are minimized while population and job growth targets are met. • Provide equitable service and access to opportunities for people of color, people with low incomes, and historically underserved communities. 1.1.2 Visioning: Connections Port Orchard is defined by its physical and social environments and the ways in which they are connected. This Comprehensive Plan lays out a vision for Port Orchard that is founded on connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to a stronger community. In addition to meeting state laws, addressing local and regional planning goals, and serving as a record of community input, this Comprehensive Plan seeks to bridge the specific goals and policies of the different elements to the needs and desires of the community through the established connections framework. It is important to think of Port Orchard not just as its parts, but as a cohesive whole. The City aims to improve the connections between land uses, housing, businesses, transportation, and the natural environment. As well as promote a higher level of interaction between the City government and community members. There are some key ways in which this can be achieved. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-1 Primary Connections: • Connect individual neighborhoods to the greater city • Connect people to the waterfront • Connect people to downtown • Connect downtown and the waterfront • Connect people via land use choices that encourage meaningful interactions (i.e. housing within walking distance to shops and restaurants that allows people to interact with each other on the street) • Connect separate areas of the city with a variety of transportation options • Connect people to the history of the city through the built environment • Connect neighborhoods to the regional trail network • Connect parks to housing and other parks • Connect residents and government officials • Connect business and government through a high level of partnership and cooperation • Connect identified wildlife habitat areas and corridors with greenbelts and other open space areas. • Connect the community to the natural environment through education and voluntary stewardship. 1.1.3 Elements of Connection Within the comprehensive planning process, physical, social, and governmental influences must be considered in how Port Orchard is connected. Physical element: The infrastructure, housing, transportation, parks, natural amenities, topography, critical areas, restaurants, shops, businesses, schools, and all other built and natural aspects that make up the city. Social element: The residents, the groups, and the interests they represent. Government element: The professional, public services, and regulatory side of the City that must work to maintain and foster a relationship with residents that is healthy and responsive to community needs and desires. 1.3 Centers Building concentrations of activity in Port Orchard will help create a more vibrant city. Within countywide centers, a mix of land uses will lead to higher levels of local connectivity. Centers can connect housing, businesses, and services in a more focused way, allowing for more efficient land uses and allocation of public resources for infrastructure. See Section 2 (Land Use) for more information on Centers. 1.4 Port Orchard History The Port Orchard area was historically occupied by the Suquamish people, whose ancestors have lived in the Central Puget Sound area for approximately 10,000 years. Ethnographic and archeological evidence shows that the Suquamish people have lived, gathered food stuffs, produced ceremonial and spiritual items, and hunted and fished for thousands of years in the area now known as Port Orchard. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-2 Sidney M. Stevens first purchased 88.5 acres of land in 1885 with the intention of starting the town that would become Port Orchard. His son, Frederick Stevens, platted the land in 1886 and named the new location Sidney, after his father. Early businesses focused on lumber and a handful of saloons. Other industries included sawmills, shingle mills, and a pottery and terra cotta plant. The town was incorporated on September 15, 1890, and became the first town in Kitsap County to be both platted and incorporated. Sidney became the county seat in the general election of 1892. Shortly after, the U.S. Navy sought a suitable location for another west coast base and found it in the Sinclair Inlet with the assistance of Sidney's residents. This location would later become the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The original industries began to fade with the addition of the naval shipyard, and subsequently many of the employees of the timber industry moved to the shipyard for work. In December of 1892, the residents of Sidney petitioned both the state legislature and the Post Office Department to rename the City to "Port Orchard." After much confusion with the local post office, Sidney was finally renamed "Port Orchard" in 1903. The first school in Sidney opened in 1889 and later the South Kitsap Union High School opened in 1922. In 2000 the City's land area was 3.96 square miles, but after several annexations, increased to 9.63 square miles in 2012. These annexations have also increased the population of Port Orchard, growing from 11,144 to 15,587 people between 2010 and 2020. The Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates that Port Orchard's population as of June 28, 2024 had risen to 18,300 people. Figure 1-1. Port Orchard Population Growth 2016-2024 OFM Estimates 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 � OFM Population Estimate Annual Growth Rate 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2023 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-3 1.5 The Context of Planning in Port Orchard 1.1.4 What is a Comprehensive Plan? A comprehensive plan is a tool that allows a City to anticipate and guide changes in a manner that is consistent with the desires of the community. Based on extensive public input that has occurred over the last periodic updates, this document serves as the record of the City's long-range vision, priorities, and concerns. It translates the community's vision into goals and policies for the City to use in evaluating and making future physical, economic, and community development decisions. When implemented, the comprehensive plan acts as a tool for managing growth, coordinating programs and regulations and protecting the community's quality of life and critical resources. In the face of constant and inevitable change, it ensures that community goals are predictably, consistently, and effectively promoted and implemented. In Washington State, comprehensive plans cover a 20-year planning horizon and are required to be updated every 10 years' with a 5-year mid -cycle review. These plans serve as long-range policy guides for managing growth and development within a jurisdiction, considering both the natural environment and available resources. In addition to being required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to include a 20-year outlook, this timeframe also provides enough time to accommodate and guide population and employment growth effectively, while also providing a realistic outlook for demographic changes, economic shifts, and workforce dynamics. This longer time frame also allows jurisdictions to make decisions related to land use and infrastructure that can withstand short-term fluctuations, ensure investments align with projected growth, and maintain a coherent vision for the community. 1.1.5 Population and Employment Allocations and Capacities As population and employment continue to grow in the city, Port Orchard has been allocated a certain amount of the region's growth and must plan to accommodate that growth through its zoning and infrastructure capacity. In conjunction, Kitsap County has calculated how much zoned land capacity Port Orchard has. Port Orchard must plan for an additional 10,500 residents above its 2020 population by 2044, according to the most recent Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies which utilize the City's 2020 population from the US CensusZ. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report calculates that the City has an additional population capacity of 16,250 residents'. This is greater than the City's growth target (10,500 additional residents) as found in the Countywide Planning Policies and means that the City has surplus capacity for an additional 5,750 residents. To achieve its population growth target, Port Orchard would need to sustain a 3 percent annual growth rate until 2044. However, Port Orchard has seen a growth rate exceeding 3 percent per year since 2020. While this accelerated growth rate is not expected to continue, it is anticipated that Port Orchard will reach its growth target prior to 2044 if current trends continue. Similarly, Port Orchard must plan for an additional 5,400 jobs above its 2020 employment by 2044 in accordance with the most recent Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies4. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report identifies that Port Orchard has an additional employment capacity of 5,243 jobs, resulting in a small employment deficit of 157 jobs by the year 20445. This deficit has been eliminated through minor changes proposed to the land use map in Appendix A and through the adoption of the Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel subarea plans as discussed in the Land Use Element. 1 http://app.leg.wa.sov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.130 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-4 These population and employment growth allocations are used throughout the Comprehensive Plan for internal consistency. Whether Port Orchard adds over 10,500 residents and 5,400 jobs by 2044 depends on several factors. These include the completion of infrastructure projects in support of growth as outlined in Chapters 7-9, the health of the local economy, and the quality of public services such as schools. These factors influence how many people move to Port Orchard and how many jobs are created. The main goal of this Comprehensive Plan is to ensure that this growth aligns with the City's vision, which has been shaped by community involvement and input. This will be achieved through the implementation of the goals and policies contained within this Comprehensive Plan to facilitate coordinated and sustainable growth. 1.1.6 Port Orchard Urban Growth Area (UGA) The Urban Growth Area (UGA) in unincorporated Kitsap County affiliated with Port Orchard is an area designated for eventual annexation into Port Orchard. According to the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, the UGA population in 2020 was 15,370, and the County has allocated it an increase of 3,552 people by 2044. The Buildable Lands Report shows the UGA has a capacity of 3,552 people based on existing zoning. This means that the land capacity of the Port Orchard affiliated UGA is exactly large enough to accommodate its population growth target. If the City were to annex all its UGA by 2044, it would need to provide infrastructure and services to these new residents. This has significant implications for Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and its provision of public services. Even if the City doesn't annex these areas, many of the residents living in the UGA work, shop, recreate, and travel in Port Orchard. As such, the City must consider the proximity of these areas and impacts to the City from this population when making decisions. 1.1.7 Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) The Washington State GMA was passed by the state legislature in 1990 to protect Washington's quality of life, economy, and environment from the threat of uncoordinated and unplanned growth. It requires state and local governments to identify and protect critical areas and natural resource lands, designate urban growth areas, adopt and regularly update comprehensive plans, and implement them through capital investments and development regulations. Cities and counties planning under the GMA are required to adopt development regulations that are consistent with, and implement, their comprehensive plans. The GMA also promotes coordination and consistency between cities, counties, and the state, in part by requiring that all comprehensive plans address certain goals. The 15 goals of the GMA' are: Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. 2 https://www.kitsaP.Rov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/ KRCC%20Apprroved%2OGrowth%2OTargets October%202022.pdf 3 https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP%20Documents/ FINAL%20Bui Ida ble%20Lands%20Report November%202021.pdf 'https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP`/`20Documents/ KRCC%20Apprroved%2OGrowth%2OTargets October%202022.pdf 'https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/PEP`/`20Documents/ FINAL%2013ui Ida ble%20Lands%20Report November%202021.pdf 6 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.020 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-5 • Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low - density development. • Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled and are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. • Housing. Plan for and accommodate affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. • Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. • Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. • Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. • Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource -based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands and discourage incompatible uses. • Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. • Environment. Protect and enhance the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. • Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process, including the participation of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities, and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. • Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. • Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-6 • Climate change and resiliency. Ensure that comprehensive plans, development regulations, and regional policies, plans, and strategies under RCW 36.70A.210 and chapter 47.80 RCW adapt to and mitigate the effects of a changing climate; support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled; prepare for climate impact scenarios; foster resiliency to climate impacts and natural hazards; protect and enhance environmental, economic, and human health and safety; and advance environmental justice. • Shorelines of the state. For shorelines of the state, the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 shall be considered an element of the county's or city's comprehensive plan. The GMA is codified as Revised Code of Washington (RCW) chapter 36.70A. It can be accessed online at the following link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A 1.1.8 Puget Sound Regional Council's VISION 2050 VISION 2050 is a regional strategy for accommodating the 5.8 million people expected to live in the central Puget Sound region by 2050. It is administered by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a regional planning agency with a mission to enhance the quality of life in the region. The region is defined as Kitsap, King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The PSRC develops policies and coordinates decisions about regional growth, transportation, and economic development planning. It is also responsible for selecting local projects to receive federal transportation funding. VISION 2050 is an integrated, long-range vision for maintaining a healthy region. It promotes the well- being of people and communities, economic vitality, and a healthy environment. VISION 2050 has been refined from the previous VISION 2040 framework with the following primary tenets to support comprehensive regional growth strategies: • Retains the same core emphasis on a strong economy, healthy environment, preserving farms and forests, and supporting growth within the urban growth area and centers • Retains the same plan structure as VISION 2040, with a numeric Regional Growth Strategy, multicounty planning policies, and actions • Identifies new regional outcomes and a vision statement for the region • Addresses equity and health in policies and actions throughout the plan • Supports implementation of recent plans and initiatives, like the Regional Transportation Plan, the Regional Economic Strategy, the Regional Open Space Conservation Plan, the Regional Centers Framework, and Growing Transit Communities The concept of people, prosperity, and planet provides a central theme for VISION 2050. This concept signals that our regional leaders use an approach that considers social, cultural, economic, and environmental benefits when making decisions. Port Orchard's Comprehensive Plan proposes a sustainable approach to growth and future development. The Plan commits to maintaining and restoring ecosystems, through steps to conserve and enhance key fish wildlife habitats and other critical areas, to promote restoration of degraded shorelines, to improve water quality, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-7 This Comprehensive Plan has been updated based on residential and employment targets that align with VISION 2050. Through the targeting process we have identified the number of housing units in the City that currently exist and that are anticipated to be developed within the planning period and have identified needs for affordable housing. Residential and employment targets for the City's designated local centers of importance will be identified and expanded in future subarea planning for these centers. This Plan addresses each of the policy areas in VISION 2050. The elements of the Plan include goals and policies that address habitat protection, water conservation, air quality, and climate change. Environmentally friendly development techniques, such as low -impact landscaping and stormwater runoff management, are encouraged. The Plan calls for more compact urban development and addresses mixed -use and transit -oriented development. There are directives to prioritize funding and infrastructure investments to our centers of local importance. The Housing element commits to expanding housing production at all income levels to meet the diverse needs of both current and future residents. The Economic Development element supports creating jobs, creating sustainable and livable communities, and improving connections between housing, employment, and transportation. The Transportation element advances cleaner and more sustainable mobility, with provisions for complete streets, context -sensitive design, and alternatives to driving alone. The City's transportation planning is coordinated with Kitsap County, including level of service standards and concurrency provisions. The City also commits to conservation methods in the provision of public services. The Implementation section of the Plan addresses local implementation actions addressed in VISION 2050, including identification of underused lands and housing targets. VISION 2050 can be accessed online at the following link: www.psrc.org/planning-2050/vision-2050 1.1.9 Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council and Countywide Planning Policies The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) is an inter -local forum for local jurisdictions and the voice on countywide transportation planning and policy issues. Its members include Kitsap County, Port Orchard, Bremerton, Bainbridge Island, Poulsbo, and the Port of Bremerton. Kitsap Transit and the Suquamish & Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes are Associate Members, and Naval Base Kitsap is an Ex Officio member. The Council coordinates the review and monitoring of the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies and related population forecasting and distribution. The Council's Executive Board is responsible for the distribution of federal grant funds for federal transportation funding via the PSRC. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies tailor the PSRC's regional growth management guidelines to Kitsap County and is the policy framework for the County's and the Cities' comprehensive plans. The Countywide Planning Policies address 15 separate elements, ranging from urban growth areas to affordable housing. The Countywide Planning Policies are required by the GMA and were originally established in 1992. The Kitsap County Planning Policies can be accessed online at the following link: www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/Pages/Kitsap-Countywide-Planning-Policies.aspx 1.6 Community Involvement in the 2044 Update The Plan is ultimately written for the residents of Port Orchard and to implement their visions of the community's future. The GMA requires actively involving the public during the development and update of the Plan. This process began with the creation of a Public Participation Program that outlines opportunities for community involvement, how the public can submit comments, and how the public is notified of open meetings. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-8 The City began soliciting public input in early 2023 at a public Kickoff and Visioning meeting held in January. At this meeting, the City outlined the scope of this 2024 Periodic Update to the Comprehensive Plan and solicited feedback on the City's progress toward implementing the 2036 Targeted Outcomes contained in the City's previously adopted Comprehensive Plan (2016). This feedback was used as a baseline to review community priorities for this Periodic Update and identify new opportunities and challenges since the City's last Comprehensive Plan update. A Policy Workshop held in February of 2024 provided an opportunity to review, give feedback, and revise policy language in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This meeting identified items that must be included in the Plan for consistency with the Washington State Growth Management Act, Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050, and the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. The intent of this Workshop was to give the public an opportunity to provide input on policy updates the community felt are needed, given the growth and change throughout the City since the last major Comprehensive Plan Update in 2016. A Land Use Strategies Workshop in May of 2024 summarized updates to the City's Zoning Map, Future Land Use Map, and introduced proposed zoning code revisions. The public was encouraged to attend this meeting to review and provide feedback on the City's anticipated approach to meeting the state, regional, and county regulatory requirements of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update process related to land use, zoning, housing, and overall growth that the City will be experiencing over the next 20 years. In association with the subarea planning efforts conducted with this Comprehensive Plan update, the City hosted a public workshop at the Kitsap Regional Library in Port Orchard in July 2024. The workshop presented detailed information related to the specific planning efforts related to the Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund subarea Figure 1-2. Kickoff and Visioning Meeting plans with the intention of achieving Countywide Center designations for those areas. The workshop prepared interactive mime , t 7 maps and questionnaire boards detailing °" proposed changes to these specific areas of Figure 1-3. Port Orchard Farmers Market Booth the City to collect input on community desires for the future of these areas that have adequate infrastructure, transit service, and developable land to focus growth. More detailed information for these subareas is provided in the Land Use Element. The subarea plans are included as Appendix F and Appendix G of this Comprehensive Plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-9 1.7 Organization of the Plan The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan is designed to align with the community's vision and values. It is built upon the concept of "connections" outlined in Section 1.3, emphasizing that the interlinking of the physical and social environment as discussed in the elements contained within this Plan lead to a stronger community. This leads to the centers strategy, which not only implements the Regional Growth Strategy found in VISION 2050 but is integrated into the Land Use element. The Land Use goals, in turn, then influence all of the other Plan elements, creating a cohesive and interconnected framework. This comprehensive strategy ensures that every aspect of the Plan ties back to the community's vision and overall goals, fostering a well -integrated and sustainable approach to development. Figure 1-4. Organization of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan BASELINE INFORMATION 1� CONNECTIONS CONCEPT C%*O% COMMUNITYVISION O CENTERS STRATEGY HOUSING PARKS LAND USE ELEMENT FE.Q1 M11 M fm UTILITIES CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENTS M1 M ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NATURAL SYSTEMS OD DD D D CLIMATE II.Al I' TRANSPORTATION Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 1-10 Chapter 2 Land Use 2.1 Introduction The Land Use element represents the nexus of the Comprehensive Plan, where land use goals, policies, map designations, and decisions are created to connect and incorporate all other elements through a future -looking lens as Port Orchard continues to develop. The purpose of this section is to provide a framework to guide future land use to help Port Orchard grow in an orderly, rational, and efficient way and help the community realize its potential during the 20-year planning horizon. The goals and policies contained herein recognize that effectively planning for growth can result in lower taxes and fees to fund and maintain infrastructure and services as unplanned growth can reduce efficiency and increase the cost of utilities, roads, and other services, as well as consume valuable open space. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Comprehensive Plans to contain land use elements that describe the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses. Once adopted, land use goals and policies will be functionally implemented through Port Orchard's development regulations. The Land Use element must plan for the City's population and employment growth projections in accordance with GMA requirements while balancing new development needs with the community's aspirations and values. 2.2 Key Issues and Concepts As a community, Port Orchard is growing due to a healthy birth rate, immigration, and annexation. This plan accommodates Port Orchard's 2044 population and employment growth allocations, as distributed through the VISION 2050 framework and agreed upon in coordination with other Kitsap County jurisdictions in the Countywide Planning Policies. Port Orchard's land use and zoning designations currently provide sufficient land capacity within City boundaries to accommodate the targeted 10,500 additional residents who will make Port Orchard their home (during the 2020-2044 planning period). In conjunction with the findings of the Buildable Lands Report, the Future Land Use Map shows how the additional 3,552 projected and allocated residents in the adjacent Urban Growth Area can be accommodated. A common theme heard throughout the public engagement process for this Comprehensive Plan Update has been focused on how to manage growth in a way that protects the small-town character of the community while allowing for new and innovative development that responds to changing household needs and growth pressures. Figure 2-1 below shows the changes in age brackets from 2010 to 2021, with a noted increase in the 35-54 age bracket (+4% since 2010). As Port Orchard's population ages, the City needs the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs and desires of the various age groups and their unique needs and desires from a land -use perspective. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-11 Figure 2-1. Age Distribution Comparison 13% 14% 18% 15% 15% 12% 2% 12% 22% 22% Port Orchard (2010) Port Orchard (2021) Kitsap County Washington 65 and older ■55to64 ■ 45 to 54 ■35to44 ■ 20 to 34 ■ 19 and younger The Land Use Element establishes the broad, general direction forth e City's land use policies. These land use policies are established not only in accordance with the forward -looking population and employment growth projections allocated to the City but are also responsive to the existing population changes that the City has experienced since the last major Comprehensive Plan update. This element provides the City's policy plan for growth over the next 20 years. It also implements many of the goals and objectives in the other plan elements through suggested land use designations and other action recommendations. The Land Use Element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses and the appropriate intensity and density of land use designations to accommodate allocated population and employment growth projections. The City's development regulations and permitting processes are used to establish adequate development standards for growth, to ensure it occurs in a manner consistent with both the provisions of GMA and the community's vision for the future. To accomplish this, the Land Use element establishes goals and policies that seek to: • Accommodate changes in population and demographics • Encourage development in urban areas, reduce sprawl, and deliver services efficiently • Ensure land use designations reflect need and demand • Minimize traffic congestion and encourage the development of a multimodal transportation system • Protect open spaces and the natural environment • Promote physical activity • Support a range of employment opportunities • Allow middle housing types in areas predominantly characterized by single family detached housing. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-12 2.3 Land Use Designations The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element identifies seven different land use designations, the distribution for which are shown in Figure 2-2 and mapped in Figure 2-3. These land use designations are implemented through the City's zoning regulations contained in the Port Orchard Municipal Code. As shown in Table 2-1, each land use designation may correspond to one or more zoning designations for implementation. As the City develops subarea plans for its designated centers as described in section 2.7, new zones and standards consistent with this Plan will be created. In doing so, the City will ensure that the land capacity can accommodate the population and employment growth allocations adopted in the countywide planning policies and take reasonable measures to ensure that they are not surpassed. Figure 2-3. Port Orchard Future Land Use Map Figure 2-2. Future Land Use Designation Distribution IND 138 acres 2 %u GB 517 acres PCs g/ 1,274 acres 23% LDR 858 acres 15% cOM 973 acres 15°% HDR 61 acres 1% Land flee Designation 1; '*! ate' Greenbelt (GBI a r� Low -Density Residential (LDR) _ Medium -Density Residential (MDR) - --[IT 4I,I P�1 kI{4rtly � High —Density Residential (HDR) Commercial (COM) � Urben Induslnal (IND) 1 I itI I � � Public and Commulity spaces (PCs) .— — —. I�T Fes• of .•-._ -,�='�i� r ..+` yd STATE j 16r..- I ILI — ;I I -4- I - 5W ac;nG1 y ALL l7- MDR 1,928 acres 34% w BEACH aP w � m VE ti pr � HQRwTt�ln RQ g. SE MAPlE S' a v y;p I II d ail I �I it I i� of SE 51<lMQN6Ej4Rv Rb 1 ro, RD -I jit*,rTr L y A � I Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-13 Table 2-1. Port Orchard Zone and Land Use Descriptions Protection of critical areas, habitat management areas, - . - Greenbelt greenbelts, and designated open space. Allows for low density residential development. Low Density Residential Allows for single-family detached housing. R2 allows single-family detached and attached, ADUs, - . - Medium Density duplexes, cottage courts, and - . - Residential townhouses. R3 allows all of the above plus fourplexes and apartment buildings. Allows for cottage courts, • - . - High Density Residential fourplexes, townhouses, and apartment buildings. Allows for commercial uses, 0. . -. Commercial retail, office, mixed -use commercial/residential, and professional services. Allows for manufacturing and Urban Industrial assembly, bulk storage and warehousing, and transfer and trucking services. Allows for government - - Public and Community services, utilities, parks, Spaces schools, and other related public facilities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-14 2.4 Zoning and Current Land Use Characteristics Most land in the City is devoted to housing. Figure 2-4. Zoning Designation Distribution — September 2024 Commercial areas throughout the City offer CI a range of goods and services and provide 144a`YeS employment for residents and those living in surrounding rural areas as well as contribute IVIJ additional tax revenue to help fund and maintain 13.un public services and facilities. Industrial lands allow <1% for light manufacturing and warehousing 8 businesses, which also provide job opportunities and support the area's economy. The zoning 35ac designation acreage distribution is shown in Figure 2-4 and is mapped in Figure 2-5, both of which are provided for reference only since zoning is a development regulation that may be amended through a quasi-judicial rezone process as defined by the City's code. The Official Zoning Map is kept 53 acres 61 acres on file with the City of Port Orchard City Clerk. 1% 1% Figure 2-5. Port Orchard Zoning Map — September 2024 Greenbelt (GB) %!6 Downtown Mixed Use (©MU) Residential 1 (Ri } Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) DR EJ Residential (R2) Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) ' s� Residential (R3) Industrial Flex {IF) Residential 4 (R4) �,. Light Industrial (LI)t;�lyJ Commercial Corridor (CC) Civic and Institutional (CI) � Commercial Heavy (CH) Pu6hc Facilities (PF) _ a Business Professional Mixed Use (B i MU) Parks and Recrea3ion {PR) - ? '¢ z ¢,_�,� � � �= SE HORS7MAN Ro LF(st" o yF, 911 _ a zR Sr � �Uu Sal r I� 3 s -=W STFTE -HWYy 1� . t,�r7 �` � 11.E �•`I li .uFi� 1��-��-� � '€1 11� � _ �l�', �' -I o -STrcr�r+-rd + fia �� I l IT- z — ' IA sELUNonve 'a VIA �. �� ¢ SE sERGER i -YI r 7 L sfsat WL 11L yak Ro� i L— s 3 lT Y + T� v 1J k��'F rI o�b� i I 2"��i3x �— -�5v . i�jHIhl sE ceonR ao ✓ T—� -_ _ [I tn'11, �, , S1N M1ilLLEYL _ ,�%`�� _ i� Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-15 2.5 Buildable Land Capacity The Kitsap County 2021 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) found that the City of Port Orchard has room to develop, through vacant or underutilized lands, a total of 6,659 dwelling units, or enough space for 16,250 residents using a variety of housing types, with the BLR basing these calculations on an assumed average of 2.44 people per housing unit. This means that the City has sufficient capacity to accommodate its growth allocation developed under the VISION 2050 framework, but also that it has surplus capacity which could potentially allow the City to exceed its growth allocation. The City's Population Capacity is shown in Table 2-2: Table 2-2. Port Orchard Population Capacity and Demand 2.5.1 Current and Projected Growth and Performance Port Orchard's population growth allocation as found in Appendix B of the Countywide Planning Policies provides a target of 10,500 people to be accommodated between 2020 and 2044. As part of the City's 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, the City has the benefit of reviewing historic population growth data to evaluate its performance in accommodating population allocations. Since the City's last Comprehensive Plan Update in 2016, the City grew at an average rate of 3.1% annually as shown in Table 2-3 below. Port Orchard experienced a housing boom beginning in 2020 that continues in 2024. Prior to 2019, growth rates averaged around 2% per year. Since 2020, growth rates have been significantly higher averaging around 5%. The City projects that the current housing boom will slow in the coming years and that growth rates will return to historic averages. Table 2-3. Port Orchard Population Growth OFM Intercensal Population Estimate (prior to 2020) and Postcensal Estimates (after 2020) OFM Forecasting Year Annual Growth Rate . gee 71e The City must maintain an average annual growth rate of 1.788% over the next 20 years to meet (and not exceed) KRCC's growth allocation of an additional 10,500 population in 2044. Alternatively, the City would need to add an average of 389 residents annually over the 20-year period to reach the KRCC growth target. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-16 2.5.2 Employment Capacity The 2021 Kitsap County BLR identifies that the City had an additional employment capacity of 5,243 jobs at the time of writing the BLR, which would result in a small employment deficit compared to the 5,400 allocated employment target established in association with the Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. In order to eliminate this deficit, the City has taken multiple regulatory steps: • Increased permitted development heights within the Ruby Creek Subarea • Increased permitted development heights within the Downtown Subarea • Developed new subarea plans for Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel areas to apply appropriate zoning for existing/planned transit and infrastructure availability Based on the results of the Land Capacity Analysis conducted in association with this Update, the result of these regulatory steps has created an anticipated employment capacity of 14,015. This exceeds the allocated 2044 employment target of the Countywide Planning Policies by 53 jobs, demonstrating adequate employment capacity for the allocated employment target over the 20-year planning horizon. 2.6 Overlay Districts The City's development regulations include land use overlay districts which are applied in parts of the City. Port Orchard's overlay districts accomplish varying objectives including implementing subarea plans, providing regulations for the development in centers, regulating specific uses, and determining building heights. The City currently utilizes the following overlay districts: • Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) • Self -Storage Overlay District (SSOD) • Ruby Creek Overlay District (RCOD) • View Protection Overlay District (VPOD) • McCormick Urban Village Overlay District (MVOD) • Bethel Lund Subarea Height Overlay District • Sedgwick Bethel Subarea Height Overlay District The creation of a new overlay district may be appropriate as the City continues to develop subarea plans under the Centers approach to growth. 2.7 Land Use Goals and Policies Goals are not listed in any particular order. Port Orchard strives to: LU Goal I. Retain Port Orchard's small town commercial and residential character while accommodating allocated growth citywide. Policy LU-1 Ensure that land use and zoning regulations maintain and enhance low density residential neighborhoods, while encouraging that new development provides a mix of housing types. Policy LU-2 Limit industrial development to locations accessible from arterials or freeways and discourage industrial access through residential areas. Policy LU-3 Maintain building and site design standards that support an attractive and functional built environment in all areas of the City. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-17 Policy LU-4 Encourage the subdivision of large parcels and, through private subdivisions and public acquisitions, the creation of a continuous street grid similar in scale to the downtown's, especially in designated centers. LU Goal 2. Ensure that sufficient land is available for development to accommodate allocated growth in population and employment. Policy LU-5 Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of housing units within the City and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted population growth. Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of commercial retail and office space within the City and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted employment growth. Policy LU-6 Ensure adequate land is available for light industrial and commercial uses, including high technology, medical, and office uses, in appropriate areas to diversify Port Orchard's economic base and provide for the community's changing needs. Policy LU-7 Monitor the rate of residential, light industrial and commercial growth against the 20- year targets established in VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies, and if growth appears to deviate from a rate that complies with these targets, consider adopting reasonable measures such as reducing/increasing adopted transportation levels of service or accelerating/delaying projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-8 Allow for a variety of single-family, middle housing, and multi -family housing types and employment opportunities that meet the needs of diverse socioeconomic interests. Policy LU-9 Notify adjacent military facilities of relevant local land use decisions. Policy LU-10 Allow for the siting of organic materials (OM) management facilities to meet OM reduction and diversion goals as identified in the Kitsap County Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. LU Goal 3. Implement a strategy to develop centers. Policy LU-11 In consultation with stakeholders and the general public, develop a comprehensive strategy to implement centers as a means of directing and prioritizing residential and commercial growth. Policy LU-12 Within centers, set minimum building densities that enable lively and active streets and commercial destinations. Such limits may take the form of: minimum floors or building height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. LU Goal 4. Ensure that both public services and infrastructure are developed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Policy LU-13 Prioritize capital facilities and transportation investment in those locations targeted for growth and higher land use densities. Policy LU-14 Coordinate with Kitsap Countyto develop a plan and timeline to annex UGA land adjacent to the City, consistent with the City's capability to provide municipal services and applicable law. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-18 Policy LU-15 Identify land in the UGA that is useful for public purposes, such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, parks, schools, and other public uses. LU Goal S. Protect, enhance, and maintain the values and functions of Port Orchard's natural areas, open spaces, and critical areas. Policy LU-16 Evaluate a range of incentives to encourage compact development to preserve open space throughout the City, possibly to include density credits, incentive zoning, and/or transfer of development rights. Policy LU-17 Prioritize the development of new parks, open space, and passive and active recreational opportunities in underserved neighborhoods and centers, especially those that do not have a park within a 5-minute walk, as identified in the Port Orchard Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Policy LU-18 Incentivize infill development to preserve and protect open space, critical areas, and natural resources. Policy LU-19 Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies through zoning designations, development regulations, and the local critical areas ordinance. LU Goal 6. Reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, promote public health, reduce auto dependency, and increase multimodal transportation opportunities for accessing retail services, health care services, and places of employment. Policy LU-20 Ensure orderly development, concurrency of infrastructure provision, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas through an effective and predictable permitting process. Policy LU-21 Continue to review zoning, subdivision, and street regulations for barriers to low -impact development. Encourage the minimization of impervious surface areas in development. Policy LU-22 Promote local food security and public health by enabling the establishment of urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers markets, and food production and distribution infrastructure. Policy LU-23 Enable land use patterns that allow all residents to safely and efficiently access commercial services, especially grocery stores and healthcare facilities, without an automobile. Policy LU-24 Encourage the expansion of transit networks that enable both incorporated and unincorporated neighborhoods outside of the City to access job centers within Port Orchard. LU Goal 7. Encourage the development of active, vibrant, and attractive destinations throughout the community. Policy LU-25 Incorporate the following principles in planning for commercial areas: • Create lively and attractive places on a human scale. • Support a mix of retail, office, and residential uses in multistory structures. • Create transitions between commercial areas and surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Protect residential areas from excessive noise, exterior lighting, glare, visual Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-19 nuisances, and other conditions that detract from the quality of the living environment. • Encourage multi -modal transportation options, especially during peak traffic periods. • Promote an intensity and density of land uses sufficient to support effective transit and pedestrian activity. • Promote a street pattern that provides through connections, pedestrian and vehicular access. • Establish urban and architectural design standards that support an attractive and functional pedestrian environment, such as block size limits and requiring street - facing windows and doors. • Encourage pedestrian travel to and within commercial areas by providing: ■ Safe and attractive walkways. ■ Close groupings of land uses. ■ Parking lot design that provides safe walking routes and pedestrian connections between adjacent properties. ■ Off-street surface parking to the backs or sides of buildings to maximize pedestrian access from the sidewalk(s). LU Goal 8. Connect new and existing neighborhoods to each other, to commercial and employment centers, and to public facilities. Policy LU-26 Require adequate transitions between different land uses to mitigate potential negative impacts of noise, light, and air pollution. Policy LU-27 Require new development to provide connections to and through -access for existing and planned trails and roads. Explore strategies to encourage existing development to provide the same as part of a City- and region -wide trail and open space network. LU Goal 9. Encourage the ongoing development of downtown as an active, vibrant community, commercial, social, and civic center while respecting its historic character. Policy LU-28 In conjunction with the Centers Strategy as provided in Section 2.7, enhance downtown Port Orchard's role as the center of the South Kitsap region, reflecting the following principles in development standards and land use plans: • Encourage land uses that support transit centers and promote pedestrian activity. • Promote a mix of uses, including retail, office, and housing. • Encourage uses that will provide both daytime and evening activities. • Support civic, cultural, and entertainment activities. • Provide sufficient public open space and recreational opportunities. • Enhance, and provide access to, the waterfront. • Develop enhanced design guidelines and design review requirements that promote attractive, pedestrian -scale development and redevelopment within the City's historic downtown area. • Encourage and promote commercial building maintenance and occupancy to enhance the downtown business core. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-20 Policy LU-29 Consider conducting a downtown parking study to assess current and future parking needs and develop solutions and strategies to address identified constraints or oversupply. Policy LU-30 Ensure land use designations and development support existing maritime industries, promote creative uses of the waterfront, and facilitate the planning and construction of waterfront parks and gathering places. Goal 10. Collaborate with the County and nearby cities to develop a comprehensive watershed plan that incorporates land use strategies aimed at improving the health of Puget Sound. Policy LU-31 Reduce stormwater impacts from development through watershed planning, redevelopment and retrofit projects, and low -impact development. Policy LU-32 Coordinate land use planning with the County and nearby cities to identify changes that may occur to stream hydrology and water quality as a result of different land use scenarios and under a full build -out of the City's designated land use classifications. Policy LU-33 Implement the recommendations contained within the Downtown Basin Stormwater Plan to ensure that development of the Downtown subarea does not result in increased stormwater runoff and pollution to Puget Sound. Policy LU-34 Implement the 2023 Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan. LU Goal 1 I. Ensure land use planning is equitable and does not worsen environmental health disparities. Policy LU-35 Integrate community health, equity, and displacement into appropriate planning practices and decision -making processes. Policy LU-36 Reduce impacts to vulnerable populations' and areas that have been disproportionately affected by noise, air pollution, or other environmental impacts. LU Goal 12. Establish land use patterns that increase the resilience of the built environment, ecosystems, and community to climate change. Policy LU-37 Establish development regulations that incorporate best practices for reducing the risk of wildfire, extreme heat, flooding, and other climate -exacerbated hazards. Policy LU-38 Identify and implement strategies for reducing residential development pressure in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Policy LU-39 For areas within the Wildland Urban Interface, apply the requirements of the Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code. Policy LU-40 Develop regulations for elevating new and substantially improved structures that are at demonstrated risk of damage caused by sea level rise. Policy LU-41 Address rising sea water by siting and planning for relocation of hazardous industries and essential public services away from the 500-year floodplain. ' See RCW 36.70A.030(47) for definition of vulnerable populations Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-21 LU Goal 13. Monitor population growth rates to ensure that the City is accommodating its share of regional growth as allocated in the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU-42 If the City's population growth rate varies from the rate needed to meet the 2044 population growth target, the City should consider adopting reasonable measures such as assessing permitted structure height limits, assessing allowable densities in areas with supporting infrastructure, assessing adopted transportation levels of service or modifying the priority of growth -related projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. LU Goal 14. Coordinate and collaborate with other cities, counties, ports, special purpose districts, agencies, tribes, and the military in furtherance of regional goals and policies. Policy LU-43 Consider the potential impacts of development to culturally significant sites and tribal treaty fishing, hunting, and gathering grounds. 2.8 The Centers Strategy 2.8.1 Introduction Throughout the post-war housing booms of the 1920s and 1940s, suburban residential development has become synonymous with the beginning of a development pattern known as urban sprawl. Sprawl expands development over large amounts of land, resulting in long distances between homes, jobs, and stores. It also significantly increases dependence on the automobile and traffic on neighborhood streets and highways, as driving is required for nearly every activity. This development pattern also draws economic resources away from existing communities and spreads them thinly and inefficiently, far away from a community's historic core. This increases spending on new roads, new water and sewer lines, and police and fire protection. This ultimately leads to the degradation of the older city, higher taxes, and fewer available resources for already existing communities. In the early 1990s, Washington sought to combat this adverse development style by adopting the Growth Management Act (GMA). Among other ambitions, the GMA suggested a new development pattern broadly known as "centers". In association with the City's 2016 major update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City designated ten "local centers" in accordance with the criteria provided in the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2040. In subsequent years, VISION 2040's criteria and terminology for centers have been revised, and as such the City has revised its center terminology and boundaries for consistency. Based on the new criteria established in PSRC's VISION 2050, the City has five designated "countywide centers" and four designated "local centers". Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-22 Figure 2-3. The advantages of Infrastructure and Land Use Concurrency Compact development Power Sewer enables efficiency in OA capital facilities construction and service delivery Roads Water A. Least Dense 2.8.2 What are Centers? B. Moderately Dense C. Most Dense ��nnu nnn nun unn - -- -------- - - - -i min unn --------------'/- • Traditional neighborhoods often had smaller business districts that served surrounding residential areas. These districts typically had retail shops, markets, and services that were a short walk from the homes in the area. Additionally, these districts created a unique identity that solidified the neighborhood. With the increased cost of fuel and the economic recession, residents of Port Orchard have expressed a preference for the development of smaller, local retailers and service providers in places that knit people and commerce together on a local level. Centers are focused areas of development that have key uses which enable the City to deliver services more cost -efficiently and equitably pursue a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound and provide a means of influencing growth and change through collaboration with the community in planning for the future of these areas. This strategy helps to accommodate growth in designated areas while preserving the existing character of the community, thereby retaining more open space and the dominant pattern of existing development. Centers accomplish these objectives by: • Concentrating a thoughtful mix of supporting uses. • Allowing more intense development while maintaining appropriate scale. • Offering a wider variety of housing types that meets the needs of the broader community. • Minimizing the dependence on vehicle trips. The Centers strategy is a comprehensive and long-term approach to planning for a sustainable future that helps preserve those aspects of the community that residents' value. This approach is intended to maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services and promote collaboration with private interests and the community to achieve mutual benefits. Providing opportunities for residents, jobs, stores, services, and open spaces to be located in close proximity can reduce the reliance on cars for shopping and commuting and offer better access to daily wants and needs. Increasing residential and employment densities in key locations makes transit and other public services convenient for more people and therefore makes these services more efficient. According to VISION 2050, centers serve important roles as sub -regional hubs and secondary concentrations of development. They provide a dense mix of housing and services, such as stores, medical offices, and libraries. They serve as focal points where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living, and recreation. They often have a civic character with community facilities, such as municipal buildings and other public places. Local centers should be served Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-23 by regular local transit and regional express transit service and should have a complete network of sidewalks and access to bicycle paths and transit facilities. The Regional Centers Framework' identifies the process for the designation of Centers and defines five different types of Centers: Regional Growth Centers Regional Growth Centers are major centers strategically located to accommodate significant population and employment growth. They are characterized by compact, pedestrian -oriented development, with a mix of office, commercial, civic, entertainment, and residential uses. Regional growth centers include two subtypes — Metro Growth Centers and Urban Growth Centers. Metro Growth Centers must meet a minimum existing density of 30 activity units per acre and a minimum planned target density of 85 activity units per acre. Urban Growth Centers must meet a minimum existing density of 18 activity units per acre and a minimum planned target density of 45 activity units per acre. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Manufacturing/Industrial Centers are areas that preserve lands for family -wage jobs in basic industries and trade and provide areas where that employment may grow in the future. They are characterized by having industrial land uses and being located near ports, railroads or major highways. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers include two subtypes — Industrial Employment Centers and Industrial Growth Centers. Both subtypes must meet specific criteria for designation, including a minimum number of existing jobs, capacity to meet a minimum number of planned jobs, and have a regional role. Countywide Centers Countywide Centers are designated in accordance with each county's countywide planning policies and serve an important role as places for concentrating jobs, housing, shopping and recreational opportunities. Countywide Centers include two subtypes — Countywide Growth Centers and Countywide Industrial centers. Countywide Growth Centers must be designated within the County's Comprehensive Plan and must also meet a minimum existing density of 10 activity units per acre and must plan for a mix of residential and employment uses and have capacity for additional growth. Countywide Industrial Centers must also be designated within the County's Comprehensive Plan and have a minimum of 1,000 existing jobs and/or 500 acres of industrial land, as well as be 75% zoned for industrial uses, and have capacity for additional growth. Local Centers VISION 2050 calls for local jurisdictions to support a centers -based approach to planning and development and designate Local Centers. These centers are designated through a local planning process, not through the Regional Centers Framework process. Military Installations Military installations are a vital part of the region, and while they are not subject to local, regional or state plans and regulations, recognizing the role they play in the regional economy and to regional growth patterns is important to local planning. 8 https://www.psrc.org/media/3038 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-24 Centers achieve "Designated" status when they are officially recognized by PSRC and approved in accordance with the Regional Centers Framework. They are then eligible for infrastructure investments and prioritized for transit access. Centers that are identified as "Candidates" are those that have been identified for future growth but are still being planned for their suitability and feasibility as a Center. Figure 2-4. Pedestrian -focused Town Center Concept 2.8.3 Designated Centers (Existing and Planned) The following centers have been designated in the City's comprehensive plan by center type: Regional Centers The City has no designated regional centers at this time. Downtown Port Orchard was evaluated as part of the Downtown Subarea Planning Process as a candidate for regional center designation but achieving the PSRC requirement for 45 activity units per acre was determined to be too large of a change to Downtown Port Orchard. As Downtown continues to grow and evolve, its candidacy as a regional center should be revisited in the future. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers The City has no designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers currently. The City's only industrial park is too small to be considered either a Manufacturing/Industrial Center or a Countywide Center. Port Orchard is served by the nearby Puget Sound Industrial Center — Bremerton. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-25 Countywide Centers The City has five designated Countywide Centers. Not all of these Countywide Centers meet the minimum activity units per acre threshold per the PSRC Regional Centers Criteria for Countywide Centers (ten activity units per acre). The City intends that these Countywide Centers which do not presently meet the activity unit threshold set by PSRC will undergo land use capacity analysis in association with future subarea planning efforts to meet the activity unit threshold. These centers may temporarily be recognized as candidate countywide centers or local centers until the activity unit threshold is met. The City's designated Countywide Centers are as follows: 1. Downtown Port Orchard 2. Ruby Creek 3. Mill Hill 4. Sedgwick Bethel 5. Bethel Lund Local Centers The City has designated the following local centers: 1. Annapolis 2. Old Clifton Industrial Park 3. Tremont Center 4. McCormick Woods Military Installations The City has no military installations within the City Limits. Figure 2-5. Port Orchard Centers Map -CENTERS -1 Fs :i ANNAPOLIS BETHELILUND �.. �DOWNTDWN l MCORMICKI... ! MILE HILL ! OLD CLIFTON INDUSTRIAL � _ rY �- •-' "1 ! RUBY CREEK ! SEDGWICKJBETHEL rE- ! TREMONT / 'r- I��Yi I^ �J- ii� I f -1 - SW w DA PFT 55f. ADA ', r l G' .,. K ..I saouEE s- SnuTp sr fM =uvun-57 cr'7 M:Y 51''r. c `1' 1 5PC': g R L w '\ •'I SF'JA1LA rR _7 - I7-71 '�-$ERAWAKE RIi I- F 5'vV 1 _„ /s� _L7T-1 r— 1-+RD ydq& z 7. r 1 :lf's=HGE4 .IJ 1 �E S1LMG•BEFu1 n •jr 5 a. e u. < j - n gel SECLDA ID I r � svE Et�iELi�� Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan 1 December 2024 Page 2-26 2.8.4 General Center Policies The following are a list of general policies that Centers should seek to fulfill. Although Centers have common elements, it should be acknowledged that each Center is unique and have/will have a different set of priorities. Center goals and policies should be tailored to the specific Center in question. Generally, Centers should seek to: Policy CN-1 Prioritize the City's residential, commercial and light industrial growth and infrastructure investments within designated Centers, in accordance with VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy CN-2 Focus future growth in designated, higher intensity areas in an effort to encourage the preservation of open space and maintain surrounding neighborhood character. Policy CN-3 Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. Policy CN-4 Provide commercial services that serve the population of the Center, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region (dependent on the suitability of the scale of each Center). Policy CN-5 Support pedestrian and transit uses by promoting compact, mixed -use areas with appropriate infrastructure that provide a variety of activities. Policy CN-6 Balance objectives for accommodating growth, encouraging compatibility, promoting housing affordability, and offering a wide range of housing types. Policy CN-7 Provide access to parks and public pedestrian spaces by creating them within each Center or by creating connections to existing public and open spaces. Policy CN-8 During subarea planning for Centers, develop an implementation plan that addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. Policy CN-9 The City shall direct growth to Centers of all types through focused regulations and directed capital projects. Policy CN-10 The City should support employment growth, the increased use of non -automobile transportation options, and the preservation of the character of existing built-up areas by encouraging residential and mixed -use development at increased densities in designated Centers. Policy CN-11 The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well -served by public transit. Policy CN-12 The City shall create and designate zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. Policy CN-13 The City shall encourage a broad range of housing types and commercial uses within designated Centers, through zoning and development regulations that serve a local, citywide, or regional market. Policy CN-14 The City shall encourage the creation of public open space, private open space, and parks within and serving designated centers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-27 2.8.5 Center Descriptions and Policies Downtown Port Orchard Countywide Center In 2021, the City completed a subarea plan for Downtown Port Orchard which is adopted by reference in Appendix D. This plan combined two previous centers, the Downtown Port Orchard and County Campus Centers into one center. The center was evaluated for possible designation as a Regional Urban Growth Center, but there was a lack of support for increasing the level of activity in the center to a planned target of 45 activity units per acre. The boundaries of this center are shown on the map below: Figure 2-6. Downtown Port Orchard Countywide Center Map DOWNTOWN w a ��r o ST �9 DEKALB ST TUGBOAT qLy it % fY EWIGHTSTaw P I-D btiv done sr _IiVISION ST a lid F-T 11 m I_ �WEANYST II I ITS q i I a OSpFrr � m ST PROSPECT qLY KITSAP ST Cs DEKALB ST DWIGHT ST off. 1T--1 II DNISION ST r h o III —I k JI II 1 iT� —� QP��P S �PJF. MORTON ST HNN'FS - i --'�2I I f6L I I - IT � a� O "� ,I I > > � TAYLDRST > - . (:�I TIC -k r--J j 11 � 1 11 L IT J '7---I IT -_" - I JI_I_I I vIS e-" �KENDALL SMITH Sr a SNj IF KI N Lla_ I� y ST SROUFE _ ST L 11 / r a o� �I�� ��j Q -----_—__ .I.'. �i -�I- ----- - ,.�i� � TALC PLISKO W_ Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-28 Tremont Local Center The purpose of the Tremont Subarea Plan is to ensure that future development in the Tremont Corridor is guided by specific standards and land use regulations that have been generated by community wide involvement. Planning efforts prior to 2010 established a vision, goals, and policies for the neighborhood which appear in this section. Figure 2-7. Tremont Countywide Center Map tr JL i- SOUTH IySL. - - ■ . T —T JONES DP i TREMONT IT q - L—+— NZ "= r -�.`� — z SUNSET LN w � 5 _ _ '� � — . MAY S-TW ,L- \ CLAY LN �1 SOUTH K17SAP BLVD z— rj A -,-a -7 ��\ ! _sL4 u7 1 f 1 I �6 \ � \ J % Tremont Vision S \Lrp 4�'t Elali� � I i r� t rye1 7— r '� I I L1 ri\�. I I ♦4�r 3 r — J_- - - J CI 7_ III i I �1B���q ,TIT L,i � `I f ICII ."1'I D+D6`7 I� �L- � !SSE �ALt4aNBEAR1�RDl The Tremont Corridor is one of three primary entry points into the City of Port Orchard from Highway 16. Presently the area is a mix of single-family residences, commercial, health care facilities and multi- family residences. The expanded Harrison Hospital Urgent Care Campus and Kaiser Permanente facilities are the anchors for businesses along the corridor, particularly from Pottery Avenue west to State Route 16 forming the basis for a Hospital Benefit District. The Tremont Corridor is a through -way for travelers and residents wanting to access shops and services in the core of the city and businesses and homes in outlying areas. The Tremont Corridor also announces to residents and visitors alike that Port Orchard has economic vitality and provides services and opportunities to its citizens and residents in the south Kitsap area. Tremont Corridor and Port Orchard residents have determined that they would like to see the corridor developed in way that encourage professional businesses that support the health care facilities already Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-29 in place and businesses that allow the continuing free flow of traffic from State Route 16 into the downtown areas. Focus should be placed upon pedestrian connections within the district as well as providing a regional connection to the South Kitsap areas served by the hospitals and emergency service providers within the district. The City completed a roadway reconstruction project within the Tremont Corridor in 2018, which improved intersections, created bicycle lanes, widened sidewalks, provided street trees in landscape strips, and a landscaped median that creates a boulevard style of roadway. The Tremont corridor is promoted to include design standards that will necessitate new development to provide a consistent, attractive landscape edge while maintaining a human scale to new and redevelopment projects. A system of trails that are pedestrian and bike friendly connecting the Tremont Corridor to the Port Orchard marine walkway with trails through natural areas are key to the success of the Tremont district. The Tremont district is envisioned with some multi -family residences to accommodate the combination of residential and employment land uses within walking distances of the major health care facilities. Some cafes and neighborhood services are also envisioned to support those living, working, or visiting the health care facilities. Regulations and design guidelines should help to ensure that parking is provided in a manner that is beneficial to the neighborhood and enhances the flow of transportation through the district. In addition, Tremont Corridor stakeholders envision monument signage that are tastefully designed and constructed of natural materials. The corridor from Pottery Avenue east to Sidney Road consists primarily of single-family residences and small clinics. Single family uses are encouraged as a desired mix of services and residential uses within this district. Tremont Housing and Employment As of 2018, the Tremont Center measured 215 acres containing 1,092 residents and 702 jobs. This equates to eight activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Tremont Center Goals and Policies TC Goal 1. Encourage development within the area that supports the major hospital and medical installations (Harrison Hospital and Kaiser Permanente) and assists the emergency response agencies in the corridor (South Kitsap Fire and Rescue). Policy TC-1 Encourage regulations that enhance existing businesses while providing incentives that promote economic growth in the corridor while maintaining sensitivity to residents in the area. Policy TC-2 Encourage professional and office uses that support the medical industry and create pedestrian oriented health care focus. Policy TC-3 Promote the creation of a hospital benefit district that will create opportunities for additional community and economic development funding. TC Goal 2. Encourage residential units within walking distance to employment, services, and health care facilities. Policy TC-4 Require sidewalks or interconnected pedestrian paths or a system of trails for non - motorized transportation with all new development. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-30 TC Goal 3. Encourage development of an efficient multimodal transportation system and develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet its needs. Policy TC-5 Encourage all new developments to limit direct access to Tremont Street. Policy TC-6 All future City paving projects on streets within the Tremont Corridor should include continuous six-foot paved walkways for pedestrian use. Policy TC-7 Developments abutting public rights -of -way within the Tremont Corridor should include sidewalks and bicycle lanes consistent with the non -motorized improvements identified in the Transportation Element. Policy TC-8 The City shall help to facilitate the development of trail systems that connect the Tremont Corridor with transportation facilities in the surrounding areas. Policy TC-9 Encourage the expansion of Kitsap Transit's service to increase trip frequency within the Tremont Corridor. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-31 Mile Hill Countywide Center The Mile Hill Countywide Center consists of development along the Mile Hill Road commercial corridor and adjacent multifamily development from the South Kitsap Mall to the eastern City boundary near Whittier Avenue SW. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. As of 2018, the Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center measured 70 acres containing 174 residents and 288 jobs. This equates to seven activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. The City should aim to develop a subarea plan for this center in future years. Figure 2-8. Mile Hill Countywide Center Map ,� MILE HILL 5 ITT _ r — rl r oEKAL6 Sf �I I r � I `�-,LVIGHT ST LQk I� i L1 ;M/0LV RD �� LI• i Ill r I _ � � � —�..�-�� � �i • G S�� f-MLA _ SE T I �-��� S ! � I,1 r HUNG rvr i aMo :• �I, it I IIII� 0 �� � ■ ;� _ _— � _ -AIMSE MLLE HILL DR — -- JaJ L-�. it- T'i�-`.-�..r."'�*w-..+•-L.,r....w+' "z•r}f+ pi �. — — -- - ' r — _ I ...... TVAI M Ite p1 fi♦ ,l m ���I'� ,Q ul "q A ..'.-Pay .:.; /f�t_�ja�Ack pR E o —I � O 5�� '✓ z SE ROSE CT SE HpPI WAI' ??? g, ._ _--SE ASH AVE �►i ? �I ,� 4 LANDO .7 -secov�Ls1� L Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-32 Sedgwick-Bethel Countywide Center The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea spans across a total of 235.7 acres and is situated at the intersection of SE Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road SE. Sedgwick-Bethel is bordered by Port Orchard's unincorporated area to the east and by Blackjack Creek to the west. The study area's northern boundary encompasses recent developments and other vacant and developable lands. The Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 20.6 Activity Units per acre. For detailed information related to this Center, see Appendix F: Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan. Figure 2-9. Sedgwick-Bethel Countywide Center Map SEDGWICK/BETHEL'- L -1 T� � J 0 w 4 � SE BLUEBERRY RD _ + ' r A Lt. L --4 ---15E-SALZB 5ERRYR6 4 �■1 F 1� ■ Ik ILA` ,,; Ii • rF , lil i l r,l ; -T1 JL i i I I VIi- ■ 1 ■I � I 7- Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-33 Bethel -Lund Countywide Center The Bethel -Lund Subarea is centrally located at the intersection of Bethel Road SE and SE Lund Avenue and bounded on the west by Blackjack Creek and east by Port Orchard's unincorporated area. The study area covers a total of 211.2 acres and extends north and south to capture areas of recent and upcoming developments. The Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 14.5 Activity Units per acre. For detailed information related to this Center, see Appendix G: Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan. Figure 2-10. Bethel -Lund Countywide Center Map BETHELILUNE , SE LUNDEERYR� �. �- NL - i C T 1 ok i t - -- --- L it m —J— _C _e'AN SE LUND AVC I� I _ _Ir -, r i - ! - 4. SE OW zl �', VALLAIR'�T ' ■IIy ��,rL n +lib _.. 5E]ERR; *JW_ I -I _ L IGGLDENRoo s T �_��--� —. �I ■ L 4 _I —---- Fl i II - r /- iI. -- r � �TI 14 � - r, i 1 � mill,�._I I +� e,I zl�lwi r LI 4 i�o o;i rrif�I _ I�r j � ��I f r'j.l■. _1.J T ; II - - -� AL'MBNBtRRY-RtT I I I t I i In�;E I yl�, I � �,,��■ ��■ �*�� � llr F 1 �I-i r rl.jt J�LI zl. i IIII II,,l 5� POLAR STAR�ryAY Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan 1 December 2024 Page 2-34 Sedgwick-Sidney (Ruby Creek Neighborhood) Countywide Center The Sedgwick-Sidney Countywide Center is a rapidly developing area of the City at the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road that has seen significant multifamily and commercial development since its designation in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as a Countywide Center. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City has developed the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Subarea Plan, which was adopted in September 2020. As detailed in the Subarea Plan, the center is planned to consist of 14.82 activity units per acre (with activity units being measured by combined capacity of jobs and housing units), with the activity units being comprised of a mix of approximately 73% residential and 27% commercial at full build -out. Figure 2-11. Sedgwick-Sidney Countywide Center Map RUBY CREEK —=— _—�—� 7 _ '» 6� 04_,. l i t �\ j1 = swhovixr "_�—I 1 & "Wk I ! I— �T� +•,—,� .._..� w_.._.._«___••—: SW SEDGWICK Ro f _ SW HEPBURN WAY �E E Rir-- L L " ILI T �f it I. sW�owEY a� y -�� I— Sri /:, �— I .�! _ • � Old Clifton Industrial Park Local Center The Old Clifton Industrial Employment Local Center is located at the site of reclaimed sand and gravel mine. Its close proximity to transportation facilities and its isolation as a result of past mining activities make it an ideal site for industrial and employment uses. The site is served by Kitsap Transit and is located along Old Clifton Road near State Route 16. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area as time and resources allow. There is the potential to expand this center boundary to the south along Old Clifton Road. Any expansion should be evaluated as part of the development of a subarea plan. Figure 2-12. Old Clifton Industrial Park Local Center Map OLD CLIFTON INDUSTRIAL- y - - � .-.._..--- ....... J V SW WHITECAP LN - - - - - LUMSDEN RP 1 - LTOYD-PKWY-- i ._...._.T ;r g x m •�, i 1 SWO{D Cu,170N I@ i m F� I X Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-36 McCormick Woods Local Center The McCormick Woods Local Center is located along SW Old Clifton Road near the western boundary of Port Orchard. The Subarea includes the McCormick Village commercial district which is surrounded by a mix of single family and middle housing types. The Center includes the McCormick Village Regional Park and a future South Kitsap School District school site. In 2021, a subarea plan for this local center was prepared. See Appendix E to the Comprehensive Plan — McCormick Urban Village Subarea Plan. Figure 2-13. McCormick Woods Local Center Map Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-37 Annapolis Local Center The Annapolis Local Center is located on the Sinclair Inlet shoreline east of the Port Orchard's Downtown Countywide Center. This center includes Mitchell Point and the Annapolis Pier, from which Kitsap Transit operates a foot ferry service to Bremerton during the work week. Commuter parking is located east of the pier. The area also includes several historic buildings, commercial services, and residences, as well as a public dock and kayak launch point. The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway will end at the foot ferry facility. Figure 2-14. Annapolis Local Center Map ANNAPOLIS BEACH i , Abb / f - � Fs `� ----- —� ?F------------ 2.8.6 Road Map to Implementation Further planning for centers is required to implement the City's vision for the overall centers' strategy. The City is committed to undertaking a sub area planning process for each center, to better identify center boundaries and to develop a vision statement, goals, and policies for each center that are responsive to the unique attributes of that center. This planning process will establish recommendations for amending development regulations, zoning designations, design guidelines and capital facility plans to reflect and implement the sub area plans. It also ensures that public engagement and community outreach efforts will be conducted to provide members of the community the opportunity to help steer the direction of the planning efforts. Subarea plans for the centers will be adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 2-38 Chapter 3 Housing 3.1 Introduction The intent of the Housing element is to establish coordinated and comprehensive policies that will help guide decisions on housing issues within and around Port Orchard. Provisions that ensure suitable housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels are a primary consideration in enhancing the quality of life found in Port Orchard. Information in the Housing Element is supplemented by the June 2023 Housing Action Plan, which identified current housing trends Housing Vision and developed actionable strategies through an equity lens Enable housing opportunities for all to support and encourage housing production that meet socioeconomic levels that local community housing needs. The Housing Element also accommodates population growth works in conjunction with the overarching goals of the entire while balancing new and existing Comprehensive Plan, as well as the housing goals of neighborhood characteristics. Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). As Port Orchard grows, it will be important to provide a variety of housing types to suit the needs and preferences of the expanding population. Addressing housing from various perspectives, such as promoting homeownership and creating more diverse housing opportunities, will be necessary to meet the housing needs of all of Port Orchard's residents now and into the future. Through the adopted goals and policies under the Housing Element, the City will pursue opportunities to: • Preserve and improve existing housing stock • Expand overall housing supply • Encourage housing that is affordable to all income levels • Establish mechanism to reduce displacement due to development • Promote thriving, healthy neighborhoods Figure 3-1. Housing example Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-39 3.2 Conditions and Trends 3.2.1 Housing Stock Housing Type As of 2021, there were 6,165 housing units in the City, per 2020 census data. Port Orchard's housing stock is predominantly single -unit buildings (70%), nearly all of which are single-family detached homes and a small number of attached townhomes. Figure 3-2. Housing Unit Type in Port Orchard 2020. Larger apartment building with 5+units make up the next largest category (22%). There are relatively few "middle housing" 2-4 units and 3-4 Ur manufactured homes. The breakdown of 4% housing unit type is shown in Figure 3-2. 2- Housing Age and Production Port Orchard's housing stock is considerably younger than regional averages. Over half of the housing stock was built after 1990, and two-thirds was built after 1980. This is reflective of Port Orchard's high rate of Manufarti irari Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. N housing production and permitting in recent decades. Figure 3-3 shows an uptick in permitting starting in the early 2000s and the prevalence of single-family and larger apartment developments. Note that this data shows issued permits, not all these projects were and will be necessarily completed. Most of the single-family development seen in the past five years has been in McCormick Woods subdivision, which was annexed by the City in 2009, and the Bethel-Sedgwick area. Recent forthcoming projects of multifamily developments have been spread out throughout Port Orchard. According to the City's permit data, over 5,000 units are currently in the pipeline which shows some increase in housing diversity with future developments of fourplex, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, and mixed uses (Figure 3-3). The high rate of housing production will almost double the Port Orchard' housing inventory within the next several years. Figure 3-3. Permits Issued in Port Orchard by Unit Type, 1982-2022 600 ■ 5+ Unit Multifamily 500 E Triplex / 4-Plex ■ Duplex 400 a Single -Family 300 0 aD 200 E ,Z 100 0 �A 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-40 Figure 3-4. Number of Units Permitted with Certificates of Occupancy Expected 2022 and Later by Unit Type 3,000 2,500 G 2,000 m 1,500 n C z 1,000 500 0 2022 Source: City of Port Orchard. ■ Mixed -Use Development ■ 5+ Unit Apartment ■ 4-Plex ■ Town house - ■ Development including single- family homes and townhomes Single Family 202= 2024 Permitting Initiated, Timeline Uncertain Middle housing provides solutions to expand housing choices and opportunities for households at all income levels and stages of life. As seen in Figure 3, developments of middle housing types, including fourplexes and townhomes, are gaining traction, likely due to the increasing need of more attainable housing choices. Supporting the development of middle housing can help expand the overall housing supply, potentially alleviating price pressures across the housing market. Additionally, it can create more homeownership opportunities, as these housing types are generally more affordable than single-family homes due to lower per -unit construction and land costs. Middle housing can also gently increase residential density in existing residential and mixed -use neighborhoods, easing pressures for additional infrastructure or further sprawl and foster more walkable neighborhoods as more residents can live near job centers and transit hubs and support retail corridors. 3.2.2 Tenure The majority of Port Orchard residents are homeowners (61%), while 39 percent are renters. This closely mirrors the statewide averages for renter households (36%), but it is notably higher than the county average (30%), largely due to the number of apartments in Port Orchard compared to the other parts of the county. Renters often face greater housing instability, including risks of eviction and rent increases, challenges that homeowners are less likely to encounter. Moreover, renters are more likely to be Black, Indigenous, and Other People of Color (BIPOC), as well as lower -income households, compounding these housing -related challenges. See 3.3 Housing Affordability and Figure 11, Share of Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-41 What is Middle Housing? "Middle housing" includes duplexes, townhouses, cottages, courtyard apartments, and other building types that fall between single-family detached houses and apartments. Middle housing units tend to be more affordable to build than single-family houses and offers greater varieties of layout and sizes that are suited for a wider range of households. Expanding the areas where middle housing is allowed offer greater opportunities for "starter homes", or homeownership, to the new generation. ADUs Duplexes/ Triplexes Fourplexes Cottage Clusters - r - - Townhouses Source: Makers, 2023 Courtyard apartments Small apartments (5-10 units) Figure 3-5 below shows that renters in Port Orchard tend to earn less than homeowners. In 2021, the median household income for renter households was $47,785, compared to $101,318 for ownership households. Additionally, renters have experienced slower income growth than homeowners. Between 2010 and 2021, renter incomes increase by 28 percent whereas ownership households grew by 58 percent increase. These disparities in both income and growth rate raise concerns about the ability of renters to transition into homeownership, particularly as wealthier households may outbid them for available housing. Figure 3-5. Median Household Income by Tenure in Port Orchard, 2010-2021 $101,318 $75,766 $64,068 $50,275 ME 01 -_ 1 All Households Ownership Households ■ 2010 2021 $47,785 $37,351 FF1 Renter Households Source: American Community Survey 2021 5-Year estimates, Table 52503 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-42 Vacancy Rates During the mid-2010s, vacancy rates for both renters and homeowners decreased but have recently rebounded due to the increase in housing demand and prices. The overall vacancy rate is currently around 8.5 percent as of April 2024. 3.2.3 Demographics Port Orchard is a rapidly growing city, currently home to 18,300 residents as of April 1, 2024. Since the last Comprehensive Plan Update in 2016, Port Orchard has grown on average 3.1 percent annually. Over the 20-year planning horizon for this 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, the City is required to plan for 10,500 additional population by 2044 based on Countywide Planning Policies and population allocations. The historical growth rate and population allocation suggests a sustained demand for housing in Port Orchard in the coming years. Refer to the Land Use Element Section 2.5.1 for additional population growth and population allocation information. Port Orchard's population is notably younger. During the 2010-2021 period, over half the residents were under 34 years old, typically working and family -building ages, resulting in a corresponding increase in children under 19. Port Orchard also has a smaller share of residents of adults 65 and over. Figure 3-6 shows the racial and ethnic makeup of Port Orchard residents. About two-thirds of Port Orchard's residents are white and has a relatively large share of Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations. Port Orchard is more diverse than Kitsap County, where 25 percent of the population identifies as persons of color compared to 30 percent in Port Orchard. According to 2021 ACS, about 3.5 percent of Port Orchard residents, or 351 residents, speak Spanish at home. Figure 3-6. Race & Ethnicity in Port Orchard, 2021 Two or More Native Hawai}an Races American Ind / Alaska Nati 1% Black / Africa American 2% 69% Source: American Community Survey 2021, 5-year Estimate, Table DP02 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-43 Households Overall, Port Orchard's average household size (2.56) is similar to county (2.53) and statewide averages (2.55). Port Orchard has a high share of households of married or cohabitating couples with no children (34%) and those with children (29%). Figure 3-7. Port Orchard Population and Growth Rate, 1960 — 2020 Older Adults Living Alone 9% Single Adult(s) 20% Single parents 8°% Couple, No children 34% pie, with iildren 29% Source: Washington Office of Financial Management U.S Census Bureau, LCG Figure 3-8 shows the current mismatch between the need and availability of housing units for smaller household size. Approximately 57 percent of households are made up of one or two people, whereas only 35 percent of housing units are studio, one- or two -bedroom units. Although smaller households may choose to live in larger units, the mismatch can lead to housing affordability issues if smaller households are not able to find units suitable to their needs and budget. Figure 3-8. Household Size and Housing Unit Size in Port Orchard, 2021 Household Size 4+ percnn house[ 269 3-persor househol 17°/a 1-person hold rson ,hold 35% 4+ 42% Housing Unit Size Source: American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP04, S2501 Studio / 1 h...l..,.._ Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-44 Port Orchard's younger population and shifting household dynamics signal the growing demand for smaller, more affordable housing options. As younger residents age and form families, the future demand for larger housing units is also likely to grow. To meet these evolving needs, encouraging alternative housing solutions, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and middle housing, create a flexible and adaptable housing market. These options offer a range of benefits, from accommodating multigenerational households to supporting older adults who wish to age in place and maintain their independence. By diversifying housing choices, Port Orchard can better respond to its residents' changing needs over time, ensuring long-term stability and inclusivity within the community. 3.3 Housing Affordability Lack of affordable housing has ranked as a very high community concern. The Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP) engaged with housing stakeholders and the general public, who conveyed there is a lack of housing options in Port Orchard, even with recent regulatory changes by the City. Low - to -moderate income workers and fixed - income retirees report struggling to afford housing in Port Orchard, and long-time residents are seeing their adult children unable to afford buying a home in Port Orchard. There is concern that essential service and retail workers are leaving the community, limiting the social and economic diversity of Port Orchard, and thus creating challenging conditions for local businesses. In a survey, a little over 60 percent of renters and almost 50 percent of homeowners reported being at risk of losing their home from a major unexpected financial event (such as an illness or job Universal Design and Aging in Place. Housing opportunities are maximized if housing design and choices accommodate the change people experience over their lives due to aging or life circumstances. Universal design principles ensure that all members of the community, regardless of age, size, or ability, can enjoy and use the built environment. Thus, promoting housing options, services, proFigure 5-3. Blackjack Creek cFigure 5-2. Flooding occurrence nFigure 5-4. Ross Creek s to create a more livable community. Bathroom and kitchen designed with universal des loss). Furthermore, housing providers report source: U.S HUD that cost inputs for new housing are going in the wrong direction amid rising prices for materials, labor, and land. Despite these great challenges, there may be some regulatory opportunities to improve the cost efficiency of construction plus opportunities to create partnerships with affordable housing providers. Regulatory tweaks to the code and design standards, promoting multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, and friendlier development processes for housing providers are among the solutions stakeholders feel could help better achieve Port Orchard's housing goals. 3.3.1 Housing Tools, Incentives, and Barriers In this section, "affordable housing" means 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). The main affordable housing provider in Port Orchard is Housing Kitsap, a government agency that provides housing assistance for families who Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-45 need affordable alternatives to the private market. Housing Kitsap operates countywide. The City of Port Orchard does not currently have any funding streams directly funding affordable housing development or preservation. Port Orchard previously administered a multifamily tax exemption program (adopted in 2016), under which 20 affordable housing units were developed by private developers prior to the program's repeal in 2023. Port Orchard does not have development regulation incentives for affordable housing. The Housing Action Plan Existing Conditions Report identifies a number of regulatory and financial barriers, including complex code organization, tree protection standards, high impact fees relative to Kitsap County, and land use and form standards that make some types of housing difficult to develop. 3.3.2 Housing Prices Rising Faster than Income In recent years, rising housing and rental costs and stagnating income has strained all households across the state, including Port Orchard. Since 1989 (the earliest Kitsap County data is available from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis), housing prices in Kitsap County have increased faster than incomes. From 1989 to 2022, median housing prices have approximately tripled while median incomes have only doubled. The price of goods and services has also more than doubled; in 1989 an item that could be purchased for $10 is now $23.22, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. Figure 3-9. Household Incoming and Housing Price in Kitsap County, 1989-2022 (Indexed to 2000) 3.50 Median Household Income {2024 $) 3.00 Housing Price Index 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 rn 0 ry m Ln co r— oo M 0 cv m Ln co r� co M 0 r ti m n �n co rn o cv co M rn M rn M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r J cv N rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r r r CV rV eV CV rL rV CV rV rL fV CV CV eV cV eV rV r\j CV CV eV fV CV CV Source: Federal Reserve of St Louis (FRED) database on Household Income and Housing Price Despite the wide range of incomes and housing prices in Kitsap County, the overall trend reveals that many workers have not seen their incomes increase at a pace necessary to afford a typical home. The current relationship between housing prices and income has become strained, as housing has become more difficult to afford for the average Port Orchard resident. Households earning the median income may not be able to afford, or have difficulty, in purchasing a median -priced home. Many renters find it challenging to transition into homeownership. The gap between home prices and household earnings highlights a housing market with high demand and limited affordable options, placing additional pressure on both current residents and those seeking to buy a home in Port Orchard (Figure 3-10). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-46 Figure 3-10. Housing Affordability at Various Price and Income Levels in Port Orchard, 2021 �900 ■ Household Income ($1,000s) $800 House Price ($1,000s) $700 $600 Median Sales Price ($468) $500 $400 $300 Median Household $200 Income ($75) $100 $25 $_ .0 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. 40 $304 $202 $75 $100 , $150 $607 Source: Federal Reserve of St Louis (FRED) database on Household Income and Housing Price $200 $810 While all households are affected, communities of color and lower -income households are disproportionately impacted. These groups tend to face greater housing instability as they spend a higher percentage of their income on housing and have lower homeownership rates. The majority of ownership households in Port Orchard are White and Asian, and lower among Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, Hispanic and Latino, and other races and ethnicities. (See Figure 11). This underscores the need for policies that promote housing stability and accessibility, particularly for the most vulnerable populations who face heightened risks of housing insecurity. Figure 3-11. Share of Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity ALL HOUSEHOLDS WHITE, NON -HISPANIC OR LATINO ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC AND LATINO OTHER / TWO OR MORE RACE NATIVE HAWAIIAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER ■ Rent ■ Own Source: AC2 2020 5-year Estimates, Table B25003 3.3.3 Racially Disparate Impacts The Housing Element includes a Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(2)(e) and (f). Taking a proactive approach in shaping policy can help reduce historical patterns of segregation, displacement, and inequitable outcomes. As part of the 2024 periodic update, Housing Element goals and policies were evaluated and updated to reduce racially disparate impacts. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-47 Key findings from the analysis are: • Port Orchard is more diverse than Kitsap County. • Households of color, particularly Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino households, are more likely to be cost -burdened than white households. In addition, renting is more common among non -white households and the cost burden for renter households is significantly higher than for owner households. Black/African American households are significantly more likely to rent than own their home. • There is a shortage of housing available for those making less than 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and those making more than 80 percent AMI. • Half of Black/African American households and nearly three quarters of Pacific Islander households in Port Orchard are classified as extremely low-income, making less than 30 percent of AMI. Just three percent of Black/African American households earn more than 100 percent AMI. • Most of Port Orchard is considered low risk for displacement by the Puget Sound Regional Council, but Downtown and the Bethel and Sidney corridors have a moderate risk of displacement from new housing development or redevelopment. Downtown and the Sidney Ave. corridor area also have a higher share of BIPOC households. Refer to the Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis in Appendix J for more information. 3.3.4 Cost -Burdened Households The U. S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a measurement of "cost burden" to describe a Area median income (AMI) is subset of community's residents spending more that 30 another data point often used by percent of their income for housing. "Severely cost- local government to set income burdened" households spend more than 50% of their monthly limits for subsidized affordable income on housing costs. These households pay a very large housing. It is the household income share of their income on housing costs which impacts their for the region. /'middle' household in a givenn rregi ability to afford other life essentials like healthcare, childcare, and transportation. In other words, cost -burdened households are most at risk of displacement or housing hardship and in need of housing support. Figure 12 below shows the most recent HUD data on Port Orchard cost -burdened households by income based on percentage of HUD Area Median Income (AMI), which was $85,500 in 2019. In total, 1,670 low- and moderate -income households, or 32 percent of Port Orchard's households, are facing cost burdens, 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. Housing Action Plan stakeholders noted that 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. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-48 Figure 3-12. Cost -Burdened Low -Income Households by Income Bracket in Port Orchard, 2019 ■ Severely Cost Burdened 80-100% AM I o° Cost Burdened Not Cost Burdened A I � 50-80%AMI E 0 V C 0 30-50% AMI ■ v 0 < 30% AMI 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Number of Households Source: 2015-2019 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 3.3.5 Special Needs Housing The special needs populations typically encompass individuals who require support in their daily lives due to disabilities, health conditions, age, or other specific circumstances. These individuals may require specific housing accommodations or assistance. Social service programs, institutional settings, and assisted living facilities all cater to a portion of these needs. Currently, there are various supportive and group housing options for people with mental or physical disabilities, as well as a significant number of senior housing and assisted living facilities in Port Orchard. Port Orchard will continue to support the development of housing for people with specials needs through partnership with the County, service providers, and housing developers. 3.4 Housing Projection Port Orchard is designated as a High -Capacity Transit Community in Vision 2050 (PSRC March 2021). Using the Vision 2050 framework, the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Committee's (KRCC) adopted Countywide Planning Policies setting a regional framework for its cities to accommodate growth while providing a share of the region's housing. The projected population growth for Port Orchard during the 2020-2044 planning period is 10,500 people, resulting in a population of 26,087 by 2044. According to the Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the average household size in Port Orchard is 2.64 people. This means that Port Orchard will need an additional 4,943 housing units by 2044. In other terms, Port Orchard needs to build an average of 198 new housing units per year to support projected growth. Figure 3-13 shows the number of new housing units needed for each income level. The largest housing needs by income in Port orchard is for very low-income households, with 30 percent of AMI or less, and for low-income households, between 30 and 50 percent of AMI. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-49 Figure 3-13. Port Orchard Housing Supply and Need by Income >120% AMI 100-120% AMI 80-100% AMI 50-80% AMI 30-50% AMI 0-30%AMI, non-PSH 1,2 717 16S76 -� 1,246 507 2,051 998 ss, _ 540 0 619 2 Totals 288 Current Supply: 8,610 Housing Units* 0-30% AMI, PSH ]WE New Supply Needed: Emergency Temporary Housing 1W09 3,704 Housing Units -500 500 1,500 2,500 Baseline Supply (2020) Built 2020-2024 ■ Remaining New Supply Needed (2024-2044) *Note: The total current supply includes units constructed in 2020 and pending developments (2020-2024) PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing: A low-income housing mode where social, medical, and job service are provided on -site to help transition people out of homelessness. Emergency housing: Temporary accommodation for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Source: Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Allocation Through 2044, 2024 3.5 Housing Capacity by Income Band HB 1220, passed in 2021, amended the GMA to require additional housing unit capacity analysis by what income bands can be served by future housing units. Port Orchard's targets (based on 2020 data) and units built and permitted (since 2020) are shown in Figure 13. A Land Capacity Analysis was conducted as part of this comprehensive planning process to evaluate Port Orchard's ability to meet these targets within current zoning in the City. This analysis considered vacant, redevelopable, and partially -used parcels as classified in the City's 2019 Buildable Lands Analysis and updated based on development since 2019. Critical area acreage and deductions for future infrastructure needs and market factors were then removed from the gross vacant, redevelopable, and partially -used acreage. The net remaining acreage was analyzed by zone based on potential future density of development in each zone, as outlined in Port Orchard's zoning code, and accounting for recent development densities in the city. The results of this analysis were then aggregated by zone category based on the Department of Commerce methodology outlined in the 2023 guidebook "Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element." Following this framework, capacity for low-income households earning 0-80% AMI (HUD Area Median Income) is provided in zones allowing for apartments and multifamily housing types. Capacity for middle -income households earning 80-120% AMI is provided through townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and higher -end apartments. Capacity for high -income households earning 120% AMI and above is provided through zones allowing detached single-family homes. In addition, pending units were assigned to various income bands based on the income levels needed to afford those units based on current rental and home price data in Port Orchard. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-50 The results of this land capacity analysis show that Port Orchard has sufficient capacity to meet projected housing needs of low-, moderate-, and high -income households. The table below shows the City's housing needs, pending units, and land capacity for 0-80% AMI, 80-120% AMI, and 120% + AMI households through 2044. A full discussion of methodology and results of this analysis can be found in Appendix I Port Orchard Land Capacity Analysis. Figure 3-14. Port Orchard Land Capacity Analysis Income Band Housing Need Aggregated Housing Needs Pending Units Remaining Needs Total Capacity Surplus/ Deficit 0-307D AMI P5H 414 2,848 967 1,881 1,920 39 0-30% AMI Non P5H 944 30-507D AMI 810 50-80c,; AMI 680 80-100c,; AMI 351 696 1,148 -452 2,302 2,754 100 120c,; AM 345 120%AMI + 1,399 1,399 2,308 -909 211 1,120 Total 4,943 4,943 4,423 520 4,433 3,913 Source: WA Department of Commerce, Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-51 3.6 Housing Goals and Policies The ability of the region to provide various housing opportunities for residents in and around Port Orchard is very important. Limited housing opportunities adversely impact housing choice, economic development, neighborhood/community image and pride. Creating policy language that champions housing availability and affordability across all income levels serves to foster these concepts. This section seeks to establish basic policy principles related to housing availability and affordability. Port Orchard strives to: HS Goal I. Housing stock is planned to accommodate growth targets, housing demands, and changes in the population. Policy HS-1 Ensure zoned capacity is sufficient to accommodate housing development to meet needs consistent with adopted targets. (see Figure 13 Port Orchard Housing Supply and Need by Income). Policy HS-2 Encourage production of diverse housing types throughout the City to expand housing choice and access for residents in all stages of life and all household sizes to meet the goals set under RCW 36.70A.020(4). These housing types include but are not limited to detached single-family homes, middle housing forms, multifamily dwelling units (within both single -purpose and mixed -use buildings), live -work dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, and clustered housing forms. Policy HS-3 Periodically evaluate City development standards and regulations to ensure it reflects market trends and, where appropriate, modify development regulations that unnecessarily add to housing costs and minimize the feasibility of building affordable housing. Periodically assess the amount of housing produced under these standards. HS Goal 2. Ensure that affordable housing options are available to all socioeconomic levels of Port Orchard residents. Policy HS-4 Provide opportunities through future land use and zoning districts for an economically diversified housing supply, including extremely low, very low-, low-, moderate-, and upper -income levels, to maximize housing options and serve a broad range of community needs. (RCW 36.70a.070(2) (d)). Policy HS-5 Support the development of housing and related services that are provided by regional housing programs and agencies for special needs populations, especially the homeless, children, the elderly, and people with mental or physical disabilities. Policy HS-6 Coordinate with other public entities, nonprofits, and religious organizations to preserve and facilitate development of permanent supportive housing, emergency shelters, and emergency housing. (RCW 36.70a.070(2) (c)) Policy HS-7 Evaluate surplus public land for affordable housing. Identify opportunities to lease or sell public land to affordable housing providers. (RCW 39.33.015(1)). Policy HS-8 Allow an increased density bonus for affordable housing located on property owned by a religious organization. (RCW 36.70A.545 and RCW 35A.63.300). Policy HS-9 Ensure that City fees and permitting time are balanced between housing affordability considerations and the need for supporting City services. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-52 Policy HS-10 Provide incentives and work in partnership with not -for profit and for -profit developers land trusts, and public housing authorities, such as Housing Kitsap, to develop and preserve long-term affordable housing options. Policy HS-11 Encourage development of housing that is affordable for workers at all income levels that is located near transit, education and training opportunities and other employment centers. Policy HS-12 Promote development of attached and detached ADUs in all residential to provide additional housing choices for all economic income levels, multi -generational households, and smaller households in residential neighborhoods. (RCW 36.70A.680). Policy HS-13 Expand capacity for middle housing in low -density residential neighborhoods that are unencumbered by critical areas or their buffers throughout the city to increase home ownership and rental housing options. (RCW 36.70A.635). Policy HS-14 Promote middle housing and multifamily housing with family size units. Consider the recommendations of the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan on refining the building type and form/intensity standards, adjusting the locally adopted building code, supporting staffing needs, and funding strategies. Policy HS-15 Consider the creation of zoning and other land use incentives for the private construction of affordable and special needs housing as a percentage of units in multifamily development. Policy HS-16 Consider adopting incentives for development of affordable multifamily homes, including middle housing, through property tax abatement in accordance with 84.14 RCW, focusing on designated centers with identified needs for residential infill and redevelopment. Policy HS-17 Explore the re-establishment of a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program as a means of increasing the City's affordable housing supply. Consider the recommendations of the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan on eligible zones and properties, qualifying income levels, program duration, development incentives, and other standards. HS Goal 3. Promote the efficient use of residential land in order to maximize development potential and make efficient use of municipal infrastructure. Policy HS-18 Encourage housing growth concentration within walking and bicycling distance of public schools, parks, transit service, and commercial centers. Promote improvements to pedestrian and bicycles facilities where most housing growth is occurring. Policy HS-19 Encourage the development of both vertical and horizontal forms of mixed -use developments featuring a combination of multifamily housing and nonresidential uses within centers. Policy HS-20 Implement zoning and development regulations which encourage infill housing on empty and redevelopable parcels. Policy HS-21 Consider increasing maximum housing densities and implementing minimum housing densities in appropriate areas to increase land and infrastructure efficiency. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-53 Policy HS-22 Protect critical areas, or environmentally sensitive areas, from future housing development. Determine appropriate densities and uses and implement flexible development standards to balance the goals of housing targets and environmental protection. Policy HS-23 Establish a process for annexation informed by the need for infrastructure investments in new residential areas. Evaluate the fiscal impacts of higher infrastructure maintenance costs and additional service expenses resulting from annexation. HS Goal 4. Reduce disparities in housing access and mitigate displacement impacts to vulnerable communities. Policy HS-24 When plans and investments are expected to create neighborhood change, use public investment and coordinate with nonprofit housing organizations to mitigate impacts of market pressure that cause involuntarily displacement of low-income households and vulnerable communities. Policy HS-25 Advocate for additional funding at County, Federal, State, and other levels to expand programs that: • facilitate home ownership for low- to moderate -income resident, • prevent, avoidable, involuntary evictions and foreclosures, and • provide assistance for repair, rehabilitation, energy efficiency, and weatherization. Policy HS-26 Encourage a variety of ownership opportunities and choices by allowing and supporting including but not limited land trusts, tenant opportunity to purchase programs, limited equity cooperative, and sweat equity. Policy HS-27 Consider programs and other maintenance support, such as use of Community Development Block Grants or Housing Repair Programs to preserve or rehabilitate neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or abandonment. Policy HS-28 Encourage senior and special needs housing to be integrate throughout the community and be located near services. Policy HS-29 Strengthen coordination between the City, county, and service providers to provide homelessness support service and outreach. Adopt a Housing First approach. HS Goal S. Promote functional and livable forms of housing that integrates well with its surroundings and accommodates people in all stages of life. Policy HS-30 Encourage the development and maintenance of all housing, especially multifamily housing, that protects health and safety of residents and support healthy lifestyle and active living. Policy HS-31 Encourage energy efficient housing types that conserve non-renewable energy and help minimize impact on air quality and climate. Policy HS-32 Support housing options, programs, and services that allow seniors to "age in place" in their homes or neighborhoods. Promote awareness of Universal Design improvements to improve accessibility. Policy HS-33 Promote healthy, livable, and functional forms of housing at all scales through code Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-54 provisions that provide for usable open space and/or recreational facilities, pedestrian connectivity, and safe and welcoming development frontages. Policy HS-34 Provide information and assistance to property owners of historically significant housing to encourage preservation of these cultural resource. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 3-55 Chapter 4 Parks and Recreation 4.1 Introduction The Parks and Recreation Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan provides direction and guidance to improve and maintain the City's existing parks and recreation facilities while also creating new parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of a growing population. This Element has been developed as a collaborative effort with input from members of the public, elected and appointed officials, and Parks and Recreation Vision Parks and open space are essential components in the fabric of a vibrant city. Our safe and well - maintained parks and recreation facilities knit the community together, stabilize and enhance residential neighborhoods, and add vitality to the downtown core while encouraging and supporting increased shoreline access and recreation. Planning Department staff. The Element was updated to reflect current (2024) data, facilities, and population, with the planning horizon projected to 2044. To supplement this Element, the 2022 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan is adopted by reference in Appendix D. This Element serves as a guide for general parks and recreation improvements while the PROS Plan identifies specific facilities and includes more detailed plans for maintenance, improvements, and/or additions. The City's regulatory and non -regulatory decision making, including budget decisions related to parks, should be consistent with both the Parks and Recreation Element and the PROS Plan. Used in this way, comprehensive parks planning minimizes conflict in decision -making and promotes coordination among programs and regulations to best serve the whole Port Orchard community. Over the next 20 years, the City of Port Orchard plans to focus on maintaining existing parks and recreation facilities while also expanding to meet future needs. These efforts will be funded by annual budget expenditures, grants, impact fees, and other financial means available to the City. Although the emphasis is to maintain the existing park system, the number of parks and trails will need to increase to meet the demands of the new population. Based on the levels of service identified in the City's PROS Plan, over the next 20 years the City should acquire additional land for new parks, recreation facilities, and open space opportunities consistent with the PROS Plan. 4.2 Public Involvement Throughout the development of and subsequent updates to the Comprehensive Plan and PROS Plan, the public has been offered several opportunities to provide input and feedback through surveys and public meetings/workshops. Public input and feedback assist the City to build a better understanding of the community's needs and desires, which is used to inform updates to the Plans. As part of the public engagement for the development of the 2022 PROS Plan, a survey was distributed to households within the Port Orchard zip codes. Survey results indicated high levels of satisfaction in the existing park and trail levels of service. The survey results also revealed Waterfront Park and McCormick Village Park as the most frequently used. More details on public engagement efforts and input gathered is available in the PROS Plan in Appendix D. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-56 4.3 Parks Vision — Connections The City of Port Orchard 2024 Comprehensive Plan identifies designated Centers. The vision of the Parks Element and PROS Plan is to ensure that every center contains and/or is connected to a park by safe non - motorized routes. Trails and open spaces were identified as a top outdoor facility (with ADA accessibility) to be added to Port Orchard in the 2022 Parks Survey. Connecting local centers and parks with safe non -motorized routes, including those in public right-of-way such as bike lanes and walking shoulders, will increase access to active transportation for all residents and benefit the entire community. The Nonmotorized section of the Transportation Element provides further detail on existing and future trails. Figure 4-1. Parks and Open Space Map 7 F a Port Orchard parks and open spaces City Limits Urban Cl. th Ar 4.4 Existing Conditions 1 Bethel South Property 2 Bravo Terrace Open Space 3 Central/flayton Park 4 OeKalb Pier 5 Etta Turner Park 6 Givens Field/Active Club 7 Lundberg Park 9 McCormick Village Park 9 Mitchell Park 10 Old Clifton Wetlands 1 t Paul Powers Jr Park 12 RockweIl Park 13 Seattle Avenue Open Space 14 Van Zee Park 15 windfall Place Tot Lot [6 flay Street Pedestr a Path Port Orchard provides a range of parks, recreation, open space, and ecosystem services by protecting native wildlife habitat, restoring and preserving natural systems, enjoying majestic marine and mountain views, and ensuring new development enhances the natural environment. The existing City parks system is supplemented by South Kitsap School District and the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department facilities. An inventory of current parks facilities and maps showing park facility locations is included in the PROS Plan in Appendix D. 4.5 Future Planned Parks Facilities The PROS Plan provides a long-term vision and goals and objectives for the entire parks and open space network, including trail systems, recreation facilities, historic and cultural resources, and specific City - Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-57 owned properties. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocates capital facility funds to maintain and acquire new parks and recreation facilities in the City and implements the goals and objectives of the PROS Plan. Additional potential sources of revenue to implement the PROS Plan goals and objectives include Port Orchard Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) and grant applications to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). 4.6 Challenges and Opportunities Challenges The City of Port Orchard faces a rapidly growing population. To provide adequate parks, trails, and recreation opportunities for the growing community, the City has developed new public park facilities in collaboration with McCormick Communities (St. Andrews Park and McCormick West pedestrian pathways). The City is also working toward developing a community event center with surrounding plazas, remodeling the Givens Park sports courts, building a new regional stormwater park southeast of Sherman Avenue, and expanding Ruby Creek Regional Park and McCormick Village Park. As the City's population and parks facilities grow, limited City resources, including staff time are strained. In the future, the City may wish to consider creating a Parks Department. The relative lack of safe non -motorized transportation infrastructure (i.e.; walking and bicycling paths) within the City is identified as a significant issue in the Non -Motorized section of the Transportation Element. It is also a challenge for parks and recreation planning, as one of the City's identified goals is to create non -motorized trail and path connections between local centers, parks, the waterfront, and other areas where people live and work within the community. The 2022 PROS Plan analyzed general walkability to recreation facilities based on existing City, Kitsap County, Port of Bremerton, South Kitsap School District, and Homeowner Association (HOA) facilities. The results indicate that there are significant amounts of developed areas within the City and UGA that lack effective park and recreation services, including but not limited to the following: • Port Orchard Centers — including portions of the designated centers in the Comprehensive Plan. • Undeveloped lands — in the northwest portion of the City, near Ross Point, • McCormick Woods — in the northeast portion of the development, where passive open spaces are provided, but not active uses such as playgrounds, sports courts, or other park amenities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-58 Opportunities The City of Port Orchard benefits from its proximity to centers for recreation, open space, and sports fields outside City limits, and/or held by other agencies or groups, such as the South Kitsap School District and Kitsap County. Creating and strengthening regional partnerships will enable Port Orchard and its partners to provide higher quality facilities and more opportunities to access recreation opportunities than would be possible alone. The City of Port Orchard is already working with Kitsap County and other nearby jurisdictions to expand a regional water trail including shoreline access with launch points, rest areas, and parking facilities. As identified in the Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, additional improvements to the City's non - motorized transportation network should be a prioritized to provide residents and visitors wider access to opportunities to enjoy a safe, interconnected system of parks and trails. The 2022 PROS Plan was approved by the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), meaning the City is eligible for recreation and conservation grant programs through the RCO, which could potentially fund park land acquisition to keep up with the growing population and demand for parks and recreation facilities. 4.7 Parks and Recreation Goals and Policies The City of Port Orchard has maintained a consistent set of goals and objectives in its endeavor to provide recreation opportunities to the community. The overall goal of the Parks Element is to develop and maintain adequate and convenient parks, recreation, and open space areas and facilities for all users and better serve both the existing and future population of Port Orchard and surrounding areas. This goal can be achieved by several objectives. Objective 1: Increase public access to the marine shoreline. Objective 2: Preserve and enhance active and scenic open space by: a. Enhancing and improving existing park facilities. b. Discouraging obstructions of scenic views. Objective 3: Increase the size and number of parks and open spaces by: a. Establishing partnerships with other agencies to jointly utilize public facilities. b. Promoting through public and private investments, the acquisition of open space facilities, and proper maintenance thereof. c. Using public input to develop plans for public parks. Objective 4: Provide parks, trails, and open spaces within walking distance of residents by: a. Prioritizing historically underserved communities for open space improvements and investments. b. Promoting equitable access to recreation opportunities. c. Providing for a mixture of active and passive open spaces within residential and commercial areas. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-59 As South Kitsap County and Port Orchard continue to grow, the importance of the limited recreation resources continue to increase. Greater population pressures demand well-defined goals and priorities In order to achieve these comprehensive goals and objectives, concise and realistic goals must be specified: PK Goal 1. Establish a coordinated and connected system of open space throughout the City that: • Preserves natural systems. • Protects wildlife habitat and corridors. • Provides land for both active and passive recreation accessible for all. • Increases opportunities for physical activity. • Preserves natural landforms and scenic areas. • Is accessible by a safe non -motorized transportation system. • Promotes equitable access to parks and recreation facilities. Policy PK-1 Preserve and enhance the natural and aesthetic qualities of shoreline areas while allowing reasonable development to meet the needs of all residents. Policy PK-2 Promote visual and public access to shorelines where it is not in conflict with preserving environmentally sensitive areas or protecting significant wildlife habitat. Policy PK-3 Distribute parks and open spaces throughout the City, but particularly focus new facilities in or nearby: • Designated centers that do not currently contain parks or open spaces. • Residential neighborhoods facing the greatest population growth where populations are currently, or projected to be, underserved by existing parks facilities. • Residential neighborhoods that have historically underserved communities. • Areas where existing facilities are deficient. • Areas where connections could be made. Policy PK-4 Work with nearby jurisdictions, state, federal, and tribal governments to identify and protect open space networks to be preserved within and around Port Orchard. Policy PK-5 Preserve environmentally sensitive areas to delineate neighborhood boundaries and create open space corridors. PK Goal 2. Encourage the development and maintenance of open space and recreation facilities, where possible, in the established areas of the City. Policy PK-6 Obtain and preserve open space areas and recreation facilities to meet established levels of service and to link open spaces within a connected network accessible to the existing and future population of the City. Policy PK-7 Preserve the ecological functions of the Blackjack Creek watershed, the shoreline, and adjacent areas in balance with residential, commercial, and other uses. Policy PK-8 Shape and seek the right balance for urban development through the use of open space, thereby strengthening the beauty, identity, and aesthetic qualities of the City and surrounding areas. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-60 Policy PK-9 Maintain and/or expand shoreline parks and trails linking the downtown core to the shoreline. Proposed walking and biking trails should be designed to serve all residential areas. Policy PK-10 Encourage safe parks and recreation equipment by maintaining existing facilities. Policy PK-11 Develop covered play structures whenever feasible to encourage use of parks and recreation facilities in all conditions. Policy PK-12 Work with the Port of Bremerton to identify areas within the existing Port -owned waterfront parking lots that are suitable for conversion to open space. Upon mutual agreement of the parking areas to be converted; develop a plan for the creation of waterfront open space in these areas, with a focus on connecting to existing and planned shoreline access points and pedestrian pathways. PK Goal 3. To provide open space or natural landscaping throughout the City limits. Policy PK-13 Zoning ordinances shall identify and preserve open space areas. Policy PK-14 Landscaping, such as trees and shrubbery, should be included in the commercial areas of the City. Policy PK-15 Vacant municipal land not required for municipal services should be maintained to provide a pleasing natural condition. PK Goal 4. Neighborhood parks and recreation facilities should be conveniently located throughout the City. Policy PK-16 The Active Club should continue to be maintained and improved. Policy PK-17 A Community Event Center should be encouraged. Policy PK-18 To ensure that the City's parks and recreation facilities are welcoming to all, new facilities shall be designed for accessibility to meet the requirements of the federal American Disabilities Act, and existing facilities should be retrofitted for increased accessibility where feasible and appropriate. Policy PK-19 Maximize the use of State and Federal grants for future improvements whenever possible. Policy PK-20 Coordinate with other governmental entities and civic organizations to provide new facilities to the public. Policy PK-21 Encourage commercial enterprises to establish facilities which are harmonious with the community vision and goals. PK Goal S. Encourage commercial enterprises to establish private commercial recreation facilities. Policy PK-22 Athletic fields should be supplemented with picnic and playground facilities to encourage family participation. Policy PK-23 Athletic fields should be developed in accordance with the PROS Plan. Policy PK-24 Continue to encourage and promote private sports and recreation programs. Policy PK-25 Coordinate with sports councils and committees when possible. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-61 PK Goal 6. The waterfront should be preserved and protected to enhance public use. Policy PK-26 Boat docks and marinas should be encouraged; however, these activities are not to be construed as the sole resource of the waterfront. Policy PK-27 Public access to the water is required for new municipal development, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security or impact to the shoreline environment. Public access to the water should be provided for new commercial development unless such improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or present hazards to life and property. Policy PK-28 Viewing decks and similar pedestrian -oriented structures are needed and should be constructed in the urban waterfront area. Policy PK-29 The Bay Street Pedestrian Path system should be maintained and expanded. Policy PK-30 Beach access should be identified and developed. This should be integrated with the Bay Street Pedestrian Path trail system and Kitsap Peninsula Water Trails system. PK Goal 7. Provide a variety of water and shoreline related recreation opportunities for the public. Policy PK-31 The City, in conjunction with other agencies and organizations, should work to maintain, enhance, and expand existing water and shoreline related recreation opportunities for the public. Policy PK-32 The City, in conjunction with other jurisdictions, should work to develop new and diverse water and shoreline related recreation opportunities for the public. PK Goal 8. Provide open space within residential and commercial developments. Policy PK-33 Continue to require buffers and open space with new development. Policy PK-34 Encourage creation of open and communal spaces with multi -family and commercial development. PK Goal 9. Preserve critical areas within open space. Policy PK-35 Steep slopes and sensitive areas within open space should be protected with critical area restrictions. Policy PK-36 Preserve open space that functions as a buffer between land uses. PK Goal 10. Promote the acquisition and maintenance of open space through public and private investment. Policy PK-37 Countywide open space acquisition should be encouraged. Policy PK-38 Maintenance of City -owned open space should take precedence over acquisition of new City parks unless the proposed park serves an identified need in the City's Parks Plan. PK Goal 11. Enhance and expand existing park facilities. Policy PK-39 Improvements in parks should be done continually. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-62 Policy PK-40 Prioritize expansion of existing parks in residential areas where communities currently underserved with parks and recreation facilities. PK Goal 12. Place and construct community entry monuments on arterial City entrances. Policy PK-41 Maintain and landscape existing Gateway areas. Policy PK-42 Install wayfinding signage according to wayfinding system plan. PK Goal 13. Provide dedicated oversight and encourage public participation in planning for City parks and recreation facilities. Policy PK-43 The City should establish a parks commission or similar citizen board to review major parks development plans and proposals to purchase or sell City parks property and provide recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Policy PK-44 The City should consider creating a Parks Department to operate and maintain City parks and recreation facilities, and to plan and budget for future acquisitions and improvements. PK Goal 14. Identify and enhance the city's open spaces, trails, and park amenities to protect natural resources and expand recreational opportunities for all residents, ensuring accessibility and sustainable use of these areas. Policy PK-45 The City of Port Orchard should strive to maintain the level service standards adopted in its PROS plan including ensuring every resident has access to a park within a 10-minute walk, fostering inclusivity and promoting outdoor recreation. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 4-63 Chapter 5 Natural Systems 5.1 Introduction Port Orchard, which is located on the Sinclair Inlet of Puget Sound, contains interconnected creeks, wetlands and urban forests that provide amenities for residents and key habitat corridors and environments for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The City of Port Orchard serves as chief steward of Natural Systems Vision Port Orchard embraces its stewardship of the environment and natural resources, by protecting and retaining natural systems and building for a sustainable future. The City encourages the preservation, Port Orchard's environment and is responsible for the implementation of many federal and state environmental protection statutes. Through regulation, operating programs and incentives, the City actively works to protect the natural systems of the community and promote sustainable development. restoration and enhancement of natural As Port Orchard continues to grow, development has systems within its urban setting. the potential to negatively impact Port Orchard's environmental resources, particularly natural open spaces, water quality and tree cover. State law requires cities to plan for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas (critical areas), such as wetlands, streams and geologically- hazardous areas. Environmental sustainability and responsible stewardship of natural resources require a continually improved relationship between the developed and natural environments. The City supports an approach that includes: • Maintaining critical areas regulations that protect and preserve the City's environmentally sensitive areas. • Encouraging the minimization of waste that can affect air, soil, and water resources. • Promoting open space and opportunities for recreation within existing and new development. • Assessing and reclaiming lost wildlife habitats when feasible. Encouraging the enhancement of greenbelts, habitat conservation areas, and wildlife habitat corridors. • Improving infrastructure systems to support healthy living for people and wildlife. • Supporting Puget Sound recovery through actions such as protecting and restoring critical areas, converting hardened shorelines to more natural conditions, protecting aquifers, promoting and installing stormwater infrastructure and upgrading sewage treatment facilities. • Increasing resilience by identifying and addressing the impacts of climate change and natural hazards on the environment, infrastructure, economy and public health. The City evaluates the impact of its administrative and legislative decisions on the urban environment, with particular attention to impacts on environmentally sensitive areas — and weighs the merits and costs of its environmental protection and enhancement against other important responsibilities (e.g., public safety, infrastructure needs and economic development). Non - regulatory efforts to protect natural resources include habitat/open space acquisition and preservation, salmon recovery projects and monitoring, and water quality projects and monitoring. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-64 The City recognizes the importance of protecting its unique natural setting while providing for the needs of the growing number of residents and businesses that call Port Orchard their home. Port Orchard's attractiveness as a place to "live, work and play" depends on preserving the natural assets of the community while simultaneously nurturing economic growth and social vibrancy. Therefore, the City has and will continue to support standards that preserve Port Orchard's natural systems to protect public health, safety and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. The Natural Systems element works in concert with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly Land Use and Parks and Recreation, and within the framework of municipal financial planning. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance is the regulatory authority for development and activities within critical areas (wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas). Critical areas are discussed in more detail in Section 5.3 below. In the City's shoreline jurisdiction, the Shoreline Master Program establishes a regulatory framework and planning policies that provides an additional layer of protection for the City's shorelands and aquatic resources. 5.2 Existing Conditions Port Orchard enjoys a wide variety of natural systems, recreational areas, open space, and ecosystem connections. However, like most growing areas within the state, Port Orchard has experienced declines in tree canopy, water quality and the health of salmon populations, as well as increases in traffic congestion and surface water runoff from impervious surfaces. Key elements of natural systems in the City are regulated critical areas, as defined by the state Growth Management Act. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: • Wetlands • Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas • Geologically hazardous areas. These areas are regulated through the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (POMC 20.162) and are protected with buffers and restrictions on development type and intensity. Critical areas also receive additional protection from other City regulatory and planning efforts for water quality, stormwater runoff, efficient use of land, and provision of urban services. Special status wildlife are those designated by federal or state government agencies as endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, sensitive and monitor species, and species of local importance in Kitsap County. Habitat used by these species for breeding, foraging or migration also requires protection. At present, listed species that have been documented in the Port Orchard vicinity include chinook, chum, coho, cutthroat, and steelhead salmonid species; smelt; sand lance; bald eagles; marbled murrelet; great blue heron; and Steller's sea lion. Figure 5-1. Marbled murrelet Z Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-65 Port Orchard also has a diverse and active shoreline. The City's waterfront contains a multitude of docks, marinas and water -dependent businesses, which provide economic vitality to the downtown merchants and Port Orchard as a whole and provide needed services to residents throughout the region. Maintaining the general health of Port Orchard's shorelines and aquatic areas is critical to maintaining a viable working shoreline and a marine attraction. As in other urbanizing areas around Puget Sound, water quality and populations of marine life have declined due to development impacts. The City supports the restoration of natural system processes and reduction of urban impacts that reduce the health of Sinclair Inlet and shorelands. The Inventory and Characterization that was prepared for Port Orchard's Shoreline Master Program contains detailed analysis of the City's shorelines and regulated water bodies. 5.3 Critical Areas and Shorelines 5.3.1 Geologically Hazardous Areas Within Port Orchard, geologically hazardous areas include unstable slopes over 30% grade, and areas of geologic concern include unstable slopes less than 30% grade and other slopes that meet criteria for high erosion potential, seismic hazard or groundwater seepage. Geologically hazardous areas are located along several stream banks and bluffs near the shoreline. Areas of geologic concern are widespread throughout the community and are often located in proximity to other critical areas such as wetlands and streams. Both geologically hazardous areas and areas of geologic concern areas are regulated through the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Engineering provides some solutions to environmental constraints associated with geologic hazards, but such solutions must be evaluated for suitability in individual circumstances. One of the most cost- effective methods of preserving slope stability is the preservation of native vegetation and retention of forested conditions within and at the top of geologic hazard areas. When vegetation removal is required to stabilize slopes, proper replanting and maintenance in compliance with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance is required. In addition to providing significant habitat value in areas of high opportunity (bands of steep slope areas extending throughout a city often provide habitat corridors in urbanized areas), the preservation of native and non-invasive vegetation and forest features helps prevent erosion, retains important soil binding root systems, and provides valuable open and green space. Along the shorelines, erosion of coastal bluffs replenishes beach sediments that are lost to tidal action, storms and surface runoff. 5.3.2 Frequently Flooded Areas Frequently flooded areas are defined as lands, shorelands, and waters that are within the 100-year floodplain as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate and Boundary Maps (see end of the element for FEMA map). Flooding is caused by excess surface water runoff and is exacerbated when eroded soil from cleared land or unstable slopes reduces the waterway's natural capacity to carry water. Construction and development activity within the floodplain reduces the floodway capacity. Flooding is also exacerbated by king tides in conjunction with heavy rain and wind. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-66 Flooding causes significant public safety problems, property damage, and habitat destruction. Small areas of floodplain exist within Port Orchard, generally along areas of Blackjack Creek, Johnson Creek and Ross Creek (see City of Port Orchard Environmental Map at the end of this element). Under the Federal Flood Insurance Program, a limited amount of floodplain development is allowed if eligibility requirements are met; however, the City regulates land uses and land alteration activities to minimize development within floodplains and the potential for damage from flooding. Figure 5-2. Flooding occurrence 5.3.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are defined as those areas identified as being of critical importance to the maintenance of fish, wildlife, and plant species, including areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; habitats and species of local importance; commercial and recreational shellfish areas; kelp and eelgrass beds; forage fish spawning areas; naturally occurring ponds and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; waters of the state; lakes, ponds, streams or rivers planted with game fish by a government or tribal entity or private organization; state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Areas that are critical for fish and wildlife are primarily conserved via regulatory means; other areas are primarily dealt with through non -regulatory, incentive -based approaches. Designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Port Orchard include riparian corridors, wetlands, and naturally occurring ponds and lakes. Other lands may be given special consideration for fish and wildlife habitat if there is a primary association with an endangered, threatened or sensitive species. The City seeks to protect and sustain the existing natural functions of these areas and encourages the enhancement of areas that have been degraded in the past. Streams and water bodies provide fish and wildlife habitat, convey stormwater flows, provide recreational opportunities, and enhance s the community's aesthetic appeal. In recent years, large areas of Port Orchard's drainage basins have experienced rapid development, which increases impervious surfaces within the watershed and results in a decline in surface water quality.9 12023 Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-67 Blackjack Creek is the largest stream system in Port Orchard and extends into tributaries spanning an area of approximately three miles within the city limits. Blackjack Creek is the only stream within the City that falls within Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction based on flow rate, although a portion of both Ross Creek and Blackjack Creek estuaries are under SMA jurisdiction based on tidal influence. Blackjack Creek is one of the major fish producing streams in South Kitsap, and supports Chinook, coho, steelhead, cutthroat and summer chum (chinook and steelhead are ESA listed species). The summer chum run is the only native (non -hatchery) summer chum run known in the mid -Puget Sound area. Ross Creek is also a salmon stream and is surveyed annually for adult spawners. In recent years, the City has taken steps to protect the Blackjack Creek corridor and encourage restoration, while continuing to allow and improve public enjoyment through trails and overlooks. Further protections for both Blackjack and Ross Creek are appropriate and will be implemented through development regulations. 5.3.4 Wetlands Wetlands are integral to the local hydrologic cycle. They reduce floods, contribute to stream flows, and improve water quality. Each wetland provides various beneficial functions, but not all wetlands perform all functions, nor do they perform all functions equally well. Large wetlands, and wetlands hydrologically associated with lakes and streams, have a relatively more important function in the watershed than small, isolated wetlands. Urbanization within a watershed diminishes the function of individual wetlands by increasing stormwater volume, reducing runoff quality, isolating wetlands from other habitats, and decreasing vegetation. Undeveloped land adjacent to a wetland provides a buffer to help minimize the impacts of urbanization. The long-term success in function of the wetland is dependent on land development strategies that protect and restore wetland buffers. Science indicates that an undeveloped vegetated buffer is equally as important as the wetland itself as it contributes to the function of the wetland by providing wildlife habitat, retaining stormwater, filtering sediment and pollution, and moderating water temperature. When impacts to wetlands and their buffers due to development are unavoidable, and on -site wetland replacement is infeasible, wetland mitigation banks may be utilized to offset these impacts at a corresponding ratio of restoration, creation or enhancement in accordance with POMC 20.162. A new wetland mitigation banking site is currently being developed on the Ross Creek estuary in Port Orchard that may provide opportunities for development when on -site mitigation is infeasible as well as enhance ecological functions and habitat within the estuary. Figure 5-4. Ross Creek Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-68 5.3.5 Aquifer Recharge Areas All of the City of Port Orchard's public water supply is obtained from wells. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance recognizes critical aquifer recharge areas around water system wellheads and in areas that are highly susceptible to groundwater contamination. These areas are protected through a combination of regulatory restrictions and low -density zoning. Groundwater aquifers also supply water to lakes, wetlands, streams and to private wells. An aquifer is a sizable and continuous body of porous material composed of sand, gravel or silt saturated with water and capable of producing usable quantities of water to a well. As required by federal law, this water is monitored and tested to ensure that it meets the high standards required for drinking water. For water to be pumped on a sustainable basis, new water must enter the aquifer. Aquifers are recharged by rainwater infiltrating into the ground through permeable soils and by recharge from rivers, streams and lakes. Wetlands and natural areawide landscape depressions that allow water to stand also may aid in groundwater infiltration by slowing runoff and allowing it to seep into the ground when located in suitable areas. Development can lessen the water entering the aquifer by covering recharge areas with impervious surfaces or filling wetlands and natural depressions that contain standing water. Groundwater contamination may also result from development. Once groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up. Preventing contamination is necessary to avoid exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential physical harm to people. As in any urban area, maintaining effective groundwater recharge and groundwater quality will be a continuing challenge as urbanization occurs. 5.3.6 Shorelines Shorelines within the City of Port Orchard include those portions of Sinclair Inlet lying within the city limits and all lands extending landward 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, together with any associated wetlands, river deltas, and floodways associated with tidal waters. The City also has one creek, Blackjack Creek, which is regulated as a "shoreline of the state" due to its average flow level. The estuarine portion of Ross Creek and portions of two lakes (Big Lake and Square Lake) also qualify as shorelines of the state. The Port Orchard vicinity is experiencing an increasing amount of urban development, which has affected the City's shorelines. Sinclair Inlet is a shallow, poorly flushing estuary, and the slow period of discharge and replenishment is a factor influencing its water and habitat quality in the inlet. The Department of Ecology's Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) and Water Quality Implementation Plan identifies fecal coliform contamination, mostly from non - point source pollution, in addition to significant chemical contamination that includes high levels of mercury and PCBs have been documented in Sinclair Inlet. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-69 Currently, existing impervious surfaces along portions of Bay Street are not treated for stormwater runoff and flow directly into Sinclair Inlet. However, improvements are being made with adoption of Low Impact Development Standards and within the City's Stormwater utility and updated NPDES permit programs. The Inventory and Characterization section of the City's Shoreline Master Program contains detailed recommendations for land use, zoning, restoration plans and other actions that could assist in restoring shoreline water quality and habitat functions. 5.3.7 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Climate change poses significant challenges to the City of Port Orchard. Rising sea levels, exacerbated by climate shifts, threaten Port Orchard's downtown area, while warmer marine waters impact both the natural environment and public health. According to Kitsap County's Climate Change Resiliency Assessment, under the low -emissions scenario, Port Orchard will as likely as not (50% likelihood) experience sea level rise of 0.4 feet by 2030, 0.8 feet by 2050, and 2.2 feet by 2100. These rising sea levels are expected to exacerbate existing challenges with saltwater in its downtown area. Additionally, the City may expect to experience other climate impacts, including an increase in the number of extreme heat days during the summer and decrease in freeze -free days during the winter and increased intensity of maximum 24-hour precipitation events. The impacts of a changing climate over time are likely to be felt across all aspects of life in Port Orchard. These climate impacts emphasize the importance of implementing proactive planning and adaptation strategies to protect Port Orchard's environment, infrastructure, and community well-being. 5.4 Natural Systems Goals and Policies General NS Goal I. Maintain accurate and scientifically sound development regulations that protect the City's natural resources, while allowing for compatible growth and development. Policy NS-1 Maintain a Critical Areas Ordinance that protects surface water resources including fish and wildlife habitats and wetlands with special consideration for special status wildlife (listed species). Policy NS-2 Utilize Best Available Science to improve the protection of and increase the accuracy of information about wetlands, flood plains, channel migration zones, watershed boundaries and stream locations and types. Policy NS-3 Map wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, flood plains, channel migration zones, and the findings of professionally conducted local wetlands inventories into Critical Areas maps. Policy NS-4 Support the development of private mitigation banking programs in coordination with county, state and federal agencies, with sites in multiple watersheds to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, streams, and their buffers. Ensure that replacement of altered or displaced wetland or stream functions occurs within the drainage basin or service area identified by the department. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-70 Policy NS-5 Inventory and monitor natural resource and climate resilience factors, such as tree canopy, open space, stormwater runoff, urban heat effects, and sea level rise, establishing baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and program needs. NS Goal 2. Protect the water quality, flows and ecological integrity of streams, wetlands, and Sinclair Inlet by appropriately regulating storm water and land use while allowing for compatible growth and development. Policy NS-6 Protect marine and fresh surface water resources by requiring that development, including rights -of -way, in critical areas is consistent with the Critical Areas Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable local, state and federal regulations. Policy NS-7 Evaluate, avoid, minimize, and mitigate unavoidable impacts to surface water quality and quantity during the planning and development review process. Consider the cumulative impacts of existing and future development on surface water quantity and quality. Policy NS-8 Require native vegetation buffers along streams, marine and freshwater shorelines and wetlands to protect the functions and values of those surface waters. NS Goal 3. Preserve and enhance the City's tree canopy coverage to improve human health, protect wildlife habitat and enhance ecological function through the mitigation of urban heat island effects, reduction in stormwater runoff, energy consumption and release of carbon into the atmosphere. Policy NS-9 Adopt a canopy coverage target, consistent with NPDES Permit requirements, for the City and monitor progress on a regular basis to determine if policy changes are necessary to reach the City's target. Policy NS-10 Identify parks and open spaces in the City where tree canopy coverage could be increased. Policy NS-11 Use trees and vegetation to mitigate erosion potential, meet drainage needs and reduce the impacts of development. Policy NS-12 Establish programs and policies that maintain and increase forests and vegetative cover and prioritize the connectivity of forests that provide valuable wildlife corridors within the City. NS Goal 4. Adapt to changing climate conditions to minimize adverse effects on the environment, infrastructure, economy, and public health, especially as they relate to impacts on vulnerable populations and areas that have been disproportionately affected by climate change. Policy NS-13 Plan for and consider impacts from climate change including sea level rise, flooding, wildfire hazards, and urban heat on both existing and new development. Policy NS-14 Develop greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories and climate action plans to reduce or eliminate emissions. Policy NS-15 Develop and implement adaptation strategies to prevent or minimize the adverse effects of climate change. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-71 Policy NS-16 Consider and implement where feasible nature -based solutions to address climate change, such as tree planting programs to sequester carbon, and low impact development strategies to address stormwater runoff, flooding and pollution. Policy NS-17 Reduce risk from natural hazards through mitigation, prioritizing vulnerable communities. Identify areas susceptible to flooding, wildfires, earthquakes, landslides and other natural hazards that overlap with at -risk populations to prioritize capital improvements. Policy NS-18 Apply an equity lens when considering the impacts of climate change on vulnerable and disadvantaged populations who have the least resources to deal with its impacts. Prioritize capital improvements in areas that have been traditionally underinvested in the City. NS Goal S. Ensure that all residents of the City, regardless of race, social or economic status have clean air, clean water, and other elements of a healthy environment. Policy NS-19 Reduce impacts to vulnerable populations and areas that have been disproportionately affected by noise, air pollution, or other environmental impacts. Geologically Hazardous Areas NS Goal 6. Protect the public health, safety and welfare from geologic hazards. Policy NS-20 Ensure that development in geologically hazardous areas occurs in a manner that minimizes hazard to health or property and minimizes impacts to the natural environment, including stream and shoreline processes. Policy NS-21 Protect public safety and health, maintain water quality and habitat, minimize erosion of soils and bluffs, and diminish the public cost of repairing areas from damage due to landslides, erosion and seismic activities through appropriate regulation and development conditions. Policy NS-22 Where information about extensive fill areas is known, depict fill areas as areas of geological hazard. Policy NS-23 Restrict development in geologically hazardous areas according to the Critical Areas Ordinance, unless the site is demonstrated by a qualified geotechnical engineer to be suitable for building. Policy NS-24 Protect forested steep slopes and ridgelines designated as geologically hazardous areas. Policy NS-25 Require revegetation with appropriate native plant species and enhancement of existing native vegetation on steep slopes that have been cleared in violation of the Critical Areas Ordinance. NS Goal 7. Consider geologically hazardous areas in assigning comprehensive plan designations and implementing zones. Policy NS-26 Maintain and update a City map for land use planning and regulatory purposes that depicts both Geologically Hazardous Areas and Areas of Geologic Concern, per the definitions in the Critical Areas Ordinance. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-72 Policy NS-27 Maintain and update a Critical Areas Ordinance that addresses land use controls in geologically hazardous areas. Policy NS-28 Base the geologically hazardous areas map on best available scientific information, such as the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Quaternary Geology and Stratigraphy of Kitsap County, and other available geotechnical reports. Policy NS-29 Update the geologically hazardous areas map regularly to reflect the latest information. Policy NS-30 Establish development standards in geologically hazardous areas that promote retention and maintenance of existing native vegetation, and which discourages clearing of ridgelines and slopes to provide scenic vistas, and to ameliorate stormwater drainage impacts. Policy NS-31 Encourage location of building sites away from steep slopes and breaks in slope. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas NS Goal 8. Safeguard the quality and quantity of long-term water supplies by preserving and protecting critical aquifer recharge areas through use of the appropriate regulatory means. Policy NS-32 Coordinate with the US Geological Survey, Kitsap County Health District, and the City Public Works Department to maintain and update the methodology and mapping used to identify Category I and Category II Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Policy NS-33 Limit land uses listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water exhibit titled "Potential Sources of Drinking Water Contamination Index" within Category I Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Within Category 11 areas, require appropriate safeguards and/or mitigation for listed land uses. Policy NS-34 Require proposed projects that present a potential threat to critical aquifer recharge areas and groundwater quality to provide hydrogeologic information to evaluate the proposal, in accordance with adopted plans and regulations. Policy NS-35 Implement plans created to improve water resource management, using resources available to accomplish higher priority actions first. Policy NS-36 Take immediate action to correct or limit saltwater intrusion in areas with evidence of intrusion and prevent saltwater intrusion in areas where hydrologic information indicates that saltwater intrusion is likely. Wetlands NS Goal 9. Protect the water quality, flows and ecological integrity of wetlands by appropriately regulating land uses and storm water through the development review process. Policy NS-37 The City's Critical Areas Ordinance shall protect existing wetland functions in order to maintain water quality, retention, and wildlife habitat. New development adjacent to protected wetlands shall be subject to vegetative buffers as identified in the Critical Areas Ordinance and other applicable development standards. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-73 Policy NS-38 Strive to achieve no net loss of wetland function in the short term, and a measurable gain of wetland function in the long term, in the following manner: Avoid direct impacts on wetlands and buffers; minimize direct impacts to wetlands and buffers; and mitigate impacts through creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands or buffers. Policy NS-39 Use of fencing, tape, or approved alternative to delineate wetland boundaries, buffers, and construction setbacks during construction shall be required as a condition of the land use permit or building permit. No construction activity or mechanical equipment shall be allowed in these delineated areas. Policy NS-40 Identification of wetlands and delineations of their boundaries shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements, and the most recent version of the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington, or as required in the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Policy NS-41 Require the use of green infrastructure and low -impact development where such approaches are feasible when mitigation is required to address increased storm intensities and stormwater runoff. Frequently Flooded Areas NS Goal 10. Reduce the risk of damage to life, property, and the natural environment from flooding through appropriate regulatory means. Prevent development on floodplains that might have the potential to damage property or increase height, flow or velocity of floodwater. Policy NS-42 Avoid development in frequently flooded areas except when no conditions will be created which will be injurious to life, property or natural systems in times of flooding. Policy NS-43 Require improvements to existing structures within frequently flooded areas to be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Policy NS-44 Minimize diking and bank protection that may alter the natural hydrology of streams, except where used to enhance habitat. Policy NS-45 Prohibit the construction of flood barriers that will unnaturally divert floodwaters or that may increase flood hazards in other areas. NS Goal 1 1. Prevent land use in floodplains that may degrade water quality during times of flooding. Policy NS-46 Prohibit locating hazardous materials and solid waste facilities in floodplains. Policy NS-47 Coordinate with the Kitsap County Health District to identify failing septic systems and connect to sewer, where available. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas NS Goal 12. Preserve natural flood control, stormwater storage and drainage or stream flow patterns. Policy NS-48 Minimize habitat fragmentation and maximize connectivity of open space corridors when designating land use and zoning classifications and reviewing development proposals. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-74 Policy NS-49 Identify and protect habitat conservation areas throughout the city, where appropriate. Policy NS-50 Coordinate with appropriate federal and state agencies, local tribal governments, and community organizations to refine and maintain thorough assessments of habitat types and areas with important habitat elements. Based upon these assessments, develop a habitat protection plan that identifies areas most in need of protection and restoration, with special consideration for special status wildlife species. Policy NS-51 Consider the potential development impacts to habitat conservation areas, plant communities, and fish and wildlife populations in designating land use and zoning classifications. Policy NS-52 Require appropriate native vegetative buffers along surface waters to protect fish and wildlife habitat. Larger or enhanced buffer areas may be required to adequately protect priority fish and wildlife species. Buffer enhancement, restoration, and/or mitigation shall be required where buffers have been degraded or removed during new development. Policy NS-53 Review development applications located within identified habitat conservation areas and forward those that may pose a potential adverse impact to the appropriate agencies for review. Policy NS-54 Encourage developers to protect continuous corridors of native vegetation wherever possible, to disturb as little natural vegetation as feasible, and to enhance or restore wildlife habitat by transplanting or planting native vegetation in the developed landscape. Policy NS-55 Encourage redevelopment of areas within the city that were previously developed but that are now underutilized or vacant, to promote the highest and best use of existing properties and minimize new environmental impacts. Policy NS-56 Encourage cluster development to protect fish and wildlife habitat and, where possible, plan cooperatively with adjacent property owners to provide maximum habitat potential. Restoration of native vegetation within undeveloped areas of cluster development should be a requirement of such development. Policy NS-57 Encourage best management practices in the use of herbicides and pesticides near wetlands, surface waters or drainage ditches. NS Goal 13. Maintain accurate and sound development regulations that preserve the biological diversity of Port Orchard and the Puget Sound. Policy NS-58 Improve mapping of critical areas and buffers throughout Port Orchard and the South Kitsap Urban Growth Area. Policy NS-59 Maintain a CAO and development regulations that protect habitat conservation areas and important habitat elements. Policy NS-60 Identify species of local importance within Port Orchard City Limits. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-75 NS Goal 14. Preserve the biological diversity of Port Orchard and Puget Sound using non - regulatory means as appropriate. Policy NS-61 Maintain a citywide inventory of existing plant, fish, and wildlife habitat, including habitat for all species of concern identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and make information available to the public. Policy NS-62 Map priority conservation areas based upon a synthesis of existing citywide assessments of aquatic habitat quality, terrestrial habitat quality, and groundwater recharge potential. Work with appropriate state agencies, local tribal governments, and community organizations to refine and maintain thorough citywide assessments of habitat types and areas with important habitat elements. Based upon these assessments, develop a habitat protection plan that identifies areas most in need of protection and restoration, with special consideration for special status wildlife. Implement the habitat protection plan through the Parks Plan and other incentive - based, non -regulatory efforts. Where inventories are incomplete, make it a high priority to complete them. Policy NS-63 Minimize habitat fragmentation and maximize connectivity of open space corridors when implementing non -regulatory efforts. Policy NS-64 Work with other government jurisdictions to coordinate watershed management and habitat protection efforts for watersheds and corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Policy NS-65 Ensure that the City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan is consistent with habitat inventories and habitat protection plans. Policy NS-66 Minimize impacts to fish and wildlife species when siting trail systems through habitat conservation areas. Policy NS-67 Encourage public -private partnerships and voluntary efforts to protect, restore, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Provide information about existing government and private programs pertaining to voluntary habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration. NS Goal I S. Protect anadromous fish runs in the City of Port Orchard using appropriate regulatory means. Policy NS-68 Give special consideration to the protection of anadromous fish species when determining land use and zoning designations, and when developing and applying development regulations. Consider the relative importance of a stream's fisheries resource. NS Goal 16. Protect and restore anadromous fish runs in the City of Port Orchard using appropriate non -regulatory means. Policy NS-69 Restore local salmon populations by participating in the West Sound Watersheds Council Lead Entity and the Puget Sound Partnership. Policy NS-70 Develop and implement recovery plans for anadromous fish and other listed species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Work with appropriate state and federal agencies, local tribal governments, and community organizations and adjacent jurisdictions to identify deficiencies in City programs and regulations. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-76 Policy NS-71 Work with resource agencies, tribal governments, the County, and others to inventory nearshore areas, prioritize and implement restoration projects. Policy NS-72 Work with resource agencies, local tribal governments, the County, and others to inventory, prioritize, and restore fish blockages, degraded stream reaches, and wetlands. Policy NS-73 Support and coordinate volunteer stream and wetland restoration and preservation efforts. NS Goal 17. Update the Ross and Blackjack Creek watershed plans to improve water resource management and implement improvements for ground and surface water quality and quantity in cooperation with tribal governments and interested citizens. Policy NS-74 Implement plans created to improve water resource management and monitoring, including the recommendations of the proposed Kitsap Peninsula (WRIA 15) Watershed Plan and Kitsap County Groundwater Management Plan, using resources available to accomplish higher priority actions first. Use watershed plans as a means of identifying projects with a broad base of community support and coordinating with neighborhood jurisdictions. Policy NS-75 Coordinate with other jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners to reduce the impacts of non -point source pollution upon aquatic resources by implementing the recommendations of approved watershed action plans. NS Goal 18. Develop a funding strategy and financing plan that uses a mix of local, state, federal and private funds to achieve conservation and restoration priorities. Policy NS-76 Develop locally controlled long-term funding source(s) for natural resource protection and enhancement. Utilize these funds to the maximum extent possible to leverage grant funds. Policy NS-77 Coordinate with the State Department of Ecology, Kitsap Public Utility District, Kitsap County, area tribal governments, and other jurisdictions and government agencies to pursue funding for water resource management efforts. NS Goal 19. Comprehensively monitor and manage water resources through non - regulatory means to ensure their long-term viability. Policy NS-78 Ensure that local water resources are comprehensively monitored, paying special attention to aquifer recharge areas, groundwater levels, stream flows, and saltwater intrusion. Maintain a citywide water quality monitoring program. Policy NS-79 Adequately maintain groundwater quantity to avoid saltwater intrusion and to protect in -stream flows for anadromous fish populations. Utilize Best Available Science to determine desired streamflow and determine means of achieving those flows. Policy NS-80 Seek opportunities to use reclaimed water for wetland augmentation, irrigation, stream enhancement, and aquifer replenishment. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-77 Policy NS-81 Coordinate actions of the City of Port Orchard Public Works Department with other agencies and jurisdictions to improve runoff quality and reduce runoff flow rates to mitigate flooding and improve water quality. Utilize a basin approach to stormwater facility planning. Policy NS-82 Ensure all existing City -owned stormwater facilities, and all new private facilities and culverts are properly designed, constructed and maintained to reduce the occurrence of flooding, improve the quality of surface waters, and enhance aquifer recharge. Maintenance shall occur on a regular basis to ensure flood protection and water quality functions Policy NS-83 Employ best management practices in the City's use of herbicides and pesticides near surface waters or drainage ditches. Policy NS-84 Educate City residents and businesses about the natural environment and the benefits of healthy surface and groundwater resources. Policy NS-85 Incorporate best available science related to the effects of climate change on water availability and quality into future water resource planning. Ensure stormwater facilities meet or exceed requirements for managing peak flows as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of storm events. Shorelines and Aquatic Areas NS Goal 20. Encourage shoreline access and diversity by recognizing the distribution and location requirements of housing, commerce, industry, transportation, public buildings, education, recreation and natural resources. Policy NS-86 Encourage and support shoreline diversity through planned and coordinated development, which gives preference to water -dependent uses, maintenance of shoreline resource values, and continuing environmental protection. Policy NS-87 Ensure shoreline access for all Port Orchard residents and visitors. NS Goal 21. Water -dependent and water -related commercial uses should be encouraged when the shoreline can accommodate such development. Policy NS-88 Encourage and support water -related and water -dependent commercial uses that are environmentally compatible with the City's Shoreline Master Program and other shoreline and aquatic area protection policies and regulations. Policy NS-89 Land use activities shall be sited and designed to minimize conflicts with and avoid impacts to the shoreline environment. Policy NS-90 Encourage maritime dependent services and industry to remain and to improve their services while operating in an environmentally sustainable manner. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-78 NS Goal 22. Increase public awareness of the historical, cultural and environmental influences of Port Orchard's shorelines. Policy NS-92 Historical, cultural, educational or scientific areas should be identified, preserved and/or restored and shoreline development within them should be minimized. Policy NS-93 Waterfront historical districts (those identified now and in the future), cultural resource areas and specific historic sites and structures should be integrated into zoning and planning maps and development regulations. Policy NS-94 Public awareness of the historical, cultural and environmental influences of Port Orchard's shoreline should be increased through educational and interpretive projects. NS Goal 23. When development or redevelopment of shoreline properties is proposed, the development proposal should include restoration of degraded shoreline habitat where feasible, consistent with the requirements of the City's shoreline master program. Policy NS-95 Shoreline development proposals should include an analysis of potential opportunities for restoration of degraded shoreline habitat, including but not limited to opportunities for: removal of shoreline fill, bank armoring and overwater structures; re-establishing intertidal and riparian vegetation; and restoring tidal processes. Policy NS-96 Shoreline development proposals should include an analysis of anticipated impacts to shoreline ecological functions and provide mitigation measures sufficient to ensure no net loss of such functions. NS Goal 24. Manage land use and water resources so that shellfish and finfish that utilize marine and freshwater in Port Orchard are abundant and fit for human consumption. Policy NS-97 Maintain or improve water quality such that shellfish within Port Orchard are safe to consume. Policy NS-98 Maintain or improve marine habitat such that there is no net loss of shellfish habitat quantity and quality within Port Orchard compared to a baseline of 1995. Policy NS-99 Maintain or improve fresh, estuarine, and marine habitat such that there is no net loss of fin fish habitat quantity and quality within Port Orchard compared to a baseline of 1995. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-79 Figure 5-6. Port Orchard Environmental Map 49 Cite o0tort Orchard Envirunmcntal Map Legend ©cn k�, FLOE .dA— ®0 -%c ..i C.— Fp nir>E M FEWZ—AE ®'EW,—* - n.*E �.'rWartaw+ ep.,,Er'MLriEt 0-6gk H.. A.., of Eanclrn - n� Hun]4vn .i-0 FJQY Yynaplm(nt Atli - � Yitl0O5l4 W+E 5 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-80 Figure 5-7. Port Orchard FEMA Flood Zone Map I IllY,illl ii1�}II .,�GIJiIIiIFI:...:!_ II i i_ 1 • 1�:'r�lll�r,�' aAI J/kii 3 own -; Ifi: TINE\\N71. 1 ,M11% WILE ." PI it 1�'^1i ■EEm IriiE ii I� I�: %�4 I'S niil' .IVIi TEE �— �` g� q•�'� 7 it .w� � E r\�iwp5�� ale w ■ 1 - wi i • ►(wll !�� w ��=�� � II•I1r�����1- E�II, IXIw In• �Ilur I1 s� I �Z ,��♦f •�':il R,tllll.111111=i�� �J_fIIR Il lil �`j•:T� .��.._a_w _ - — Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 5-81 Figure 5-8. Port Orchard Shoreline Jurisdiction Map '1=;T:7S�11➢i� �1=�� �►i,'�fcr t` �L RW.5 iOWN _ +t =1� .ww - �• � �r fllli ' 7. 1 i = — ^ Jie= - ffipi� ow _ ::;::{�iui;;r � liMippiril— —ki�i:.. _I�1lk' �� f:� 1�[I^ 11 • 41 I1 �i•1 1miIly l�kkn}ul�ill:}-=n Chapter 6 Economic Development 6.1 Introduction The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to outline the City's goals and policies for types, intensity, and location of employment, commercial services for residents, and industrial businesses. Economic Development Vision Plan for a vital, sustainable economy with a diversity of jobs and businesses that create a healthy local employment and economic base, supported by an appropriate range of land uses. This chapter also outlines goals for balancing environmental protection and economic growth, creating connections with the business community, and improving the overall economic state of Port Orchard. In addition, this chapter will briefly discuss employment goals in Port Orchard and the potential benefits of the City as an employment hub within Kitsap County. The economic vision for the future of Port Orchard as a whole can be summarized by the following guiding principles: • Unify the business community. • Establish investment priorities. • Plan for a vital sustainable economy. • Work in concert with current plans and processes. • Promote, attract, and maintain a diversity of jobs and businesses to create a dynamic, diverse, and vigorous employment and economic base. • Honor and value Port Orchard's unique maritime past. • Create opportunities for small businesses, women -owned businesses, and minority -owned businesses to locate in the City, decreasing barriers to entry where possible. • Continue to identify and support centers within the City where job growth opportunities and infrastructure investments can be prioritized. • Maintain a balanced mix of residential and commercial land uses and adjust the future land use map as economic conditions change over time. This Element provides goals and policies to guide development, identify key goals and opportunities, and designate appropriately zoned land for development of primary employment. The Comprehensive Plan promotes economic development by designating a diverse mix and appropriate range of commercial, office, industrial, and residential land uses that, in turn, will provide opportunities for businesses to locate within proximity to residents and create living wage jobs that contribute to a healthy local economy. The City of Port Orchard's economic development policies prioritize working with the private sector and area employers to grow and improve our community and its economy. The intended outcome of this collaboration is increasing quality of life and opportunity for our citizens. Local economic policy also plays a strong role in balancing the needs of growth and protection of our environment. Areas designated for economic development must have easy access to necessary public facilities such as utilities and highways yet have a limited impact on environmentally sensitive areas such as the Puget Sound, streams, and wetlands. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-83 6.2 Economic Conditions 6.2.1 Geographic Setting Port Orchard is well located. It is only a 10-minute ferry ride or 20-minute drive from the county's largest city, Bremerton, and the Naval Shipyard (part of Naval Base Kitsap). From Bremerton, a one -hour WSDOT ferry provides a connection to downtown Seattle, the economic and cultural center of the Pacific Northwest. Additional Kitsap Transit operated passenger -only ferry services (fast ferries) are available from both Bremerton and Southworth, with each providing an approximate 30-minute travel time to downtown Seattle. Among cities in Kitsap County, Port Orchard is the closest to international export terminals at the Port of Tacoma. Port Orchard is a one -hour drive (without traffic) from the region's main international airport in SeaTac and is also near Bremerton National Airport and the surrounding industrial center. Port Orchard has taken advantage of its many miles of waterfront. Water -dependent businesses include boat maintenance, sales, and moorage in several public and private marinas. 6.2.2 Population Port Orchard has steadily grown since its incorporation in 1890. As of 2020, Port Orchard's population was 15,587 according to the U.S. Census, and the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates the 2024 population at 18,300. The Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council's Countywide Planning Policies have allocated the City a share of the Puget Sound Region's expected 20-year growth, amounting to an increase of 10,500 people between the 2023 and 2044 planning horizon. This is not a population growth projection, but rather informs the City how many new residents it must plan for by way of zoning regulations and infrastructure capacity. The County's total allocation is established in Vision 2050 using population estimates derived from the U.S. census. Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report estimates that Port Orchard has an additional population capacity of 16,250 residents as of 2020. This is greater than the City's planning target (10,500 additional residents) as found in the Countywide Planning Policies and means that the City has surplus capacity for an additional 5,750 residents. Technically, this surplus means the City is not bound to implement any significant changes to its land use and zoning regulations to accommodate its allocated growth. However, it is prudent to begin planning now so that the City grows responsibly and uses its developable land efficiently. Another consideration is the population of the South Kitsap Urban Growth Area (UGA), the land around the City that has been designated for eventual annexation into Port Orchard. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report shows the UGA population in 2012 was 14,505, and the County has allocated it an increase of 3,552 people by 2044. The Buildable Lands Report shows the UGA has a capacity of 3,552 people through the planning period, which identifies adequate housing capacity within the UGA to meet the UGA's population allocation. Based on the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report, the total population capacity for the City of Port Orchard and the UGA would amount to a total population of 41,173. This has significant implications for the City's economic development policies and its provision of public services. Even if the City doesn't annex these areas, many of the residents living in the UGA work, shop, recreate, and travel in Port Orchard. As such, the City must consider the proximity of these areas and impacts to the City from this population when making decisions. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-84 6.2.3 Employment As of 2022, the Puget Sound Regional Council reports that Port Orchard hosts 7,722 jobs. This data is derived from the Washington State Employment Security Department. Like recent Comprehensive Plan Updates, the largest employment share continues to be service jobs, a broad category that includes jobs in technical and scientific services, health care and social assistance, arts and entertainment, and accommodations and food services. Retail jobs make up the second largest share with government jobs ranking third, which is attributable to Port Orchard being the county seat. Overall, job growth has been primarily confined to the service and retail sectors, with some growth in construction jobs over the past decade, likely reflecting the large amount of homebuilding occurring in the community. Port Orchard has a notably smaller share of technology and information jobs compared to Seattle and other parts of the Puget Sound region. The Washington State Employment Security Department estimates that as of summer 2023 up to 25 percent of workdays nationally are worked from home, and this trend has potential implications for the City, particularly if technology and other knowledge industry workers in the region choose to live in Port Orchard due to lower costs of living. The sector breakdown is shown below in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1. Port Orchard Employment Sectors 3,500 Services 3,000 2.500 2,000 \/ Retail 1,500 Milt, Government Warehousin Transport. Education 9- P Finance, Real Estate Manufactu 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Covered Employment Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-85 Port Orchard has also been allocated a set amount of employment growth by the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies. As required by the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, Appendix B- 2, between 2020- 2044 the City must plan for an additional 5,400 jobs, with 2,571 of those being commercial jobs and 560 being industrial jobs. Almost two-thirds of the allocated employment growth is based on increased jobs in finance, insurance, real estate, and services. The City must also plan for manufacturing jobs to nearly quadruple, though the actual number is relatively small. Residents have voiced support for enabling light industrial activities in established commercial areas, while there is less support for locating new heavy industrial businesses in Port Orchard. The City should strike a balance between being open to new industries and encouraging them to locate its own industrial park within the City, or in the Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton, a nearby industrial park within the City of Bremerton. The 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report found that Port Orchard currently has the capacity for 5,243 additional jobs, which is slightly less than the allocation. This indicates Port Orchard needs to add 153 jobs worth of employment capacity to support future employment growth targets, which is resolved by making minor adjustments to the zoning maps and by adding capacity within the Bethel Lund and Bethel Sedgwick subareas. Jobs capacity is determined by calculating the amount of additional commercial and industrial square footage that can be accommodated within the City. Additionally, the Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) publishes medium- and long-term forecasts of employment growth by region. Figure 6-2 shows forecast new jobs by sector in Kitsap, Clallam, and Jefferson Counties through 2030. Many of Port Orchard's prominent sectors, including government, leisure and hospitality, and retail trade, are expected to see significant regional growth in the coming decades, some of which should be captured by Port Orchard. On the other hand, there are also expected to be a significant number of new professional, business, and health care jobs in the region as well, which Port Orchard may wish to consider strategies for attracting. Figure 6-2. Forecasted Jobs by Employment Sector GOVERNMENT OTHER SERVICES — ■ 2020-2025 ■ 2025-2030 LEISURE and HOSPITALITY EDUCATION and HEALTH SERVICES PROFESSIONAL and BUSINESS SERVICES - FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES ■ INFORMATION ■ TRANSPORTATION, WAREHOUSING AND UTILITIES - RETAIL TRADE - WHOLESALE TRADE ■ MANUFACTURING - CONSTRUCTION - NATURAL RESOURCES and Mining 0 Source. Washington Employment Security Department 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Forecast New Jobs Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-86 6.2.4 Wages Wage data for Port Orchard is not directly available, but the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does collect data for all of Kitsap County. While this can be generally applied to Port Orchard, it should be noted that these numbers may not account for local differences and that wage and employment conditions change over time. However, many Port Orchard residents work outside of the city in Bremerton and other job centers in the county, including numerous military installations. The county has higher than average concentrations of those working in: • architecture and engineering • life, physical, and social sciences • community and social service • healthcare support • food service • construction and extraction • installation, maintenance, and repair The median household income (MHI) in Port Orchard in 2020 was $71,719, while the MHI for Kitsap County was $78,969 and the MHI for Washington State as a whole was $77,006. Port Orchard's MHI in 2020 represents a 21 percent increase since 2010 when adjusted for inflation, which is significantly higher than the 12 percent increase in Kitsap County and 14 percent increase in Washington State during the same timeframe. 6.2.5 Businesses Port Orchard has a variety of businesses that serve residents from throughout the greater South Kitsap region. Most shopping and service areas are characterized by large and recognized chains. Key commercial areas include the Bethel corridor, Mile Hill, and the Sedgwick/SR-16 corridor, where national retailers and grocery stores make up a large part of the City's tax base. Port Orchard is also home to several business clusters. There are several healthcare facilities along the Tremont corridor that include medical centers and assisted living facilities. Located in the industrial park are manufacturers of building furnishings, electronics, and aerospace parts. The Kitsap County campus south of downtown has a large concentration of government jobs, which attracts private firms specializing in engineering, land development and law. There are also a variety of small businesses throughout Port Orchard. Many residents take pride in that fact nearly all the businesses on the core stretch of Bay Street are small and locally based. They include restaurants and eateries, a theatre, antique shops, bail bondsmen and several boutiques. Creating an economic environment that encourages small, local businesses has been identified as an important consideration by the community, as well as the importance placed on redeveloping and improving the Downtown core. Port Orchard also has many self-employed residents in home businesses. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-87 6.2.6 Tax Structure The City operates on an annual budget of approximately $128 million in 2024, with operating funds representing approximately $47.6 million of the budget. The budget is divided into multiple accounts that have dedicated funding sources, and each must have balanced revenues and expenditures each year. Much of the budget pays for Port Orchard's streets, water system, sewer system, and stormwater system, which are vitally important to maintaining quality of life and the local economy. The "Current Expense" fund is perhaps the most visible to the public, as this fund is supported by property and sales taxes and primarily pays for the operations of each City department. The sales tax rate in Port Orchard is 9.3% and breaks down as follows: State: 6.5% City of Port Orchard: 0.94% Criminal Justice: 0.10% Kitsap County: 0 .35% Kitsap Transit: 1.10% Emergency Communications: 0 .20% KC Mental Health Treatment Services: 0.10% State Administration Fee: 0.01% Figyyu��r5ye��5y�65-33.. Taxable Retail Sales in Port Orchard 2012-2022 S1�4J U() V�4 00 s9� �U7�//h--' �h-.1f�5-.1f�til�, �h-.If�ti-�RL� s41t-7�� ,�S-J1�U-�or�h-JI�i�S.�f #S C7 �I-.IfS�- , �i-1��5-.1f�11�, �3-.If�L-IR�'I� S500,13€10,000 # $3GG,CU0,WG $.20G,000,1 $.11:i€},GW,1 -2 2012 M3 2014 2015 2015 2017 2-018 2.019 2020 2021 2022 As of 2024 the City's annual property tax is 1.072 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Other property taxes levied by a number of other local governments combine for a total rate of 8.42 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. For a residential property assessed at the area's median value of $469,750, the rate is equivalent to $3,044 per year. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-88 6.3 Challenges VISION 2050 calls on local governments to address the obstacles and special needs related to economically disadvantaged populations, particularly through a housing lens. The City is committed to improving the economic conditions of its residents by providing opportunities for living -wage businesses to locate and grow within Port Orchard, by supporting educational and vocational training opportunities, by promoting efficient land use with housing, jobs and mass transit in proximity to each other, and by encouraging development and maintenance of affordable, adequate housing options to serve a variety of household types. Emphasis is placed on providing these services within designated local centers where a need for revitalization, infill development, and/or improvements to transportation facilities have been identified. 6.4 Economic Development Goals and Policies This Plan addresses Economic Development in several categories, each with associated goals and policies which provide the primary foundation for this Economic Development Element, supporting both the overall vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the needs and desires of the community. ED Goal 1. Support a diversified economy that provides primary living wage jobs for residents, supported by adequate land for a range of employment uses, and which encourages accomplishment of local economic development goals. Policy ED-1 The City should maintain an adequate inventory of land to accommodate targeted employment growth. Policy ED-2 The City should enable the establishment of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses through fair, consistent, and timely permitting processes. Policy ED-3 Encourage new economic development opportunities that utilize regional infrastructure, including highway, rail, aviation, and marine links between Port Orchard, the Puget Sound Industrial Center -Bremerton, the Port of Tacoma, Naval Base Kitsap, and the greater region. Policy ED-4 Promote business opportunities that utilize and attract the availability of a highly skilled workforce and within geographic proximity to military facilities. Policy ED-5 Promote business opportunities that provide on-the-job training, educational opportunities, and other means of assistance for disadvantaged populations to achieve living -wage employment. ED Goal 2. Encourage new commercial development to occur within designated centers near housing, multi -modal transportation connections, and urban services. Policy ED-6 The City should encourage residential and commercial growth in centers where job opportunities and a diverse mix of retail and professional/technical office activities are concentrated. Policy ED-7 The City shall prioritize economic development and redevelopment in local centers. Policy ED-8 The City shall undertake efforts to redevelop downtown in the interest of vibrancy, community, and small business. Policy ED-9 The City shall encourage the continuation and marketing efforts of downtown events and holiday festivals. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-89 Policy ED-10 The City shall continue to implement a citywide wayfinding system that directs residents and visitors to civic and commercial centers of local importance. ED Goal 3. Encourage growth and diversification that maximizes employment and improves the opportunity for residents to both work and live in Port Orchard. Policy ED-11 The City shall implement long-term economic policies that support the needs of employers while meeting diversification and employment objectives and improving the City's tax base. Policy ED-12 The City should improve economic competitiveness by developing incentives for business growth, expansion, and relocation, and by utilizing tools such as tax incentives and modernization and streamlining of development regulations. Policy ED-13 The City shall strive to ensure its future employment allocation is met with primary jobs, which produce goods or services principally sold to clients outside of the City, to support the creation of secondary jobs, which produce goods or services principally sold to clients within the City. Policy ED-14 Attract a variety of retailers, services, and light industry to provide diverse shopping and service opportunities. Policy ED-15 Identify and eliminate disparities in access to economic opportunities by gathering and incorporating community feedback in future land use planning activities. Policy ED-16 Establish relationships with community stakeholder groups to better understand how local and regional policies affect City residents, particularly as they relate to people of color and people with low incomes. ED Goal 4. Promote and support a healthy, diverse economy that provides for a strong and diverse tax base, maintains an industrial base, and encourages the retention, attraction, and expansion of business in Port Orchard. Policy ED-15 Recognize the arts as a contribution to the economic diversity of Port Orchard. Prefer local, qualified artists for public art commissions. Policy ED-16 Recognize and encourage tourism as a growing contribution to the economic diversity of Port Orchard. Policy ED-17 Encourage small business enterprises and cottage industries. Policy ED-18 The City shall allow traditional home occupations as permitted by local regulations, including live -work units. Policy ED-19 Maintain Port Orchard as a unique and significant waterfront destination with recreation and retail opportunities for tourists and residents. Policy ED-21 The City shall support the full utilization and build out of industrially zoned properties in the Port Orchard Industrial Park. Explore streamlined permitting processes for future development. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-90 ED Goal S. Increase residents' ability to enjoy a high quality of life and access to healthy living opportunities, such as locally produced food, nearby grocery stores, parks and open space, and safe streets for all users. Policy ED-22 The City shall ensure its land use code permits urban agriculture and community gardens within compatible zoning districts. Policy ED-23 Encourage the continuation and expansion of the Port Orchard Farmer's Market into a year-round event and identify other sites around the City that could be used for additional farmer's markets. Policy ED-24 Support the local food economy and its capacity to grow, process, and distribute food within Port Orchard and throughout the South Kitsap area and encourage local restaurants and food retailers to buy and sell local products. Policy ED-25 The City shall ensure that centers allow for neighborhood scale grocery stores and restaurants to ensure that the City's residents have access to healthy food options. Policy ED-26 The City shall prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facility improvements that connect grocery stores, healthcare facilities, and general commercial centers to surrounding residential areas. ED Goal 6. Provide a diverse mix and appropriate range of commercial, industrial, and business park uses within Port Orchard and South Kitsap area that will provide living wage jobs. Policy ED-27 The City shall encourage mixed use developments within centers and other areas designated for mixed -use development that will enhance the visual, economic, and environmental quality of these areas and improve the transition between commercial and residential districts. Policy ED-28 The City shall require pedestrian orientation for non-residential uses and office or residential uses above ground floor retail uses within centers. Policy ED-29 The City should encourage the redevelopment of strip commercial areas through changes to the land use code, landscaping code, and signage code. ED Goal 7. Balance business and industrial development with environmental protection and continue to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Port Orchard as growth occurs. Policy ED-30 The City should encourage new industrial uses to locate its own industrial park within the City, or in the Puget Sound Industrial Center -Bremerton. Policy ED-31 The City should encourage the use of "green" materials and techniques in all types of construction by adopting the US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard for public projects. Policy ED-32 The City should remove barriers that prevent innovative low -impact development strategies consistent with the adopted stormwater manual. Allow for multiple uses of landscaping and reduction in impervious surface areas, such as bioswales, porous paving, and vegetated roofs. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-91 Policy ED-33 The City should encourage solid waste reduction by residents and businesses. Policy ED-34 The City should ensure that development standards and regulations are permissive of modern technologies that mitigate potential environmental impacts and provide environmental benefits, with regular review and updating as new technologies emerge. Policy ED-35 The City should pursue ongoing actions and policies that are consistent with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's targets for local emission reductions in an effort to address and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ED Goal 8. Coordinate economic expansion so that it is concurrent with capital facilities, multi -modal transportation networks, and urban services, especially within centers. Policy ED-36 Encourage the full utilization and development of designated commercial and industrial areas. Promote revitalization and redevelopment within existing developed areas to take advantage of investments in existing buildings and infrastructure. Policy ED-37 Further explore ways to reduce long-term and commuter parking on the City's downtown waterfront, such as the addition of a parking garage. Policy ED-38 Support increased Kitsap Transit bus and foot ferry service during evenings and weekends year-round. Policy ED-39 Encourage the provision of high-speed Internet service citywide, including implementation of fiber optic infrastructure and wireless internet, and require that new development and redevelopment allow fiber optic cable to locate in utility corridors and easements where feasible. Policy ED-40 Encourage and incentivize the undergrounding of utilities where feasible. ED Goal 9. Foster and facilitate partnerships and cooperation among government, private corporations, and nonprofit entities to promote the economic development goals and policies of Port Orchard. Policy ED-41 As appropriate, work with other jurisdictions, state and federal agencies, tribes, Port of Bremerton, Kitsap Economic Development Alliance (KEDA), South Kitsap Chamber of Commerce, Port Orchard Bay Street Association, and the Kitsap County Public Utilities Districts, in marketing and developing the City of Port Orchard. Policy ED-42 Work in association with community business groups, economic development groups/agencies, and residents to create branding opportunities that identify and promote economic development opportunities throughout the City. Policy ED-43 Work with local community business groups to support growth and participation in the organization, including supporting efforts to receive certification/accreditation with other local, regional, state, and national economic development organizations. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-92 ED Goal 10. Attract and encourage expansion of educational and medical institutions to assure a highly skilled work force. Policy ED-44 Encourage the maintenance and expansion of public and private schools within Port Orchard to serve a growing population. Policy ED-45 Encourage the development of higher education institutions within Port Orchard to provide vocational, technical, and postsecondary programs. Policy ED-46 Encourage the development and expansion of medical institutions that serve a growing local and regional population while utilizing and attracting a highly skilled workforce. ED Goal 11. Ensure adequate land use capacity for job growth needs in commercial, retail, and industrial employment sectors. Policy ED-47 Encourage commercial land uses on the ground floor of mixed -use buildings within zoning districts in areas designated as centers for growth. Policy ED-48 In association with future Comprehensive Plan updates and zoning amendments related to commercial, retail, and/or industrial uses, review the City's land use capacity needs and projections to ensure consistency with growth targets. ED Goal 12. Support and recognize the contributions of the region's culturally and ethnically diverse communities, institutions, and Native Tribes. Policy ED-49 Coordinate with Tribes in local and regional planning and economic development efforts, recognizing the mutual benefits of coordinated growth. Policy ED-50 Recognize Tribes' contributions to local and regional economic prosperity, land and resource management, placemaking, and cultural enrichment. ED Goal 13. Economic development strategies should address with environmental concerns, promote equity and access to opportunity, minimize displacement impacts to existing businesses, recognize the importance of existing and emerging technologies, and protect the quality of life. Policy ED-51 Coordinate with regional jurisdictions and agencies to develop coordinated strategies and interjurisdictional processes to mitigate the impacts of displacement. Policy ED-52 Utilize PSRC's Displacement Risk Mapping Tool to identify areas within the City that have higher risk of displacement based on neighborhood conditions, and establish mitigation programs for these areas to promote equitable outcomes. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 6-93 Chapter 7 Utilities This Utilities Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update provides direction and guidance, based on consultant research and analysis of the City's Water System Plan10, General Sewer Plan", and Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan12, in collaboration with City staff, to improve and maintain the City's existing utility system and develop additional utility infrastructure and capacity to meet the City's growth needs. The Element also draws Utilities Vision Develop and maintain public and private utilities to meet the needs of a growing population and a 21" century economy. Services are efficiently provided and available to the entire community. Utilities are sited, designed, and operated in a manner that is consistent with surrounding land uses and maintains community character. from the system plans prepared by outside agencies such as West Sound Utility District, Bremerton Water, and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). This Element is based on 2023 data, facilities, population and projected growth patterns, with a planning horizon projected to 2044. The state Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that comprehensive plans include a utilities element that indicates the general location of existing facilities, the proposed location of future facilities, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities. The GMA also requires that public utilities shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. Over the next 20 years, the City expects that utilities will need to be provided to approximately 26,087 residents of the incorporated City and urban growth area (UGA). Public and private utility providers must plan for the necessary infrastructure to rehabilitate aging systems, respond to growth, and adapt the changing technology and consumer behavior. Although the City does not control non -City managed utilities, such as water within the City of Bremerton's water services area, water and sewer in West Sound Utility District's service area, telecommunications, natural gas, and electrical service, it does regulate how non -City owned utilities are developed and managed within Port Orchard. The Utilities Element, in conjunction with the City's functional plans for water, sewer, and storm water management, is the guiding or strategy document that the City will use to achieve its goals of providing utilities at the appropriate levels of service to the City's existing and future residents and businesses. The Utilities Element serves as a policy guide for general maintenance and improvement of the utility system while the City's functional plans include more detailed inventory, analysis, and specific recommendations for utility maintenance, improvement, and future development. The City's regulatory and non -regulatory decisions and programs, as well as budget decisions related to utilities, should be consistent with this Element and with the City's functional plans. Additionally, this Element works in tandem with the Land Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element to ensure that Port Orchard will have adequate utilities available for projected growth concurrent with the impacts of growth and development. Policies in this Element also address environmental impacts, facilities siting and construction, economics, and design aesthetics. 10 https://Portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-plan/ " https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2017/10/General-Sewer-Plan-Update- FINAL1.pdf 12 https://portorchardwa.gov/documents/2023-port-orchard-stormwater-and-watersheds-comprehensive-plan/ Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-94 7.1 City -Managed Utilities Sewer The City of Port Orchard owns, operates, and maintains wastewater collection and conveyance facilities serving portions of the City that collects and delivers wastewater to the South Kitsap Water Reclamation Facility (SKWRF). The City has an interlocal agreement for wastewater treatment with the West Sound Utility District (WSUD), which operates the SKWRF. WSUD also provides sewer collection and conveyance to the eastern portion of the City and the City's UGA. There are approximately 70 miles of sewer lines within Port Orchard's sewer utility ranging from 2 to 24 inches in diameter. These lines include approximately 49 miles of gravity sewers, 8 miles of force mains, and 14 miles of septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) mains. There are 17 pump stations within the system. The City also maintains a telemetry system to monitor the operating conditions of system components. The City's current service area is approximately 2,100 acres, with a population of about 17,480. Over the next 20 years, the City's sewer service area is expected to grow to approximately 5,700 acres to serve the estimated population of about 26,087. Water The City provides drinking water within portions of the city limits and selected adjacent areas within its retail service area, supplied primarily by six active wells. There are two interties with the City of Bremerton's water system and an emergency intertie with the WSUD. Eight reservoirs provide 4.8 million gallons of storage. There are three booster pump stations, and over 300,000 feet of pipe ranging from 4 to 18 inches in diameter. Other water suppliers within Port Orchard include Berry Lake Manors, which serves a 30-unit mobile home park, the City of Bremerton serves areas north of Old Clifton Road in the western parts of Port Orchard, and the WSUD, which serves selected areas on the eastern boundary of the City outside the City water service area. Stormwater The City manages stormwater conveyance facilities that collect runoff and provides treatment and discharge in accordance with federal and state requirements for water quality protection. As detailed in the City's 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan, much of the City's stormwater system discharges to Sinclair Inlet through a system of more than 50 outfalls along the waterfront that vary from 5 to 24 inches in diameter. The piped and ditched portions of the system are primarily within the older, more commercial areas of Port Orchard, while the outlying, more residential areas are largely composed of the remaining elements of the region's original natural drainage system (i.e., lakes, streams and wetlands) and are supported by a widely distributed system of culverts, ditches, pipes, and ponds. 7.2 Non -City Managed Utilities The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates the services and defines the costs that a utility can recover, to ensure that the utility acts prudently and responsibly. Under the GMA, both the WUTC and the City of Port Orchard have jurisdiction over the activities of electric, gas, and telephone utilities within the City. The City has the authority to regulate land use and, under the GMA, the requirement to consider the locations of existing and proposed utilities and potential utility corridors in land use planning and permit decisions. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-95 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established the role and responsibilities of the Federal Communications Commission in licensing wireless communication providers. The licenses allow the right to use a block or blocks of the radio frequency spectrum to provide wireless services. The Act recognizes the authority of state and local governments over decisions regarding siting of wireless communication facilities, subject to certain limitations. Sewer Residents within the City that are outside of the City's sewer service area are served by the West Sound Utility District (WSUD). Water A small portion of the City is served by the West Sound Utility District (formerly known as Annapolis Water District), whose service area lies east of Port Orchard and includes portions of the City's eastern potential annexation, or urban growth area. An interlocal agreement is in place to ensure coordination and compatibility with the City's water service. The City's 260 Pressure Zone water supply is augmented during high demand or emergency conditions through an intertie with the City of Bremerton. Solid Waste and Recycling Solid waste and recyclable materials collection is contracted to Waste Management Northwest. Electrical Service Puget Sound Energy (PSE) builds, operates and maintains the electrical system serving Port Orchard. Natural Gas Service Cascade Natural Gas builds, operates and maintains the natural gas distribution system that serves Port Orchard. Cascade Natural Gas has indicated that their service area covers all of Port Orchard and its UGA. Telecommunications Telecommunications is the transmission of information in the form of electronic signals or similar means. Telecommunications services generally include the following categories: • Landline telephone. CenturyLink and Astound provide landline telephone service to Port Orchard. Wireless communications (cell towers or antennae). A variety of cellular communication and wireless data services are available in Port Orchard (Verizon, Sprint, etc). Currently, these services rely on ground -based antennae located on towers or buildings. Cable television and broadband internet. There are several providers that serve Port Orchard, such as Astound, CenturyLink, KPUD and DIRECTV. 7.3 Existing Conditions Asset Management In 2024, the City of Port Orchard will begin the initial implementation of a comprehensive Asset Management Program (AMP) to enhance utility infrastructure longevity. Through rigorous assessments, the City will develop a strategic plan prioritizing preventive maintenance, capital improvements, and replacements. Asset management software and staff training will improve predictive maintenance. This program implementation will assist in providing a resilient and sustainable future, ensuring utility infrastructure would endure and efficiently serve the growing community. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-96 Sewer The condition and capacity of the City's wastewater collection system, including gravity sewer lines, force mains, and lift stations, was analyzed by the City's consultant in association with the General Sewer Plan's September 2020 Amendment. The conveyance system was analyzed using the InfoSWMM computer modeling platform. This hydraulic model simulated the performance of the major collection system components, including all pump stations and the major sewer mains within the City's collection system. The General Sewer Plan13 identifies minor capacity issues under existing flow conditions in areas throughout the City which will be addressed through implementation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The General Sewer Plan identifies some necessary upgrades to the Bay Street Lift Station Replacement, Marina Pump Station, Tremont Place Diversion, and Golden Pond Lift Station. Additional new facilities, including South Sidney Lift Station and Sidney Second Force Main, have been identified to provide adequate capacity in the City's wastewater system as future development occurs. These improvements are included in the General Sewer Plan's 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and are described in more detail in the adopted General Sewer Plan Update. Water The City's water supply and distribution system is examined on a regular basis, as required by State and Federal requirements. The City's adopted Water System Plan 14, indicates that the water system meets the City's domestic drinking water requirements, although capacity analysis will remain an ongoing effort as the City continues to see additional development activities. Water supply needs are met through utilizing City wells, and an intertie with the City of Bremerton water supply. There is an emergency intertie with the City of Bremerton to the 260 pressure zone that can be activated in the event that additional fire flow is needed. The City has drilled additional wells and is pursuing water rights through the Foster Pilot Project15 for future demand. The analysis also determined that continued treatment of current and future well supplies will be required, primarily for disinfection and removal of naturally occurring compounds. Larger size pipelines will be needed both to replace existing and aging water mains, primarily in older sections of the City, and to improve the flow of water during projected fire events. Port Orchard purchases water from Bremerton through a 16-inch transmission main. A recent Interlocal Agreement (November 2019) includes selling assets like the 580 Zone tank to Bremerton. Bremerton will supply 750 gpm until Port Orchard meets specified conditions, allowing both systems to operate independently. Port Orchard, part of a pilot project under Section 301 of ESSB 6091, is demonstrating water resource mitigation sequencing per RCW 90.94.090. To update aging wells, the City has applied for water right changes and new water rights for Wells 12 and 13, targeting a deep sub -sea level aquifer to minimize impacts on local streams. The Foster Pilot Mitigation projects aim to mitigate water resource impacts within the City's service area. More information on this project can be found by following the link referenced below. Stormwater The City is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II 13 https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2017/10/General-Sewer-Plan-Update- FINAL1.pdf 14 https://Portorchardwa.gov/documents/2020-water-system-plan/ 15 https://ecology.wa.gov/water-shorelines/water-supply/water-rights/case-law/foster-decision Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-97 Municipal Permit, which is a federal Environmental Protection Agency permit program administered by the State Department of Ecology (Ecology). As part of compliance measures, the City is required to develop and administer a stormwater management program that reduces discharge of both point source and nonpoint source pollution carried by stormwater. One requirement of this program is the adoption of the minimum stormwater design standards outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and apply these standards to all new permit applications. The SWMMWW maintains the required use of Best Management Practices to reduce pollutant discharges and encourage low -impact development measures that minimize creation of impervious surfaces and disturbance of native vegetation and soils. Additionally, the SWMMWW provides guidance for development project review to ensure that water quality standards are maintained during construction and operation phases of development proposals, and that receiving waters are protected from adverse impacts of stormwater. In order to comply with the NPDES Phase II Municipal Permit requirements and implement stormwater quality goals, the City has developed and adopted the 2023 Stormwater Management Program Plan and the 2023 Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan. In addition to NPDES Phase II Municipal Permit compliance, these policy documents address the City's goals for flooding and water quality concerns, infrastructure maintenance and management, resources needed to implement the goals of each Plan, and capital improvement list identifying major infrastructure upgrades and necessary funding. Historically, the Sinclair/Dyes Inlet water bodies have had reduced water quality, partially due to longstanding discharges of industrial, agricultural, and septic system discharges within the contributing watersheds. The City is required to monitor water quality for fecal coliform bacteria and respond to any illicit discharges, including accidental spills, illegal connections, and illegal dumping into the storm sewer system, with the long-term goal of complying with the NPDES and eliminating these discharges to prevent further degradation of these Puget Sound Inlets. 7.4 Relationship to Centers In accordance with VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies, several centers have been established within the City. Centers serve important roles as sub -regional hubs and secondary concentrations of development, with a dense mix of housing and services such as stores, medical offices, and libraries. Additional information regarding centers locations throughout the City, and specific goals and policies for those centers, are contained in Chapter 2: Land Use of this Comprehensive Plan. One purpose of centers is to enable the City to deliver services more cost -efficiently and equitably within a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound. Through subarea planning, the City will designate desired development types, locations, and patterns within each Center. Provision of utilities and improvements to utility services within Centers should be a City priority. 7.5 Future Needs Sewer Future needs for the City's sewer collection system primarily arise from a need to address deficiencies that have been identified in the City's existing wastewater system, generally due to aging and insufficient capacity. If not corrected, these deficiencies will be exacerbated as the City continues to grow. In addition, future needs include the provision of the needed infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-98 In the near -term future (0-6 years), the focus of the CIP for the sewer collection system is the replacement and/or retrofitting of key components for several pump stations. Long-term improvements (7-20 years) will be required for conveyance pipelines throughout the City, including the McCormick Woods Drive SW, Bay Street, and Port Orchard Boulevard gravity sewer lines. These issues are discussed in the City's Sewer Plan in greater detail. Table 7-1provides an overview of the near -term future improvements. Water The primary challenge for future water service in the City of Port Orchard is meeting the needs of future development while maintaining sufficient yield from its permitted ground water supply. Both short and long term needs of the City regarding water utility services are primarily oriented around the ability to withdraw, treat, and supply water to the increasing development pressures the City faces. The initial planning and analysis efforts have identified a series of projects that will be required to maintain and strengthen the performance of the City's water supply system. To improve the water supply system reliability, the City intends to develop additional well supply(ies) to provide sufficient capacity for the City to become self-sufficient, thus using the Bremerton intertie as a standby/emergency source of drinking water rather than a continuous source of water supply. New pipelines will also be installed to improve the system's capability to move water throughout the system. In addition, new storage reservoir(s)will be needed to optimize system performance and provide water to meet operational and firefighting capacity requirements. Providing an intertie between the City's existing upper water pressure zone (660pz/580pz) and the existing lower water pressure zone (390pz/260pz) will also enhance system redundancy, improving overall service and reliability. Beyond 2025, additional water rights may be required, however, the City will want to keep detailed water use records and monitor peaking rates. With reductions in water use due to conservation, type of development changes, or lifestyle changes, it is possible that the existing system could support future development without additional improvements. However, there are multiple projects programmed in the near -term future, as detailed in the Capital Facilities Element. Stormwater The City's CIP identifies five capital projects for stormwater that are intended to address localized flooding, stabilize stream bank erosion, protect habitat and water quality, resolve conveyance capacity issues, and protect public and private roads and other infrastructure from flood damage These planned improvements and priority rankings are accurate at the time of issuance of this Plan but may be revised as facility conditions and other situations change. Non -city utility providers will experience increased demand for services as the City grows and will need to plan for new or improved facilities. As new technologies for Internet, wireless telephone, and other telecommunications systems are implemented, these improvements will further the City's goal of economic growth and competitiveness. Through its land use regulation and permitting authority, the City should ensure that these utilities are broadly available to residents and businesses throughout the City, and that there are not excessive visual impacts within existing neighborhoods and local centers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-99 7.6 Utilities Goals and Policies UT Goal 1. Ensure utilities are provided in a timely manner to meet the needs of Port Orchard's future population. Policy UT-1 Facilitate planning for utility improvements by providing utility purveyors with population and employment projections on a regular basis. Policy UT-2 Improvements and additions to utility facilities shall be planned and constructed so that utility services are sufficient to serve anticipated growth. Policy UT-3 Encourage the designation and development of utility corridors and facilities in a manner consistent with the needs and resources of the City. Policy UT-4 Coordinate provision of utilities with future development by designating appropriate sites for utility facilities and ensuring their availability and consider future annexations in developing coordinated strategies for supplying future utilities to the City. Policy UT-5 Coordinate provision of utility services with planned development by improving mechanisms to process development permits and approvals in a fair and timely manner. Policy UT-6 Consider impacts and timing of future phases of development when permitting large utility projects. Policy UT-7 Ensure that development regulations allow timely development of utility facility additions and improvements. Policy UT-8 Establish capacity and levels of service for City managed utilities. Policy UT-9 The City shall not allow for the extension of municipal utilities outside City limits, except extensions in specific circumstances that are necessary to protect public health and safety, the environment, and when they are financially supportable at rural densities that do not permit urban development. Policy UT-10 Prioritize the provision of utilities and improvements to existing utilities within designated centers importance. Ensure utility services are provided in an efficient, coordinated, and comprehensive manner. Policy UT-11 City decisions regarding utility corridors and facilities should consider regional utility needs as well as City interests. Policy UT-12 Enhance efficiency of planning for utilities by facilitating coordination between the City of Port Orchard, City of Bremerton, WSUD, WUTC, and utilities regulated by the WUTC during development of comprehensive utility plans. Policy UT-13 Coordinate collection, integration and maintenance of Geographic Information System (GIS) utility data among utility providers to ensure consistent and up-to-date information on facility locations and capacities. Policy UT-14 Enhance efficiency by coordinating the implementation of utility facility additions and improvements affecting multiple jurisdictions. Policy UT-15 Coordinate land use, transportation, and utility planning and development. Policy UT-16 Ensure that utility policies and regulations are consistent with, and complementary to, utility public service obligations. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-100 Policy UT-17 Ensure that utilities are provided consistent with applicable rules, regulations, and prudent utility practice. Policy UT-18 Ensure all chapters of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan (and implementing development regulations) are consistent with, and do not otherwise impair the fulfillment of, public service obligations imposed upon the utility provider by federal and state law. Policy UT-19 Utilize software and technology that facilitates effective and efficient utility data collection and analysis. Policy UT-20 Encourage reductions in the per capita rate of water consumption through conservation, efficiency, reclamation, and reuse. UT Goal 2. Maintain and enhance utility service quality. Policy UT-21 Encourage utility providers to protect and enhance the performance, reliability and stability of their utility systems. Policy UT-22 Encourage utilities to incorporate new and improved technologies to enhance the quality and cost effectiveness of their services consistent with the provider's public service obligations. Policy UT-23 When stormwater BMPs are deemed ineffective due to site -specific conditions, explore and apply appropriate site -specific BMPs. UT Goal 3. Minimize environmental and aesthetic impacts of utility facilities. Policy UT-24 Place utility facilities along public rights- of -way and encourage underground distribution lines in accordance with state rules and regulations. Policy UT-25 Encourage siting of large, above ground utilities (e.g.; antennas, towers) in industrial or commercial areas or along appropriate transportation and utility corridors. Policy UT-26 Minimize the visual impact of utility facilities on view corridors, vistas, and adjacent properties by developing design guidelines for cellular towers, antennas, and other types of utility facilities. Policy UT-27 For new development, retrofitting and major remodels, including upgrades to site utilities, the City shall require the undergrounding of future or existing utility lines including gas, cable television, electric distribution lines, and telephone as appropriate during the design review process and in accordance with local, regional, and state rules, regulations, and tariffs. Policy UT-28 As new development occurs and creates additional demand for public services, assess the potential to conserve/upgrade existing utility facilities before developing new facilities. UT Goal 4. Support and promote energy conservation. Policy UT-29 Encourage and support development of renewable energy projects and technologies. Policy UT-30 Establish and support renewable energy incentives for businesses and residents. Policy UT-31 Encourage programs to educate utility users on the benefits and means of conservation. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-101 UT Goal S. Support the extension of fiber optic cable in the City of Port Orchard. Policy UT-32 Recognize broadband's influence and importance to economic diversification in Port Orchard. Policy UT-33 Encourage installation of broadband infrastructure in all new residential subdivisions, economic development projects, and arterial improvements. Policy UT-34 Partner with broadband and fiber optic service providers within the City to ensure coordination efforts for enhanced access to high-speed internet for new development proposals. UT Goal 6. Enhance community resilience to natural hazards through effective siting, design, construction, and operation of public services and infrastructure. Policy UT-35 Identify challenges resulting from natural hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, wildfires, and sea level rise as they relate to the siting and design of new public services and infrastructure. Policy UT-36 Recognize historical disproportionate impacts to vulnerable populations, who tend to have greater exposure to natural hazards and the resulting impacts on public services. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 7-102 Chapter 8 Transportation 8.1 Transportation Element Context The Transportation Element identifies future system improvements derived from the analysis completed in the Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements of this Comprehensive Plan, as well as County and Regional plans and policies. In addition to roadway improvements, this element also identifies ways to provide more opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and all road users. The policy direction within this element provides new nonmotorized transportation system links between residential areas and nearby employment and shopping areas. The objective of these policies is to reduce automobile dependence within the City and to minimize the need to widen roads to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. This requires a change in priorities from moving as much traffic as quickly as possible, at the expense of other transportation modes and adjacent land uses, to provide choices, balance, and connections between driving, transit, walking, and bicycling. The purpose and vision of the Transportation Element is to provide a safe, dependable, properly maintained, as well as fiscally- and environmentally responsible multi -modal transportation system that is consistent with and supports the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation system should respect community character, environment, and neighborhoods; improve mobility and safety; minimize impacts from regional facilities; and promote increased use of transit and nonmotorized travel. The transportation system needs to be both locally and regionally coordinated and connected, adequately financed, and community supported. The goals and policies identified in this element are based upon a technical analysis which utilizes a methodology consistent with regional planning efforts, including the draft 2024 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan update and the 2018 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study, as well as prior Port Orchard planning efforts including the 2018 Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan and the 2021 Downtown Subarea Plan. This document also incorporates the data, analysis, and updates provided in the Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 2020 Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study (Ordinance 007-21). This element is also consistent with county and regional planning efforts, including the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050, and the planning requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). 8.2 Transportation Vision The transportation network of the City of Port Orchard is meant to serve the land use of the community and seek to achieve the most efficient means of transporting people and goods. The City's transportation network shall support the land use of the community. However, the transportation network should not be the sole justification to increase land use densities. Therefore, to make consistent and sound land use decisions, the City must evaluate traffic modifications attributed to each land use change. Transportation improvements are extremely expensive and time-consuming. Unlike other public works improvements, there is normally not an identifiable revenue gain that can be attributed to a road's completion. Road construction planning must accommodate the future needs of the community without the cost of excessively overbuilding the project. Constructing a road to accommodate the ultimate build -out of a neighborhood is normally not economically feasible. When a project is proposed, the City needs to evaluate the immediate traffic needs, the needs after project completion and the ultimate anticipated volume. Financial constraints may call for phasing the project to allow immediate relief and allowing for future improvements as land use demands increase. The City has and is experiencing significant growth placing additional demand on its street system, particularly its arterial corridors including Bethel Road, Tremont Street, Sedgwick Road, Sidney Road, and Old Clifton Road. Both motorized improvements at intersections and nonmotorized improvements such as bicycle facilities and sidewalks are necessary for an effective and equitable transportation system. Other investments are needed to preserve and upgrade infrastructure in older neighborhoods. Investments are needed to preserve and upgrade existing sidewalk networks to ensure accessibility and maximize connectivity. Ongoing road maintenance is needed annually to maintain service levels in older neighborhoods and ensure repair costs do not escalate over time. Our vision for Port Orchard is a community which offers an inviting, attractive, and pedestrian- friendly atmosphere that provides a full range of retail and recreational activities while ensuring coordinated City and County regional Land Use Plans which promote an efficient multimodal transportation system. 8.3 Transportation System Inventory 8.3.1 Existing Roadway Network State System Port Orchard lies along Sinclair Inlet across from Bremerton in the heart of the Kitsap Peninsula in Kitsap County, WA. The major north -south route within the County is SR 3 which passes through the community of Gorst, about a mile north of the City of Port Orchard. SR 16 connects with SR 3 at Gorst and passes through Port Orchard ending ultimately in Tacoma by way of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. SR 16 is designated a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) that passes through the Port Orchard Planning Area. SR 16 is functionally classified as a freeway by WSDOT, and the highway is rated on the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) as a T-1 facility carrying an estimated 12,530,000 tons in 2021 from the Pierce/Kitsap County line to the Gorst area. SR 16 serves freight, commuter, neighborhood, business, and recreational travelers. Within the planning area, interchanges with SR 16 are located at Tremont Street SW, and at SW Sedgwick Road (SR 160). SR 16 is primarily a four -lane divided highway providing major regional access between Kitsap County and the transportation network of the Central Puget Sound area. SR 16 is a limited access full control highway within Kitsap County and links South Kitsap with Pierce County, eventually connecting to Interstate 5 in Tacoma. Near Gorst, after SR 166 (Bay Street) joins SR 16, SR 16 becomes six lanes for a distance of 1.15 miles. Where SR 16 joins SR 3 at Gorst, the number of lanes on SR 3 drops to four. SR 160 (Sedgwick Rd) is the primary route from SR 16 to the Southworth Ferry Terminal. SR 160 is the east/west ferry commuter route, connecting Port Orchard with the Southworth Ferry Terminal, SR 16, and eventually with SR 3. This highway has two lanes with minimum access spacing of 330 feet. SR 160 includes two signalized intersections at the SR 16 interchange. SR 166 (Bay Street) runs from SR 16 along the City of Port Orchard waterfront to the east city limits. The road was previously designated SR 160, but in 1992, SR 160 was moved to its present location on Sedgwick Road and SR 166 was formed. The route includes Bay Street from SR 16 to Bethel Avenue, Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-104 Bethel Avenue from Bay Street to SE Mile Hill Road, and SE Mile Hill Road from Bethel Avenue to the east city limits. SR 166 (Bay Street) is the City of Port Orchard's "Main Street" and is a primary arterial serving the main street community and the Downtown Port Orchard waterfront. Bethel Road is an arterial corridor that links SR 160 to SR 166 forming a business loop parallel to SR 16. The Bethel corridor provides access to much of the retail commercial services for Port Orchard and South Kitsap County and is vital to the local and regional economy. Bethel Road is designated SR 166 from Bay Street to Mile Hill Drive. Kitsap County Roads Kitsap County arterial roads serve as key elements in the transportation system surrounding Port Orchard. County roadways link together state routes or connect the state route system to Port Orchard, to other major centers, and to the ferry system. For example, Mile Hill Drive is a two lane east/west road located to the east of Port Orchard which connects the city to Southworth Drive and the Southworth Ferry Terminal to the east. The technical analysis described in this Transportation Element included major Kitsap County roadways in the vicinity of Port Orchard and utilized a methodology generally consistent with the draft 2024 Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Update. City Street Network A City's functional classification system provides a planning guide for the development of a transportation network which will serve the needs of a community's growth for the future. Streets within a transportation network must be managed for specific roles in moving people and goods through the city and surrounding region. The functional classification system identifies the role of each street and provides a simplified vision of management needs for each type, including safety, adjacent land uses, multimodal travel demands, and other connecting transportation systems. Ultimately, the functional class of each street determines the typical roadway design, cross -sectional parameters, and design speed, while providing a basis for management practices to minimize conflicts between travel modes. The City of Port Orchard has defined its functional classification system to be consistent with the Federal Functional Classifications (FFC) provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the arterial functional classifications defined in the Kitsap County Revised Road Standards. These arterial streets qualify for financial assistance under federal or state programs. Table 8-1 identifies the City's functional classes and includes a short description of each classification. The City's existing arterial network and associated functional classifications are shown in Figure 8-1. Table 8-1. Street Functional Classifications Functional Description Classification High capacity, high speed, regional connections. Freeway Maximum mobility with full access control. Principal Provide connectivity between different areas of a region. Arterial High mobility with partial access control. Minor Arterial Provide connectivity between different areas of a region. Moderate mobility w/partial access control. Collector Collect traffic from local streets and other collectors. Connect neighborhoods to each other and to arterials. Local Access Provide direct access to properties in residential, commercial, or industrial areas Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-105 rigure is-1. I-uL4 aireet runctlonai uassiTlcation (Functional Classification Freeway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector City Limit Outline Urban Growth Area 3 1 w 1 r � w 1 i i � o L w � r 1 r SW BERkYLAgr RD SyR Lb L TON R _ � 1 1 I 1 r �- � 1 r ■ h SW 'Os Oft Tronsportatton Solutions 0 0.5 1 � 5 2 mi Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-106 8.3.2 Transit Service Routed Buses Kitsap Transit operates seven routed buses within Port Orchard. All seven routes provide weekday service, while Routes 4, 5, 8, and 9 also provide Saturday service. Routes 81 and 86 provide scheduled service during weekday peak commute hours, and the Purdy Connector provides on -demand service during the weekday peak commute hours. Existing routed bus service is summarized in Table 8-2. Table 8-2. Fixed -Route Bus Service Route Route Name / Service Area Service Hours Headway Tremont: PO Ferry, Kitsap Courthouse, Givens Comm. Ctr, M-F 5:30AM-6:55PM; M-F 60 min.; 4 Harrison Medical Ctr, Work Release/Youth Services Ctr Sa 10:OOAM — 5:55 PM Sa 30 min. Sidney: PO Ferry, Kitsap Courthouse, Givens Comm. Ctr, M-F 5:10AM-7:25PM; 5 Cedar Heights Jr HS, Sedgwick Landing Sa 10:00 AM-5:25PM 60 min. Bethel: PO Ferry, Bethel Ave, Walmart, Fred Meyer, Mitchell M-F 5:OOAM-7:52PM; 8 Ave, South Kitsap High School Sa 10:OOAM-5:25PM 30 min. South Park: PO Ferry, Albertson's, Town Square, Walmart, M-F 6:50AM-8:15PM; 9 Jackson Ave, Center, Veterans Home on Bay Dr Sa 10:30AM-5:15PM 60 min. Annapolis Commuter: PO Ferry, Annapolis P&R, Towne M-F 5:15-7:15 AM; 81 Square, Armory P&R, Mitchell, Jackson, Lund, Madrona M-F 3:00-5:49PM 15 min. Southworth Shuttle: PO Ferry, Armory P&R, Mile Hill, M-F 4:35-10:25AM; 86 Manchester, South Colby, Southworth Ferry M-F 2:00-8:18PM 30 70 min. Purdy Connector: PO Ferry, Mullenix P&R, Purdy P&R M-F 6:00-9:OOAM; PC On -demand M-F 3:00-6:OOPM Ferry Service Port Orchard is connected to the Seattle metropolitan area by the Washington State Ferry system. The Southworth Ferry Terminal is located to the east of Port Orchard and connected to the City via SR 160 and Kitsap County roads. The Bremerton Ferry Terminal is connected to Port Orchard by SR 304, SR 3, SR 16,and SR166. Kitsap Transit Fast Ferries operate passenger -only ferry service between Kitsap County and Seattle on weekdays year-round and on Saturdays from May through September. Kitsap Fast Ferries launched service on the Bremerton -Seattle route in 2017 and the Southworth-Seattle route in 2021. Kitsap Transit local foot ferries operate two passenger -only routes in Sinclair Inlet. The Bremerton -Port Orchard service runs daily, and the Bremerton -Annapolis service runs on weekdays only. Foot ferry service is timed to meet the Seattle/Bremerton Ferry. Other Transit Services Kitsap Transit operates several alternative transit services in the Port Orchard planning area: Worker/Driver buses are driven by employees at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK)-Bremerton and NBK-Bangor. The buses operate like a large vanpool where the driver boards the bus near home in the morning and picks up coworkers on the way to work. Kitsap Transit has 32 Worker/Driver routes, including several in the Port Orchard Planning Area. ACCESS is a demand -response paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ACCESS provides door-to-door transportation for eligible riders who are unable to use the fixed -route bus system. The service is available in Port Orchard and the surrounding area. VanLink is a shared -cost ACCESS -alternative program which provides local social service agencies with Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-107 vans to transport their clients. The program gives agencies the ability to schedule client outings, work programs, daycare, and training as their schedule demands. The vanpool program allows groups of three to 14 commuters to share a ride to and from work using a Kitsap Transit van. Kitsap Transit also registers carpools, which allow commuters to share a ride in a privately -owned carpool vehicle. The carpool program allows vehicles access to reserved parking spaces, including free spaces at the Annapolis Ferry Dock. SCOOT is a car -sharing program for commuters who work in targeted areas in Kitsap County, including the Kitsap County Courthouse and downtown Bremerton. Park and Ride Lots Port Orchard currently has three park -and -ride facilities, which are summarized in Table 8-3. Each lot provides service to at least two bus routes in addition to the Kitsap Transit Worker/Driver bus program. Additional parking is available in Downtown Port Orchard. Three park -and -ride lots in Kitsap County outside city limits provide additional parking capacity and access to transit and ferry service, thereby influencing transportation in Port Orchard. Existing park -and -ride facilities in and near Port Orchard are summarized in Table 8-3. In addition to the existing facilities, the planned Ruby Creek Park -and -Ride on Sidney Road to the north of Sedgwick Road will provide 250 parking spaces and access to expanded transit service. Table 8-3. Park -and -Ride Lots Name Location Parking Spaces Routes Served Within City of Port Orchard Annapolis Ferry Terminal 1076 Beach Dr E 81 #9, #81, Worker/Driver First Lutheran Church 2483 Mitchell Rd SE 40 #8, #81, Worker/Driver Port Orchard Armory 1950 Mile Hill Dr 105 #9, #81, #86, Worker/Driver Outside City of Port Orchard Burley Bible Church 14687 Olympic Dr SE 20 Worker/Driver Harper Church Sedgwick Road & Wilson Creek Road 462 #85, #86, #184, Worker/Driver Mullenix and Highway 16 SR 16 & Mullenix Rd 92 #85, Worker/Driver Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-108 Long -Range Transit Planning The Kitsap Transit Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-204216 (LRTP) defines the long-range vision for public transit service in the Port Orchard planning area. It identifies several major projects which will improve transit access and service in Port Orchard: • Three new local fixed routes: o Port Orchard — McCormick Woods o Southworth — Port Orchard o Southworth — Sidney Road Park & Ride • New Bremerton -Tacoma Express Route, including a stop at Sidney Road Park & Ride • New High -Capacity Transit Route from Port Orchard Ferry Transit Center to Bethel Rd and SR 160 • McCormick Woods On -Demand Transit Zone • New SR 16 Transit Center near Sedgwick Road interchange • Expanded Port Orchard Transit Center in downtown Port Orchard • McCormick Woods Multimodal Hub • Tremont Street Park & Ride • Upgraded weekday headway on Kitsap Transit Routes 4, 5, and 9 8.3.3 Airport and Aviation Services Port Orchard is served by two airports. One is a privately -owned general aviation facility about five miles southwest of the City called the Port Orchard Airport (4WA9). The second is the Bremerton National Airport (KPWT), owned and operated by the Port of Bremerton. The Port Orchard Airport is a small privately -owned airport which serves small private aircraft via one operational runway (18/36). No services are provided. Bremerton National Airport (KPWT) is a general aviation facility serving the communities on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas. As of 2022, there were 104 aircraft based at the Bremerton National Airport, ranging from gliders to multi -engine planes. One fixed base operator provides various but limited training, fuel and convenience services. Total annual operations for 2022 were 66,000, or an average of 181 per day. KPWT serves beginning amateurs as well as professional pilots and flights. The Bremerton National Airport Master Plan forecasts 276 KPWT-based aircraft by 2032, an increase of 165 percent from 2022. Total annual operations are also expected to increase, from 66,000 to 90,000. This forecast assumes that the airport will continue its role as the only FAA -funded airport in Kitsap County and support most of the FAA -registered aircraft in the county. The airfield consists of one operational runway (02/20) that is oriented north-northeast/south- southwest. Runway 2/20 is 6,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. KPWT has extensive lighting and instrumentation and a taxiway system that provides access to all areas of the airfield. KPWT's former crosswind runway (16/34) is closed to aircraft and currently serves as the Bremerton Motorsports Park facility. 16 https://bit.ly/3WDNSZG Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-109 Figure 8-2. Existing Public Transit Facilities Transit Routes Route 4 Route 5 Route 8 Route 9 Route 81 Route 86 Purdy Connection -- Port Orchard Foot Ferry -- Annapolis Foot Ferry OTransit Center OPlanned Transit Center O Park & Ride City Limit outline Urban Growth Area 161 Y � N r Lea/ 0 i SW BERRYLAKERD L sz ONR9 OLD WrTON RD SN OHO r 11 r T a rI � syy�OF Transportation Solutions 0 I 0.5 \\\ 1 ,Ea, ,,r,- .5 2 mi Until 2004, KPWT was a Part 139 Certified Airport authorized to serve US Department of Transportation - certified commercial air carriers with more than 30 passengers. The airport could seek to renew this certification in the future if demand requires. For planning purposes, the future operations are forecast to continue to be dominated by business -oriented flights, private planes, flight training or other forms of noncommercial activity using single- and multi -engine piston aircraft. The Bremerton National Airport Master Plan" recommends an expanded taxiway system to accommodate new aviation -related development. It also identifies locations for future hangar expansion and other aviation -related development, including the redevelopment of the former crosswind runway (16/34). 17 https://bit.ly/3R3mfJB Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-110 8.3.4 Freight and Rail Services Freight and goods are transported within the Port Orchard area on SR 16, SR 166, SR 160, as well as on City and County roads. The BNSF Railway provides rail service to Kitsap County. Freight use is restricted to the U.S. Military by agreement. The U.S. Navy owns the rails from Shelton to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and on to Bangor. The railroad is maintained as Federal Railway Administration Class 3 on a scale of 1 (low) to 6 (high). Burlington Northern Railroad provides one train per day service. At its closest point, the railroad right of way passes through the community of Gorst, about one mile northwest of Port Orchard. In Washington State, the highway and roadway system is rated according to the amount of freight and goods that are carried by truck on the system. The Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) is a ranking of roads in Washington State by annual gross freight tonnage carried. The FGTS classification system is as follows: • T-1: Over 10 million tons per year • T-2: Between 4 and 10 million tons per year • T-3: Between 300,000 and 4 million tons per year • T-4: Between 100,000 and 300,000 tons per year • T-5: At least 20,000 tons carried in a 60-day period and less than 100,000 tons per year The FGTS system is affected by changes in the economy, international trade, and the transportation industry such as changes in truck travel patterns, cargoes, and tonnages. Revisions to the FGTS routes and tonnage classifications are developed by the agency having jurisdiction over the roadway segment. The following freight routes are designated within the Port Orchard planning area: a. SR 16 (Pierce/Kitsap Co. line to Gorst) is designated a T-1 facility carrying 12,530,000 tons annually in 2021; SR 160 (Sedgwick Road between SR 16 and Bethel Road) is designated a T-3 facility, carrying an estimated annual 2,470,000 tons in 2021; SR 166 is designated a T-3 facility, carrying an estimated annual 1,640,000 tons in 2021. d. Designated T-3 routes include: 1. Bethel Road from South City Limits to North City Limits 2. Glenwood Road from South City Limits to SW Sedgwick Road 3. SE Lund Avenue from Sidney Avenue to East City Limits 4. Mitchell Road SE from Bethel Road to East City Limits 5. Old Clifton Rd from SR 16 to West City Limits 6. SW Sedgwick Road from Glenwood Road to SR 16 7. Sidney Avenue from Tremont Street to SR 166 8. Sidney Road from SW Berry Lake Road to South City Limits 9. Tremont Street from SR 16 to Sidney Avenue e. One designated T-4 route is Port Orchard Boulevard from Tremont Street to SR 166. 8.33 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Nonmotorized transportation systems include facilities that provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. These include sidewalks, crosswalks, off street trails, bike routes, and bicycle facilities. In rural areas, nonmotorized facilities can also include roadway shoulders when they are of adequate width. Some portions of nonmotorized routes can be used for commuting purposes to reduce potential vehicular traffic volumes. If properly located, designed and maintained, nonmotorized trails can Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-111 accommodate a meaningful portion of local resident travel between residential areas and shopping centers, schools, and places of employment. Nonmotorized facilities can also provide access to public transit and in this way can help decrease the reliance on single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. When properly planned and constructed, nonmotorized facilities are shown to increase the desirability of a city as a place to live and work. Safe walking and bicycling environments within Port Orchard are a major concern of citizens, whether they are avid or casual recreational walkers or cyclists or bicycle commuters. In many cases, pedestrians and cyclists must share narrow high -volume streets with motor vehicles of all sizes. They cross busy intersections with multiple conflict points. The City can take measurable steps with this Transportation Element toward the goal of creating a safer walking and biking environment. This plan proposes a strategy for implementing a priority system for physical improvements through private ventures, capital projects, grants, and competitive funding sources. The facilities map in Figure 8-3 illustrates the extent of the nonmotorized transportation system and the type of facility that each segment supports. It also shows existing community centers, parks, and schools. The adoption of this plan does not preclude the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on other streets. The plan acknowledges fiscal constraints and challenges associated with building new sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and other improvements on every street in Port Orchard. Routes designated here should be prioritized due to their potential to fulfill the needs of the community and the citywide connections they will provide. Existing Pedestrian Facilities There is an assortment of pedestrian facilities located throughout Port Orchard and its UGA. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, trails, and designated crosswalks. Most sidewalks are located along commercial corridors and in some neighborhoods. Sidewalks and designated crosswalks are also provided in some residential subdivisions. The initial construction of these pedestrian facilities is typically the responsibility of the developer and are provided as part of plat development, while the ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner as outlined in Port Orchard Municipal Code 12.12. Sidewalks are generally promoted throughout the commercial areas such as the Bethel Corridor, creating a grid -system for pedestrians, although many of the streets outside the commercial area have paved or gravel shoulders rather than sidewalks. The nonmotorized network has missing links around some elementary and secondary schools. Many of the schools are in residential neighborhoods. Continuous sidewalks would improve the safety and utility of the pedestrian environment for elementary and secondary school children to walk to and from school. In the past, many of the roads in Port Orchard were constructed to a rural standard with no curb or sidewalk improvements or provisions for safe pedestrian travel. Recent roadway reconstruction projects have provided storm drainage, curbs, and sidewalk improvements, particularly along major streets providing access to schools, parks, and the downtown business district. Sidewalks have also been constructed on many local streets in concert with new development within the city. Curb ramps to allow barrier -free access to sidewalks at street crossings have also been installed at many locations. The City's 2017 ADA Transition Plan included an inventory of existing mobility barriers on sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveway pads. Between 2016 and 2021, ADA deficiency removals and upgrades included 4.8 miles of new ADA sidewalks, 39 curb ramp upgrades, 26 driveway apron upgrades, and 2 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-112 pedestrian signal upgrades. As of 2021, the City's remaining ADA barriers include 556 deficient curb ramps and 130 deficient driveway aprons. The City will continue to mitigate these ADA deficiencies in the public right-of-way, per the adopted Transition Plan, through regular maintenance and preservation programs, through oversight/permitting of developer improvements, and through the capital improvement projects identified later in this Transportation Element. Removal of ADA barriers will increase accessibility for youth, older adults, disabled persons, and other people with special transportation needs. Existing Trails Nonmotorized transportation systems include separated or off -road recreational trails. A portion of these trail corridors can also satisfy local access needs between residential areas and parks, schools, commercial and employment areas depending on the trail locations. There are currently two public separated trails in the City: the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway and the McCormick Multimodal Path. The Bay Street Pedestrian Path is a 0.9-mile-long paved trail which runs along the Sinclair Inlet waterfront from the Port Orchard Boat Launch Ramp to Bay Street approximately 500 feet northeast of Mitchell Avenue. From the Port Orchard Marina to its east terminus, the pathway consists of a 10-foot- wide paved section with centerline striping. The McCormick Multimodal Path is a 1.85-mile-long, eight -foot -wide paved trail which connects McCormick Woods with McCormick Village. It begins at Gleneagle Avenue SW west of McCormick Woods Drive and runs parallel to Gleneagle Avenue SW, Telford Way SW, and McCormick Village Drive. The Kitsap Peninsula Water Trail includes launches and amenities at the Port Orchard Marina, Water Street Boat Launch, and Port of Bremerton Marina Park. Port Orchard is also part of the Cascadia Marine Trail, which is a National Recreation Trail and one of only 16 National Millennium Trails designated by the White House. Existing Bicycle Facilities The Port Orchard street network currently includes marked bicycle facilities on the following routes: • Tremont Street: Bike lanes on both sides from SR 16 interchange to Port Orchard Blvd. • Lippert Drive: Bike lanes on both sides from Sidney Avenue to Pottery Avenue. • Sidney Avenue: A 600-foot-long bike lane along the east side of Sidney Road at the Haven Apartments frontage, approximately 1,500 feet north of Sedgwick Road. • Melcher Street: Shared Lane Markings ("sharrows") from Heron Ridge Ave to Sherman Ave. • SW Yarrow Street: Sharrows from McCormick Village Drive to Feigley Road SW. The 2018 Kitsap County Non -Motorized Facilities Plan (KCNMFP) identifies three bike routes within the Port Orchard planning area. The County -designated routes do not cross into the city limits, but the bicycle facilities they carry are incorporated to the nonmotorized system vision described in this Element. The designated Kitsap County bike routes include: • Route 25 — Begins on Sedgwick Rd just west of Sidney at the city limit. The route runs southwest along Glenwood and turns at Lake Flora, continuing along Glenwood Road to the south of the planning area. • Route 30 — Begins on Mile Hill Dr at the east city limit and continues to the east along Mile Hill Dr/Southworth Dr to the Southworth Ferry Terminal. • Route 37 — From Bethel Rd south of Sedgwick Rd extending south to the county line. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-113 8.4 Nonmotorized System Vision 8.4.1 Planned Nonmotorized Routes This section describes the City's vision for a nonmotorized transportation network to improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the City while also completing regional connections identified in the Kitsap County Non -Motorized Facilities Plan (KCNMFP). Planned nonmotorized routes are described below and shown graphically in Figure 8-3. Figure 8-3. Existing and Planned Arterial and Collector Nonmotorized Facilities Map Nonmotorized Facilities Existing Shared -Use Path ter° Existing Sidewalks & Bike Lanes m n Existing Sidewalks {both sides} T m Existing Sidewalk (one side) — TT-- Existing Paved Shoulder 46 W t< - - - Planned Shared -Use Path a; S r - Planned Sidewalks & Bike Lanes �School Park — — I6 CommunityCenter i ' OTransit Center 1� • �� �� Park & Ride City Limit Outline +---� i 1' Urban Growth Area = � �`� r �+ r �� BE L °. r r- � w+ 1 pp / � SW BERgY LONE RO � � L ;-----r I r----- SE gIEVSFrpk Transportation Solutions 0 0.5 1 4.5 2 mi The following sections summarize existing and planned shared right-of-way and separate right-of-way nonmotorized facilities in and near Port Orchard. Shared right-of-way nonmotorized facilities run parallel to roadways within the public right-of-way. They may include sidewalks, bike facilities, and shared -use paths or trails. Off -right-of-way facilities generally exist outside public street right-of-way but may cross public streets. These facilities include shared -use paths and other nonmotorized transportation infrastructure such as pedestrian/bicycle freeway overpasses. In this element, bike facilities are defined as an element of transportation infrastructure that is designed Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-114 to convey bicycle travelers. This may include bike lanes, cycle tracks, shared lanes, and shared multi -use paths. The selection of bike facilities for a given route may be influenced by contextual factors such as roadway volume, traffic speeds, sight distance, right-of-way width, and the character of the surrounding built environment. More information about bicycle facilities and their applications may be found in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 8.4.2 Arterial and Collector Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road) This 2.62-mile route will be the core north -south connection through Port Orchard and its busiest commercial centers. Anyone traveling east or west across the city crosses Bethel Road because it stretches from the northern waterfront to the southern city limits. Bethel Road carries 11,500 to 16,900 Average Weekly Daily Traffic (AWDT). The street has been programmed for improvements, described conceptually in the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Study, which will include bike lanes and sidewalks. The reconstruction of Bethel Road will provide an opportunity to ensure nonmotorized facilities better meet the spirit of this plan. The route is a designated nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. Feigley Road (Old Clifton Road to Lone Bear Lane) This 0.35-mile trail is a paved pathway on the east side of Feigley Road. Improvements may be needed to bring this trail into compliance with City design standards and to accommodate nonmotorized traffic generated by future development along Feigley Road. Glenwood/Sedgwick Road (McCormick Woods Drive to Long Lake Road) This 4.0-mile route will connect the commercial centers of Ruby Creek and Sedgwick-Bethel, SR 16, and residential neighborhoods in the southeastern part of the Urban Growth Area. It is partially outside of city limits and is mostly designated as a state highway, requiring collaboration with Kitsap County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It is a designated nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. McCormick Woods Drive (Old Clifton Road to Glenwood Road) This 4.0-mile segment consists of a wide road shoulder throughout the McCormick Woods neighborhood. It is already a popular route for bicycling and walking. However, it does not currently meet City nonmotorized design standards. Further study is necessary to identify roadway design, engineering, and enforcement measures which may be required to reduce vehicle speeds and to improve nonmotorized safety and access. McCormick Village Drive/Telford Way (North City Limits to McCormick Woods Dr) A 1.6-mile route has partially been constructed along McCormick Village Drive. This trail will be extended pursuant to a development agreement as additional phases of McCormick West (McCormick Trails) is constructed. The trail is expected to reach about 1.6 miles in length upon completion and will create a loop where it intersects with the Telford Way SW trail. Mile Hill Drive (Bethel Road to Whittier Ave) This 1.4-mile route will connect the Mile Hill center with residential neighborhoods to the east. It will provide a route to school for students at Orchard Heights Elementary School and Marcus Whitman Junior High School. Mile Hill Drive has 13,400 to 15,200 AWDT. It is partially a state highway, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County and WSDOT. The route is a designated nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. WSDOT has programmed several improvement projects which will provide nonmotorized improvements along the corridor, including a new roundabout at Wolves Road and new culvert adjacent to Veterans Park. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-115 Mitchell Avenue (Bethel Avenue to Bay Street) This 1.16-mile route will connect the central portion of Port Orchard and neighborhoods outside of the city to the high school. It partially passes through unincorporated territory within the Urban Growth Area, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County for completion. Roundabout improvements at Bethel/Lundberg/Mitchell and Lincoln/Mitchell will see the Mitchell Y intersection eliminated except for non -motorized connectivity. Old Clifton Road (Feigley Road to SR 16) This trail will connect the McCormick Village local center with the site of a future high school, enabling students to safely walk and bike to class. The trail will also extend along Old Clifton Road to connect with the Old Clifton Industrial Park, a local center. Special consideration will be needed for how the trail merges with bike lanes and sidewalks on Tremont Street. Locating the trail on the north and west sides of Old Clifton Road may minimize conflicts with driveways and intersections. Old Clifton Road serves up to approximately 7,500 AWDT. Typical right-of-way width is 60 feet. A portion of the trail passes through unincorporated Kitsap County and an area not within the Port Orchard Urban Growth Area. Port Orchard will need to collaborate with Kitsap County to complete this trail segment. It is identified as a nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. Port Orchard Boulevard (Tremont Street to Bay Street) This 1.06-mile arterial segment currently serves approximately 2,500 AWDT. It will provide a connection between the Tremont Medical Center and Downtown Port Orchard via Port Orchard, a relatively low - volume roadway bound by greenbelt. The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway West Situation Study identifies plans for complete street improvements along Port Orchard Boulevard. Pottery Avenue/Sidney Road SW (Tremont Street to South City Limits) This 1.91-mile route will connect the Tremont Medical Center with the Ruby Creek Center and provide a safe route to school directly adjacent to Cedar Heights Junior High School and Sidney Glen Elementary School. The 2024-2029 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a complete streets improvement project for the Pottery Avenue portion of this corridor. A small portion of the route is outside of city limits and within the Urban Growth Area, requiring collaboration with Kitsap County or ROW acquisition for completion. The route carries between 4,500 AWDT (south of Tremont St) and 9,000 AWDT (north of Sedgwick Rd) and is a nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. Salmonberry Road West (Ramsey Rd to city limit) This route will be an east -west connection through residential neighborhoods, connecting the Bethel commercial corridor with Jackson Avenue. Salmonberry Road serves 2,300 AWDT. About half of this route is outside of City limits but still within the Port Orchard Urban Growth Area, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County for completion. The City is designing improvements for a portion of Salmonberry Road West as part of the Bethel Phase 1 project. Sidney Avenue (Tremont Street to Fireweed Street) This 0.97-mile route will primarily connect residential areas and multi -family developments to Paul Powers Jr. Park, Van Zee Park, Cedar Heights Junior High School (via Lippert), and to the nonmotorized facilities on Tremont Street. Sidney Avenue serves 5,000 AWDT. This project requires the construction of a regional stormwater facility at the end of Sherman Ave to facilitate the build -out of the nonmotorized improvements within this corridor. Property was acquired for a regional stormwater facility and park in 2022. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-116 St. Andrews Drive (McCormick Woods Dr to McCormick Woods Dr) When completed, this 1.6-mile segment will provide a nonmotorized loop within the McCormick Woods community. The north 1.0-mile portion of St. Andrews Drive currently begins at McCormick Woods Drive and terminates just north of Hawkstone Avenue. A future 0.6-mile section will extend to the southeast, connecting to McCormick Woods Drive at SW Dunraven Place. Funding commitments for the completion of this facility are provided in a development agreement with McCormick Woods. Nonmotorized treatments will include a 12-foot paved shoulder, consistent with the development agreement. Tremont Street/Lund Avenue (SR 16 to Jackson Avenue) This 2.63-mile route will be the main east -west connection across Port Orchard. It passes through two local centers and connects Van Zee Park and South Kitsap Regional Park. It also intersects with a planned connection at Port Orchard Boulevard. It has the most traffic of any street in Port Orchard: Between SR 16 and Bethel Road, Tremont serves approximately 23,000 vehicles AWDT; east of Bethel, Lund Avenue serves 16,000 AWDT. A 0.65-mile portion of this route from SR 16 to Port Orchard Boulevard was constructed as part of the Tremont Street improvement project. The next phase will extend the route from Port Orchard Boulevard to Sidney Avenue. The eastern end of the route is outside of city limits but within the Urban Growth Area, requiring collaboration with Kitsap County. The Kitsap County Transportation Improvement Program identifies four improvement projects on this corridor by 2028, including sidewalks and bike facilities from the Port Orchard city limit to Jackson Avenue and three new roundabouts. This route is identified as a nonmotorized route in the KCNMFP. 8.4.3 Residential Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Hawkstone Avenue (McCormick Woods Dr to St Andrews Dr) This 0.85-mile segment currently extends from McCormick Woods Dr to Tobermory Circle SW, terminating just southwest of St. Andrews Drive. In the future, Hawkstone Ave will connect with St. Andrews Drive to provide a connection to the St. Andrews Dr nonmotorized loop. The street currently provides a paved shoulder on one side. Ultimate nonmotorized treatments may include sharrows to designate shared -use travel lanes in both directions. Retsil Road (Mile Hill Drive to Bay Street) This 1.1-mile route will provide safe access through the City's most northeastern residential areas and connect directly to Veterans Park, the waterfront, and the Annapolis foot ferry dock. Retsil Road has 4,000 AWDT, which is relatively high for a residential street. Part of the route passes through an unincorporated area within the Urban Growth Area, which will require collaboration with Kitsap County. Ramsey Road (Sedgwick Road to Salmonberry Road) This 0.5-mile local street section provides an alternative north -south route to the Bethel Road corridor to the east. The construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide safe nonmotorized access to properties along Ramsey Road as well as a low -volume connection between Sedgwick Road and Salmonberry Road. Pottery Avenue (Tremont Place to Melcher Street) This 0.22-mile local street section provides access to residential development to the north of the Tremont Street corridor and west of Port Orchard Boulevard. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection between existing neighborhoods and Tremont Street. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-117 Melcher Street (Tremont Place to Melcher Street) This 0.4-mile east -west local street provides a connection between Tremont Street (via Pottery Avenue to the west) and Port Orchard Boulevard (via Sherman Avenue to the east). It provides direct access to single-family development as well as several residential streets. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection. Fireweed Road (Sidney Avenue to South Flower Avenue) This 0.25-mile local street provides a connection between Sidney Avenue and S Flower Avenue, providing access to single-family development in the area. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection for local residents. Sherman Avenue (Fireweed Road to Terminus at SR 16) This 0.35-mile local street provides direct access to residential development to the south of Fireweed Road. It terminates in a dead-end north of SR 16. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection for local residents. Blueberry Road (Geiger Road to Bethel Road) This 0.4-mile local street provides a connection between Geiger Road and Bethel Road to the north of Sedgwick Road (SR 160). It also connects to Ramsey Road, a north -south corridor which parallels Bethel Road to the west. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks will provide a safe nonmotorized connection to the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road (via Geiger Rd). Geiger Road (Sedgwick Road to Blueberry Road) This 0.25-mile local street provides a connection from Blueberry Road to Sedgwick Road. Construction of a complete street section with bike facilities and sidewalks on this section, in conjunction with similar improvements to Blueberry Road and Ramsey Road, will provide a safe nonmotorized alternative to Bethel Road from Sedgwick Road to Salmonberry Road. Sidney Avenue (Prospect Street to waterfront) This 500-foot street section provides access to properties in the downtown subarea and a connection to the Port Orchard waterfront. Existing sidewalks are substandard. Construction of full ADA-accessible sidewalk improvements on both sides will provide a safe and accessible connection to the waterfront for users of all abilities. Harrison Avenue (Bay Street to waterfront) This 350-foot street provides access to properties in the downtown subarea and a connection to the Port Orchard waterfront. The street currently includes a discontinuous non-ADA accessible sidewalk on the west side and no sidewalk on the east side. Construction of full ADA-accessible sidewalk improvements on both sides will provide a safe and accessible connection to the waterfront for users of all abilities. Fredrick Avenue (Bay St to waterfront) This 350-foot street provides access to properties in the downtown subarea and a connection to the Port Orchard waterfront. The street currently includes non-ADA accessible sidewalks on both sides. Construction of full ADA-accessible sidewalk improvements on both sides will provide a safe and accessible connection to the waterfront for users of all abilities. 8.4.4 Off -Right -of -Way Facilities Bay Street Pedestrian Path (Port Orchard Blvd to Annapolis Foot Ferry Dock) This path is envisioned as an off-street connection between Port Orchard's two Foot Ferry docks, one downtown and the other in the Annapolis neighborhood. Part of the path is complete and newly built as Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-118 a modern shared -use path, with completion planned over the next several years (as of 2024). It will run through the downtown area and connect two waterfront parks and a public boat ramp. It will also connect to a future nonmotorized facility along Port Orchard Boulevard, providing a connection to the Tremont Street/Lund Avenue corridor to the south. The vision for this facility is summarized in the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway West Situational Study. This pathway is identified by Kitsap County as part of the Mosquito Fleet Trail, which will ultimately include approximately 100 miles of pedestrian and bicycle trails that will link open spaces throughout Kitsap County in an interconnected system. The Mosquito Fleet Trail Master Plan, completed in 2001, identifies the primary corridor through Port Orchard following SW Bay Street and Beach Drive. The existing boardwalk on the downtown waterfront and the sidewalk on the back of shoreline buildings are not consistent with the vision of this nonmotorized plan and of the Mosquito Fleet Trail. Completion of this path will require collaboration with Kitsap County, the Port of Bremerton, and waterfront property owners. Blackjack Creek Trail An off-street multi -use pathway that generally runs parallel to Blackjack Creek providing connectivity between the Bethel/Lund and Sedgwick/Bethel Subareas. This trail, located east of Blackjack Creek, is approximately two miles in length and could be connected to several neighborhoods located between Bethel Road and Blackjack Creek. Opportunities for future connections to the west side of Blackjack Creek should be explored. SW Pendleton Way A 0.5-mile route has partially been constructed in Stetson Heights. This trail may be extended to McCormick East as part of a future development and could be connected to the trails in the McCormick Woods area. Ruby Creek Pathway A shared -use pathway along Ruby Creek from the Stetson Heights development to Sedgwick Road. Sidney -SR 16 Crossing (Sidney Road to Sidney Avenue) Creating a trail across SR 16 in this area could create a new connection between neighborhoods and promote better access to the nearby schools and Paul Powers Jr. Park. If a bridge or tunnel is cost - prohibitive, another option may be to extend SW Moorea Lane to Sidney Road via a series of switchbacks. Crossing SR 16 would require WSDOT approval, followed with an airspace trail lease agreement with WSDOT for ongoing maintenance and preservation of the trail facility. Telford Way SW A 0.85-mile trail has been partially constructed in McCormick West (McCormick Trails). This trail will be extended pursuant to a development agreement as additional phases of McCormick West (McCormick Trails) is constructed. The trail is expected to reach about 0.85 miles in length upon completion and will create a loop where it intersects with McCormick Village Drive at either end. 8.4.5 Nonmotorized Improvement Projects Necessary to Achieve System Vision The following projects that include pedestrian or bicycle facility improvements are necessary to achieve the nonmotorized transportation network described above. Cost estimates were obtained from the City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program and adjusted for inflation using the National Highway Construction Cost Index. Cost estimates are not included for off -right-of-way facilities where conceptual alignments have not been identified at the time of this writing. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-119 Table 8-4. Nonmotorized Improvement Projects Necessary to Achieve System Vision Project Limits Description Length Cost Estimate (in $$$s)* Collector and Arterial Shared Right -of --Way Facilities Bethel Rd/Sedgwick Bethel Rd (Sedgwick Provide widening and nonmotorized Rd (Multi -phase Rd to Mile Hill Dr); improvements along Bethel Road and 2.1; 97,808 project) Sedgwick Rd (SR 16 to Sedgwick Road, consistent with 2018 0.7 Bethel Rd) corridor plan. Feigley Rd Old Clifton Rd to Lone Improve trail to satisfy City design Bar Ln standards and ADA guidance. 0.35 337 Sedgwick Rd West Glenwood Rd to SR 16 Complete streets improvements 1.4 8,285 consistent with 2018 corridor plan. McCormick Woods Old Clifton Rd to Analyze and implement nonmotorized Dr Glenwood Rd safety and accessibility improvements. 4.0 337 McCormick Village McCormick Woods Dr Complete paved shared -use path 2'6 Dev. Dr to north city limit (developer -funded improvement). funded Mile Hill Dr Bethel Rd to Whittier Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike 1.4 3,534 Ave facilities. Mitchell Ave Bethel Ave to Bay St Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike 1.2 3,029 facilities. Old Clifton Rd Feigley Rd to SR 16 New shared -use path connecting McCormick Village with Old Clifton 2.7 4,543 Industrial Park and SR 16. Port Orchard Blvd Tremont St to Bay St Road diet18 with downhill bikeable shoulder and shared -use pathway. 1.1 14,395 Pottery Ave SR 16 to Lippert Dr Address sidewalk gaps and construct nonmotorized improvements, including bikeable shoulders and 0.45 7,067 safety improvements at Pottery/Lippert intersection. Salmonberry Rd Ramsey Rd to east Widen to two travel lanes with curb, West city limits gutter, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. 0.4 1,010 Sidney Ave Tremont St to Widen Sidney Ave to include terminus sidewalks, bike lanes, and storm 1.0 17,668 drainage. Sidney Rd SW Sedgwick Rd to Berry Design phase of a project to widen the Lake Rd 0.95-mile segment from Sedgwick 0.85 10,537 Road to Berry Lake Rd to three lanes 18 A road diet, or roadway reconfiguration, can improve safety, calm traffic, provide better mobility and access for all road users, and enhance overall quality of life. A road diet typically involves converting an existing four -lane undivided roadway to a three -lane roadway consisting of two through lanes and a center two-way left -turn lane (bit.lv/3UKn8Ea). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-120 Project Limits Description Length Cost Estimate (in $$$s)* with bike facilities, sidewalks, and traffic calming. St. Andrews Dr McCormick Woods Dr Complete St. Andrews Dr corridor, to McCormick Woods including pedestrian & bike facilities. 0.6 337 Dr Tremont St/Lund Ave Port Orchard Blvd to Provide concrete sidewalks, bike city limit facilities, and drainage improvements. 1.15 2,903 Residential Shared Right -of -Way Facilities Hawkstone Ave McCormick Woods Dr Pavement striping and signage to to St Andrews Dr designated shared -use lanes. 0.85 168 Retsil Rd Mile Hill Dr to Bay St Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike facilities. 1.1 2,776 Ramsey Rd Sedgwick Rd to Widen to two full travel lanes with Salmonberry Rd curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bicycle 0.5 4,207 facilities. Pottery Ave Tremont PI to Widen to two full travel lanes with Melcher St bike lanes, sidewalk, and stormwater 0.2 2,692 improvements. Melcher St Pottery Ave to Widen to include two travel lanes, bike Sherman Ave lanes, sidewalks, and a stormwater 0.4 1,010 syste m. Fireweed Rd Sidney Ave to S Widen to two full travel lanes with Flower Ave bike lanes and sidewalks. 0.25 631 Sherman Ave Fireweed Rd to Widen to two full travel lanes with Terminus bike lanes and sidewalks. 0.35 883 Blueberry Rd Geiger Rd to Bethel Widen to two full travel lanes with Rd curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 0.4 1,010 Geiger Rd Sedgwick Rd to Widen to two full travel lanes with Blueberry Rd curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 0.25 631 Sidney Ave Prospect St to Sidewalk and streetscape waterfront improvements. 0.1 2,524 Harrison Ave Bay St to waterfront Sidewalk and streetscape improvements. 0.05 1,683 Fredrick Ave Cline St to waterfront Sidewalk and streetscape improvements. 0.05 2,524 Off -Right -of -Way Facilities Bay St Pedestrian P.O. Blvd to Annapolis Multiuse pathway from Kitsap Transit Path Foot Ferry Dock station to Port Orchard Blvd. 1.6 16,761 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-121 Project Limits Description Length Cost Estimate (in $$$s)* Blackjack Creek Trail Bethel Rd to Blackjack Off-street shared -use path (alignment Crk TBD). TBD TBD SW Pendleton Way Fielder PI to Off-street shared -use path (alignment McCormick TBD). TBD TBD Ruby Creek Path Stetson Heights to Off-street shared -use path (alignment Sedgwick TBD). TBD TBD Sidney SR 16 Sidney Rd to Sidney Off-street shared -use path and SR 16 Crossing Ave over- or undercrossing (alignment TBD TBD TBD). Telford Way McCormick West Off-street shared -use path (developer Dev. funded) 0 85 funded Total Estimated Cost 209,290 *Cost estimates are expressed in thousands of 2023 dollars 8.5 Level of Service Transportation Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of the operating performance of a given element of transportation infrastructure. It is typically expressed as a letter grade from LOS A, representing free flow operations with almost no travel delay, to LOS F, representing complete breakdown of flow and high delay. LOS establishes a basis for comparison between streets and intersections and helps guide the prioritization of improvement projects. Port Orchard's street network should maintain consistency with Kitsap County's network while accommodating the City's transportation needs and vision. To establish and maintain this consistency, the City's LOS standards must be suited to the needs of Port Orchard while retaining some similarity to LOS standards in the adjacent urban unincorporated area. This section describes the basis for the City of Port Orchard LOS standards. 8.5.1 Street Segment Level of Service Definition Port Orchard has adopted a system of planning -level street segment capacity standards for long-range planning and transportation concurrency management. The standards, which are based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) concepts and similar policies adopted throughout Western Washington, define a maximum allowable service volume based on functional classification and presence of left -turn lanes, access control, nonmotorized facilities, and on -street parking. The adopted street segment capacity standards are summarized in Table 8-5. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-122 Table 8-5. Street Segment Capacity Standards Functional Classification Base Capacity (vphpl�) Capacity Adjustments (vph) Left -Turn Lane Access - Restricted Segment No Bike Lane No Sidewalk On -Street parking Freeway 2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State Highway 950 475 665 Principal Arterial 850 425 595 -85 -17 -45 Minor Arterial 750 375 525 -40 -75 -4 Collectorl 62q 310 435 -30 -60 -3 vph: Vehicles Per Hour; vphpl: Vehicles Per Hour Per Lane Left -turn lanes are estimated to add the capacity equivalent of one half through lane by removing major approach left -turn delay. Similarly, segments with limited access, including physical or natural barriers, provide an increase of the equivalent of 70 percent of one through lane. Capacity reductions for lack of nonmotorized facilities are based on the principle that HCM capacity calculations assume complete urban street sections. Streets without sidewalk or bicycle facilities will force nonmotorized users into vehicle lanes, reducing vehicle capacity. Exceptions to these nonmotorized reductions can be made for freeways and state highways which are designed to emphasize vehicle mobility over nonmotorized traffic. The presence of on -street parking also reduces capacity slightly. Street segment LOS is based on the ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity, or v/c ratio. Port Orchard has adopted LOS thresholds consistent with the Port Orchard/South Kitsap Subarea Plan and planning -level LOS thresholds defined in Highway Capacity Manual 1994. Adopted street segment LOS thresholds and descriptions are summarized in Table 8-6. Table 8-6. Port Orchard Street Segment LOS Thresholds and Characteristics LOS Volume Description Capacity A <_ 0.60 Facility accommodates all modes of transportation. Vehicles experience free flow, with low volumes and high speeds. Stable flow, with traffic conditions beginning to restrict operating speeds. B 0.61— 0.70 Drivers still have reasonable maneuverability between multiple lanes. All modes are accommodated. C 0.71-0.80 Fairly stable flow, but higher volumes more closely constrict speeds and maneuverability. Approaching unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds and limited D 0.81-0.90 maneuverability. Facilities without nonmotorized facilities and heavy pedestrian/bike volume may experience unstable flow. Nonmotorized users in travel lanes will conflict with heavy vehicle volume E 0.91-1.00 and cause breakdowns in flow. Vehicles experience unstable flow with reduced operating speeds. F > 1.00 Facility is unable to accommodate all modes. Vehicles experience forced flow, operating under stop -and -go conditions. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-123 Port Orchard has adopted an "ultimate street LOS policy" which provides a segment LOS exemption to streets which have been fully constructed to their respective design standard. This includes, for example, Tremont Street between the SR 16 interchange and Port Orchard Boulevard. Ultimate street design standards are based on the Port Orchard Public Works Engineering Standards and the street design classifications identified in Figure 8-4. 8.5.2 Intersection Level of Service Definition Intersection LOS is based on the average delay experienced by a vehicle traveling through an intersection. Delay at a signalized intersection can be caused by waiting for the signal or waiting for the queue ahead to clear the signal. Delay at unsignalized intersections is caused by waiting for a gap in traffic or waiting for a queue to clear the intersection. Table 8-7 shows the amount of delay used to determine intersection LOS measured in second per vehicle (sec/veh). The intersection LOS analysis completed for this Transportation Element was completed using Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6) methodologies for signalized and stop - controlled intersections. Roundabout delays and LOS were calculated using the Sidra capacity methodology, per WSDOT guidelines. For minor -approach stop controlled intersections, LOS is based on the turn movement with the worst (highest) delay. For all other intersection control types, LOS is based on average delay. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-124 Figure 8-4. Street Design Standards Street Design Standard Fri ndpal Arterial A --__ Nincipal Arterial B Mirror Arterial A �-- Minor Arterlal S - - - Mlnor Arterial C Collector A -t+* Collector B Sedswick-Bethel Corridor Study McCOrmick Communities t —I City Limit Q utline U rba n Growth Area x r A OftTrunspurtntinn 5o[uflwas ew9r!n L+ em 1 r + r 4 Table 8-7. Intersection Level of Service Thresholds i r L-1-r- I e ' � r yy t} 0_5 9 I.S Z mi Y + + [ i +r i r w r � w L I 1 � -, r I-r LOS Signalized and Roundabout Delay (sec/veh) Stop -Control Delay (sec/veh) A <_10 1510 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20 - 35 >15 - 25 D >35 - 55 >25 - 35 E >55 - 80 >35 - 50 F >80 >50 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-125 8.5.3 Level of Service Standards and Concurrency Requirements The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to adopt local Level of Service (LOS) standards and ordinances that prohibit development if the adopted standard would be violated by development approval. Developments must be required to provide for necessary improvements within a six -year period with an additional extension of six years permitted on a case -by -case basis. GMA requires that a LOS standard be set but acknowledges the need for flexibility by providing for six years and extensions for the development of required improvements. Therefore, during that period, some portion of the facilities may be under development, design and construction. During that period, facilities may be experiencing congestion that exceeds the adopted standard. As facilities are completed, improvements may initially provide transportation service that performs better than the adopted standard. Port Orchard has adopted a minimum LOS standard of LOS D for the City's functionally classified (i.e. collector and arterial) street system. This represents a compromise between the theoretical "ideal" LOS A and the realities of travel demand, construction, and financial capabilities. At LOS A, people could travel anywhere anytime with no delay. LOS D represents the ability to travel the City's arterial and collector routes with only moderate congestion -related delays. As the City of Port Orchard grows and becomes more urbanized, some additional travel delay will become a reality, particularly during peak periods. Minimum LOS for intersections on State facilities are set by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). SR 16 is designated by WSDOT as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and is assigned minimum LOS D. SR 160 (Sedgwick Rd) is designated as a non-HSS route with minimum LOS D. SR 166 (Bay St/Bethel/Mile Hill Dr) is a non-HSS route with minimum LOS E Mitigated. This standard means that when the peak hour LOS falls below LOS E, congestion shoulder be mitigated through measures such as transit improvements. Port Orchard may, however, choose to monitor LOS and program improvements at intersections along WSDOT facilities, particularly if they introduce delay to City streets. 8.5.3.1 Level of Service Standards A. Pedestrian Safety and Mobility LOS. Developments will provide for pedestrian safety, including adequate connections to existing pedestrian facilities. Proximity to pedestrian oriented establishments, including but not limited to schools, parks, and commercial establishments shall be considered when evaluating pedestrian safety. Particular attention shall be given to school walk routes. 1. Ultimate Pedestrian LOS. The ultimate pedestrian facility design includes a sidewalk, curb and gutter section or other approved non -motorized vehicle facility. Specific requirements may identify the need for additional safety precautions. 2. Minimum Pedestrian LOS. A minimum pedestrian facility shall include one of the following: a. A six -foot -wide paved path separated from the paved roadway surface by either an unpaved ditch or swale, three feet wide; b. An eight-to-12-foot-wide paved path constructed integral with paved roadway surface and including adequate delineation for safety; c. Other conditions may be considered equivalent to the minimum pedestrian safety facility at the sole discretion of the city engineer. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-126 B. Traffic Capacity LOS: Traffic Capacity LOS is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual and is based on PM peak hour vehicle capacity. The City's functionally classified (collector and arterial) street system shall meet the following standards: a. Principal arterials — LOS D b. Minor arterials— LOS D c. Collector arterials — LOS C 2. Exemptions to Capacity LOS. The City Council, upon recommendation of the City Engineer may determine as follows: a. That it is not practical to improve specific intersections to achieve higher LOS standards; b. That other improvements may be considered as equivalent mitigation in lieu of achieving the capacity LOS standard stated in this section; c. That a street segment has been constructed to its ultimate design and to provide additional widening would not support the role and character of the street in the City's transportation network. d. Exempt specific intersections or street segments from the LOS standards set forth in this section for a specific period. C. Street Design LOS Ultimate Design LOS. The street system will meet the geometric, right-of-way width, and street section standards for the classification defined in the Public Works Engineering Standards and Specifications, the subdivision code, the comprehensive plan, or other site -specific project requirements. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage, other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction. Three -Quarter Street LOS. The street system shall consist of sidewalk, curb, gutter, all utilities, and appurtenances, and one-half of the ultimate pavement width on the development side of the right-of-way, plus a minimum 14-foot pavement width on the opposite side of the street. The total width shall not exceed the ultimate design width. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage and other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction. Minimum Street LOS. A minimum 30-foot-wide paved street section centered on ultimate design cross section with sufficient traffic capacity to serve existing and project generated traffic. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk will not be required; however, pedestrian safety facilities would normally be required. Drainage may be in surface ditches or a subsurface conveyance. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage and other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with street construction. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-127 4. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with city plans and policies, including the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off -site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for nonmotorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials, collectors, and school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development. 8.5.3.2. Concurrency Requirements All developments shall meet the minimum development standards for Pedestrian Safety and Mobility LOS. The criteria for determining the applicable standard for determining compliance with pedestrian safety LOS, traffic capacity LOS, and street design standard LOS concurrency requirements shall include, but not be limited to, the volume of traffic generated or to be generated on the arterial street system from a development at full build -out during the most critical or highest volume hour of the day hereafter referred to as the peak hour. The peak hour volume shall be determined by a traffic impact analysis. Compliance with the concurrency LOS standards will be based on the following criteria: A. Fewer Than 10 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates fewer than 10 peak hour vehicle trips, the City Engineer shall determine the necessity of the project to meet all or a portion of the concurrency LOS requirements. 1. Street Frontage. Minimum street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. The City Engineer shall consider the following when making this determination if nonmotorized safety of traffic capacity LOS is required. In no case shall the concurrency requirements exceed those of a project with 29 or fewer peak hour trips. • Proposed developments in the area; • Proximity of adjacent ultimate, three-quarter street, and/or minimum LOS improvements; • Adequacy and condition of street frontage improvements; • Proximity to pedestrian oriented establishments such as, but not limited to, schools, parks, and commercial businesses; • Anticipated impacts of project; • Capacity of the affected arterial street system. B. Ten to 29 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 10 to 29 peak hour trips, the following LOS standards are necessary to achieve concurrency: 1. Street Frontage. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. 2. Adjacent Street System. a. Minimum Street LOS Improvements. Minimum street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system for a distance of up to 200 feet in the direction of an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. b. Minimum Pedestrian Safety LOS. Minimum pedestrian safety LOS improvements Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-128 must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to or intersect with an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. Improvements may be considered connected to adjacent improvements on the opposite side of the street, if the connection is made with an approved pedestrian crossing facility at a controlled intersection, providing protection to the pedestrians with a stop sign or traffic signal, at the discretion of the city engineer. Traffic Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for capacity LOS standards. Intersections and segments on the functionally classified street system that are impacted by peak hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient facilities meet traffic capacity LOS standards. C. Thirty to 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 30 to 75 peak hour trips the following LOS standards are necessary to achieve concurrency: 1. Street Frontage. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. 2. Adjacent Street System. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. Traffic Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for traffic capacity LOS standards. Intersections and segments on the functionally classified street system that are impacted by peak hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient facilities meet traffic capacity LOS standards. 4. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with the nonmotorized component of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off - site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for non- motorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials, collectors, and school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development. D. More Than 75 Peak Hour Trips. Street Frontage. Ultimate Design street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage. 2. Adjacent Street System. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. Traffic Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for traffic capacity LOS standards. Intersections and segments on the functionally classified street system that are impacted by peak Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-129 hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards and street design standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient intersections meet traffic capacity LOS standards. 4. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with the nonmotorized component of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element . Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off - site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for non- motorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials, collectors, school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development. 8.6 Traffic Forecasting 8.6.1 Land Use Assumptions Existing Land Use Traffic forecasting is based on the relationship of vehicle trips to development or land use. Land use can be organized into two general categories: households and employees. Residential land use forecasts are often expressed in terms of population, however for travel demand modeling it is helpful to convert population into trip -generating households. Current Port Orchard population and household estimates were obtained from Census 2020 data and are summarized in Table 8-8. Table 8-8. Port Orchard 2020 Population Estimate Total Population 15,587 Total Households 6,952 Existing Port Orchard employment is summarized in Table 8-9 and is consistent with the 2021 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report. Employment inventory is organized into six categories, consistent with the categories used in the Kitsap County transportation model which formed the foundation of the Port Orchard citywide transportation model. Table 8-9 identifies the modeled employment categories, corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, number of employees, and share of total citywide employment. Table 8-9. Port Orchard 2020 Employment Classification Sector (NAICS #) Number Percent Retail (44, 45) 3,097 36% Commercial Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (51-56, 61-62, 71-72, 81) 2,827 33% Government and Education (Public sector) 1,828 21% Construction and Resources (11, 21, 23) 458 5% Industry Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (22, 31- �33, 42, 48-49) 405 5% Total 1 8,615 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-130 Development Forecast Long-range housing and development forecasts were obtained from PSRV VISION 2050 allocations and Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies. The 2044 citywide population and housing forecasts are summarized in Table 8-10. The forecast includes a total of 10,396 households, an increase of 49 percent from 2020. Table 8-10. Port Orchard 2044 Population Estimate Total Population 26,374 Total Households 10,396 2044 employment forecasts are identified in Table 8-11 for each of five job sectors. Citywide employment is expected to reach 14,015 by 2044, an increase of 63 percent from 2020. Table 8-11. Port Orchard 2044 Employment Forecast Classification Sector (NAICS #) Number Percent Retail (44, 45) 4,987 36% Commercial Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Services (51-56, 61-62, 71-72, 81) 4,759 34% Government and Education (Public sector) 2,940 21% Construction and Resources (11, 21, 23) 691 5% Industry Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (22, 31- 33, 42, 48-49) 639 5% Total 14,015 Future housing and employment growth was geographically allocated throughout the City of Port Orchard based on a buildable lands analysis developed for the Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan. Housing and employment growth outside city limits was calculated using PSRC VISION 2050 forecasts for Kitsap County. 8.6.2 Traffic Forecasting Model Background Port Orchard maintains a citywide travel demand model which is regularly updated and utilized for transportation planning, policymaking, and concurrency management. The Port Orchard model was initially developed in 2015 based on the Kitsap County travel demand model. It was updated in 2019 and most recently in 2022 for this Transportation Element update. The travel demand model calculates growth in units of weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips. This approach is consistent with the Kitsap County travel demand model. Network Development The modeled transportation network was updated based on field review, aerial imagery, and signal timing data obtained from Kitsap County and WSDOT staff. The modeled street network includes all functionally classified roadways and most local streets within the City and UGA, in addition to regionally significant County and state routes in the vicinity. Turn capacities and volume -delay functions were modeled using Highway Capacity Manual 6t" Edition methodologies for signalized and stop -controlled intersections, and TRL/Kimber capacity methodology for roundabouts. Link capacities and volume -delay functions were modeled based on planning -level Highway Capacity Manual capacity concepts, consistent with the Kitsap County travel demand model. Traffic Analysis Zone Structure Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) are the geographic units used by a travel demand model to Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-131 represent land use and to generate trips into and out of the transportation network. Each TAZ's land use determines the number of trips generated by the TAZ. The travel demand model includes a total of 93 TAZs, including 76 "internal" and 17 "external" TAZs. The TAZ structure is shown in Figure 8-5. Internal zones are defined geographic areas which represent housing and employment in and near the City and UGA. Internal TAZ boundaries were defined based on Census 2020 block boundaries and refined based on city limits and zoning. Forty-four of the model's 76 TAZs are located within city limits. External zones represent trips entering and exiting the planning area via major access routes. The model's 17 external TAZs include major state routes such as SR 3 and SR 16 as well as smaller access routes such as Victory Drive and the Kitsap Transit Foot Ferry. In contrast to internal TAZs which are based on defined geographic areas, external TAZs represent vehicle trips crossing a specified point, typically determined via traffic count. A portion of the trips generated by an external zone connect with internal TAZs, while the remainder of the trips interact with other external zones outside the planning area. These external -to -external trips have neither an origin nor destination within the study area, yet they pass through the study area, impacting the transportation network. Trip Generation Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I December 2024 Page 8-132 The first step of the travel demand modeling process is to translate housing and employment into trip origins and destinations for each TAZ. The travel demand model includes five trip types: • Home -to -Work (HW) and Work -to -Home (WH): Trips with one end at the traveler's home and the other end at the traveler's place of employment. • Home -to -Other (HO) and Other -to -Home (OH): Trips with one end at the traveler's home and the other end at somewhere other than the traveler's place of employment, e.g. shopping trips. • Non -Home -Based (NHB): Trips without an end at the traveler's home. Modeled trip generation rates were initially based on PM peak hour trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11`h Edition. Rates were calibrated to more closely reflect volumes observed in traffic counts collected in January and February 2022. Modeled trip rates are summarized in Table 8-12. Table 8-12. Travel Demand Model PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates Land Use Units HW1 WH1 HO' 01-11 NHB' Total OZ Dz Oz Dz Oz Dz Oz DZ Oz D2 Single -Family Res. DU 0.025 0 0 0.078 0.441 0 0.011 0.226 0.056 0.008 0.845 Multi -Family Res. DU 0.012 0 0 0.047 0.291 0 0 0.137 0.018 0.005 0.510 RETAIL Emp 0 0.015 0.074 0 0 0.502 0.192 0 0.472 0.221 1.476 FIRES EMP 0 0.009 0.034 0 0 0.344 0.119 0 0.017 0.106 0.629 GOV EMP 0 0.004 0.022 0 0 0.31 0.066 0 0.022 0.128 0.552 EDU EMP 0 0.012 0.127 0 0 0.163 0.273 0 0.206 0.408 1.189 WTU EMP 0 0.017 0.048 0 0 0.211 0.119 0 0.071 0.194 0.660 MANU EMP 0 0.008 0.023 0 0 0.098 0.057 0 0.034 0.090 0.310 CONRES EMP 0 0.017 0.017 0 0 0.235 0.042 0 0.025 0.084 0.420 1HW: home to work; WH: work -to -home; HO: home -to -other; OH: other -to -home; NHB: non -home -based 20: origin trip rate; D: destination trip rate Trip Distribution The trip distribution step consists of identifying an origin and a destination for each trip generated by each TAZ in the travel demand model. The trip distribution process uses a gravity model, based on the gravitational theory that the attraction between two bodies is directly proportional to the bodies' masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the bodies. A TAZ's "mass" is represented by the number of trips generated (produced by or attracted to) the TAZ while the distance factor is represented by route travel time. The result of the trip distribution step is an origin -destination matrix for each trip purpose in the travel demand model. The gravity model calculates the attractiveness between any two TAZs using the utility function: J(U) = a * (Ue) * (e`u) In the utility function, the independent variable U is defined as travel time between zones. The parameters a, b, and c are calibration factors which influence the weight of travel time in the gravity model. Gravity model parameters were calibrated with consideration for the Kitsap County travel demand model, NCHRP Report 716 (TRB 2012), and traffic count data. The calibrated gravity parameters are shown in Table 8-13. Table 8-13. Trip Distribution Gravity Model Parameters Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-133 Trip Purpose Model Parameter a b c Home -to -Work (HW) 28,507 0.400 -0.100 Work -to -Home (WH) 28,507 0.400 -0.100 Home -to -Other (HO) 139,173 -1.017 -0.791 Other -to -Home (OH) 139,173 -1.017 -0.791 Non -Home Based (NHB) 219,133 1 -0.791 -0.195 Traffic Assignment The traffic assignment step consists of finding the optimal route from origin to destination for each trip in the travel demand model. The model begins by calculating the shortest travel -time route from each origin to destination based on free -flow conditions. It loads trips into the network based on the initial solution, recalculates traffic delay based on the updated network volume, and recalculates shortest paths based on the updated delay results. This process is repeated until an equilibrium condition is achieved in which every trip has been assigned its shortest path based on congested network conditions. Model Validation The base year model was calibrated to improve the relationship between modeled flows and observed traffic volumes. Traffic volume data was collected in January and February 2022 and included intersection turning movement counts at 56 intersections and tube counts collected at 6 road segments in and near Port Orchard. The base year model was calibrated based on guidance from FHWA's Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual Second Edition (FHWA 2010). Model inputs and parameters were adjusted iteratively to improve the correlation between modeled traffic volumes and observed traffic volumes. Calibration statistics and a scatterplot of assigned vs. counted traffic volume are shown in Figure 8-6. Figure 8-6. Travel Demand Model Calibration Statistics 3000 2500 2000 0 v 1500 c ao Q 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Counted Volume NumObs= 426 %RMSE= 15 RZ = 0.98 Slope = 0.95 Y-Int = 8.31 MeanRelError = 9% Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-134 8.6.3 Long -Range Forecasting Assumptions The long-range (2044) traffic forecasts were calculated based on housing and employment forecasts identified in the Land Use Element. Traffic growth external to the planning area was calculated based on historical growth rates. Long-range forecasts included both "Without Improvement" and "With Improvement" scenarios. The "Without Improvement" scenario assumed no transportation capacity improvements would be constructed in the planning horizon. Transportation improvement strategies necessary to maintain minimum LOS standards were identified and modeled in the "With -Improvement" scenario. 8.7 Transportation System Needs 8.7.1 2022 Traffic Volumes and LOS Deficiencies An analysis of 2022 volume -to -capacity ratios on 59 functionally classified collector and arterial segments within city limits identified two street segments which currently operate below their respective minimum LOS standards. Both segments are located along the Bethel Road corridor, which is programmed for complete street improvements in the TIP. Existing street segment LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-14. Table 8-14. 2022 Street Segment Level of Service Deficiencies Name Functional Classification PM Peak Hour Volume WC LOS Bethel Rd (Sedgwick Rd to Salmonberry) Principal Arterial 1,390 1.17 F Bethel Rd (Salmonberry to Lund Ave) Principal Arterial 1,350 1.13 F Five intersections within city limits operate below minimum LOS standards. Four of the five LOS- deficient intersections are located on WSDOT routes. 2022 PM peak hour intersection LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-15. Mitigation strategies for LOS deficiencies are described later in this section. Table 8-15. 2022 Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Intersection Control' PM Peak Hour Volume Delay2 LOS Bethel Rd SE & Salmonberry Rd TWSC 1,630 48 E Old Clifton Road & SR 16 EB ramps TWSC 1,525 36 E Tremont Street & SR 16 WB ramps TWSC 2,020 158 F Sedgwick Rd (SR 160) & Geiger Road TWSC 1,760 36 E Bay Street (SR 166) & Port Orchard Blvd TWSC 1,450 42 E 'TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control; RAB = Roundabout; Signal = Signalized 2Average control delay for all movements, reported in seconds per vehicle. For TWSC, delay is reported for the movement with the worst (highest) delay. 8.7.2 2044 Anticipated LOS Deficiencies Five collector and arterial street segments within city limits will operate below their respective minimum LOS standards by 2044. These include two segments of Bethel Road and one segment of Sedgwick Road, classified principal arterial roadways. 2044 street segment LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-16. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-135 Table 8-16. 2044 Street Segment LOS Deficiencies Name Functional Classification PM Peak Hour Volume WC LOS Bethel Rd (Sedgwick Rd to Salmonberry) Principal Arterial 1,540 1.29 F Bethel Rd (Salmonberry to Lund Ave) Principal Arterial 1,720 1.45 F Sedgwick Rd/SR 160 (SR 16 to Bethel Rd) Principal Arterial 1,770 0.93 E Sidney Ave (Sedgwick to Berry Lk Rd) Minor Arterial 2,500 1.69 F Old Clifton Rd (City limit to Anderson Hill Rd) Collector 1,590 0.95 E By 2044, 10 intersections within city limits will operate below their minimum LOS standard. In addition to the five existing LOS-deficient intersections which will persist through 2044, five additional intersections on City collector and arterial routes will reach LOS-deficient status by 2044. 2044 intersection LOS deficiencies are identified in Table 8-17. Table 8-17. 2044 Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Intersection Controls Peak Hour �_VolumePM Delay LOS On City of Port Orchard Routes Bethel Rd SE & Salmonberry Rd TWSC 2,135 >300 F Bethel Rd & Blueberry Rd TWSC 1,620 >300 F Old Clifton Rd & McCormick Woods Dr TWSC 1,720 47 E Old Clifton Rd & Anderson Hill Rd TWSC 1,840 >300 F Old Clifton Rd & Lloyd Parkway TWSC 1,750 62 F Pottery Avenue & S Kitsap Boulevard TWSC 1,090 35 E On WSDOT Routes Old Clifton Road & SR 16 EB ramps TWSC 2,605 >300 F Tremont Street & SR 16 WB ramps TWSC 3,325 52 F Sedgwick Road (SR 160) & Geiger Road TWSC 2,265 99 F Bay Street (SR 166) & Port Orchard Blvd TWSC 1,785 92 F 1TWSC = Two -Way Stop Control; AWSC = All -Way Stop Control; RAB = Roundabout; Signal = Signalized 2Average control delay for all movements, reported in seconds per vehicle. For TWSC, delay is reported for the movement with the worst (highest) delay. Both intersections at the SR 16 Sedgwick Road interchange are expected to operate at LOS D overall through 2044, maintaining their minimum LOS D standard. However, both intersections will operate with a peak hour volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1.00 on the SR 16 off -ramps. This indicates oversaturated conditions, which may result in significant queuing and large variations in travel time. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-136 Figure 8-7. Street Segment and Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Street Segment & Intersection Level of Service Deficiencies Existing Deficiency l 2044 Deficiency ♦` i r �1► i City Limit Outline a _ Urban Growth Area yL m SPs U _ W BELFAIR VALLEY R� 166 vi j iG o a �r 3 1 t�MbN s w 1 y La r s F 1 a ¢ v 5E LUND AvE sE�t� r I r r_ O � ' 1 1 SW BERRY LAKE RE II• SE SALMONBERRY Rp + .j OLD CLI p 5W _ J- w 1I - 1 16 ! -r-" r s 0 0.5 1 �I.5 2 mi Tronsportotion Solutions 8.7.3 Actions Necessary to Maintain LOS Standards Mitigation strategies for LOS-deficient street segments and intersections were developed with consideration for prior planning and policy documents, including: • Port Orchard Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program for 2024-2029; • Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program for 2030-2043; • Port Orchard Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study 2020 Update; • July 2020 update to the Transportation Element of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan; • Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan (2018); and • SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study (WSDOT 2018). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-137 The projects identified in Table 8-18 are necessary to support anticipated growth by maintaining minimum LOS standards through 2044. Several projects reference the multi -phase Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Improvement project. This project, described in the 2018 Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, will provide major capacity, safety, and accessibility improvements to the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road corridors, bringing both roadways up to urban design standards and supporting multi -model transportation for existing and future development throughout Port Orchard. Cost estimates for the projects were obtained from the Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program and Transportation Impact Fee Rate study and adjusted for inflation using the National Highway Construction Cost Index. Table 8-18. Projects Necessary to Maintain LOS Standards Cost Estimate (in ID Project Name 1 Limits Description $$$s)* Projects Necessary to Mitigate Existing LOS Deficiencies 1 Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel Rd Complete street Corridor Phase 3 (Sedgwick Rd improvements per to Blueberry the 10,283 Rd) Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. 2 Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel Rd Complete street Corridor Phase 4 (Salmonberry improvements per Rd to Lund the 15,445 Ave) Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. 3 Bethel/Sedgwick Intersection New roundabout Corridor Phase improvements halfway between SR 2,608 2a 16 and Bethel Rd. 4 Port Orchard Tremont St to Roundabouts at Bay Blvd Bay St (SR St/PO Blvd & Improvements 166) Tremont St/PO Blvd; 17,977 complete street improvements on PO Blvd. 5 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout or SR 16 EB ramps improvements traffic signal 2,608 (coordinate with WSDOT). 6 Tremont St & SR Intersection New roundabout or 16 WB ramps improvements traffic signal (coordinate with WSDOT). 2,608 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-138 Cost Estimate (in ID Project Name 1 Limits Description $$$s)* Projects Necessary to Mitigate 2044 LOS Deficiencies 7 Bethel/Sedgwick Sedgwick Rd Second phase of the Corridor Phase 2 (SR 16 to street Bethel Rd) improvements per 29,443 the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. 8 Old Clifton City limit to Separated pathway Ped/Bike Anderson Hill with lighting and 5,674 Improvements Rd shoulder improvements. 9 Bethel Rd & Intersection New roundabout Salmonberry Rd improvements 6,894 10 Bethel Rd & Intersection New roundabout. Blueberry Rd improvements 5,622 11 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout. McCormick improvements 2,692 Woods Dr 12 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout. Anderson Hill Rd improvements 4,072 13 Old Clifton Rd & Intersection New roundabout or Lloyd Parkway improvements traffic signal. 2,524 14 Sidney Ave Sedgwick Rd Widen to 3 lanes to Berry Lk Rd w/complete street 13,158 improvements. 15 Pottery Ave & Intersection New all -way stop South Kitsap Blvd Improvements control 100 Total 121,708 *Cost estimates are expressed in thousands of 2023 dollars. 8.8 Transportation Demand Management Travel Demand Management (TDM) is comprised of a broad range of programs, policies, regulations, and in some capital projects that are intended to reduce travel by automobile or to reduce travel in general. For instance, providing preferential parking and/or cost subsidies for carpool users reduces the number of automobiles on the road, while allowing employees to work from home eliminates travel altogether. Some TDM programs are mandated or implemented at the State level, such as Washington's Commute Trip Reduction Act and WSDOT's HOV/Toll Lane Program. Others are regional, including vanpool/rideshare programs administered by transit agencies such as Kitsap Transit. Larger cities have sufficient resources to implement bike share and other capital -intensive programs. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-139 Cities like Port Orchard can support state and regional efforts but can have more influence on travel demand through integrated land use and transportation planning that results in compact mixed -use centers with strong internal non -motorized connectivity and access to regional transit. The subarea plans for these centers that follow the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan should include consideration of nonmotorized connectivity standards, a balanced mix of housing, employment, and local services to minimize trips outside of the center. Parking regulations for the centers should consider establishing maximum parking ratios, rather than minimums. Design standards for businesses should include provisions for employees that commute on foot or bicycle and include bicycle storage, changing rooms, and shower facilities. These facilities could be shared in compact or urban village settings. Other TDM actions the City could consider are included in the following section on TDM effectiveness. There is no one size fits all approach, and for the City of Port Orchard, a combination of small actions at the individual development scale will likely be more cost-effective than citywide programs that may be effective in one part of the city and not in another. Large-scale City sponsored programmatic TDM measures should be considered with caution and partnerships with adjacent jurisdictions and regional partners should be pursued instead. 8.8.1 Overview TDM activities produce wide-ranging benefits to individuals and the transportation system as a whole, reducing traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and fuel consumptions while supporting physical activity and enhanced safety. TDM makes existing transportation investments perform better, extends the life of existing infrastructure, and can improve outcomes for new transportation investments (Regional TDM Action Plan, 2013-2018 — Puget Sound Regional Council). Before presenting some of the key references on TDM effectiveness, some general comments can be made about TDM effectiveness: One Size Does Not Fit All — TDM effectiveness is highly dependent on the application setting, complementary strategies, nature of the travel market segment being targeted, and even the "vigor" with which TDM is implemented and promoted. Unlike many physical improvements, TDM strategies require education and outreach. This is all to say that the transferability of TDM strategy effectiveness is highly dependent on local conditions. Some of the more subjective evaluation findings on why a given TDM initiative was more successful in one location over another are issues such as the presence of a local advocate, a history of alternative transportation, and the appropriate selection of a target market of travelers. There is "no one recipe for success" when it comes to TDM effectiveness, but there are "ingredients" that are correlated to program success. However, correlation does not prove causality. TDM Impacts are Largely Localized — TDM effectiveness is most readily measured at a local level, and this appears to be where the greatest impacts can be found. TDM is applied to specific worksites, developments, employment centers, venues, or activity centers. Localities with well-defined travel markets tend to produce the most readily available and significant impacts. When the impact of TDM at a broader geographic level is sought, for example at the corridor, citywide, or regional level, the localized nature of TDM effectiveness diffuses the results at a broader scale. One study of implementing mandatory trip reduction programs in Minneapolis -St. Paul, MN, with strong parking management in a mixed -use setting, showed that the programs would reduce vehicle trips by 8 to 27 percent at affected worksites translating to only a 2 percent peak period traffic reduction on the adjacent interstate. However, small changes in demand (total demand or the spatial or temporal distribution of travel demand) can significantly affect traffic flow in congested locations and times. Likewise, the benefits of TDM accrue to both those who switch to sustainable modes as well as all travelers, including solo drivers (in terms of reduced delay, improved air quality, safety, etc.). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-140 Travelers Respond to Their Wallets — Most evaluation studies point to the overwhelming effectiveness of financial incentives and disincentives to manage demand. At one level, this makes sense as price influences demand in a classic microeconomic analysis. Cordon pricing in London and Stockholm have reduced traffic volumes entering the city center by as much as 20%. Parking pricing is another widely accepted demand management technique. Adding or increasing parking charges at worksites can produce dramatic mode shifts, as reported in Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking. However, these examples relate to key disincentives to car use. In the U.S., TDM programs focused on modest financial incentives have been highly effective in inducing a shift to more sustainable modes. These incentive programs are often in the form of "Try -It -You'll -Like -It" inducements. For example, the Atlanta Clean Air Campaign's Cash for Commuters offers drive -alone commuters a daily cash incentive ($3/day) for using an alternative mode (carpool, vanpool, transit, bike, walking) for up to 90 days. An independent evaluation showed that the incentive caused 1,800 commuters to switch modes, resulting in 1,300 fewer vehicle trips and 30,000 vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) on the region's highways. More importantly, over 70% of incentive recipients continued their new commute mode after the subsidy lapsed, and half were still using a non -drive alone mode one year later. In the Netherlands, congestion management efforts have resorted to paying commuters to stay off backed -up highways during the peak, so-called Rush Hour Avoidance. Financial levers, even modest amounts, can influence travel behavior in a very significant manner. Parking Influences Travel Choices — Parking management is another widely accepted strategy to effectively change travel behavior, especially mode shift, time shift, and location shift. Parking pricing was mentioned above, but parking supply management can be effective as well. If parking is tight, meaning that all cars cannot be accommodated if everyone drives alone, commuters will adapt by sharing rides, shifting to transit, or even bicycling or walking if the distance allows. One study of developer TDM requirements revealed an 11 to 21 percent reduction in parking demand among worksites with aggressive TDM programs. Travel demand can be influenced by time of day and short- vs. long-term parking rates to reduce travel, including cruising for parking, during congested periods. Packaging is Key—TDM strategies are most effective when packaged into logical, complementary packages to realize synergistic effects. On the other hand, some strategies do not complement one another. One example of an unintended consequence from traditional TDM is flex -time and carpooling. Some employers who implement flex -time strategies as an employee perk or to address congestion at parking entrances have found that this can also serve to discourage ridesharing arrangements, which tend to do better with set work hours. At the same time, flexibility could reduce peak period volumes and improve flow without changing mode split. Looking at some newer strategies, such as high - occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, efficiency improvements can also work to discourage some ridesharing arrangements. HOT lane projects which need to raise vehicle occupancy requirements from 2+ to 3+ to create sufficient capacity to sell may break apart existing two -person carpools who choose to drive alone in the mixed flow lanes rather than pay a toll or find a third rider. Complementary measures can lead to greater results than strategies implemented alone. The effect of many TDM strategies is multiplicative: the impact of any one measure of VMT reduction or mode shift might be modest, but the combined effects of several complementary measures can be substantial. For example, systems management improvements, such as ramp metering, can be complemented with provisions for high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) bypass lanes, employer trip reduction programs in the corridor, and traveler information that includes HOV time savings among the traffic statistics provided. One study concluded that employer TDM programs that combined incentives and improved commute alternatives experienced an average trip reduction of almost 25%, where those implementing incentives alone realized a 16.4% reduction and alternatives alone 8.5%. As one international TDM study put it: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-141 "packaged, complementary solutions are usually more effective than a single measure."19 TDM is Not a Solution to All Transportation Problems — TDM can be highly effective at a low cost (relative to capacity improvements) when applied in the right place, at the right time for the right travel market. However, TDM, in and of itself, is not adequate to solve congestion, air quality, energy, and other urban woes. Too often the expectations are unstated or disconnected from allocated resources and incompatible policies (e.g., developers are required to build a minimum number of parking spaces, often offered for free to employees and customers, that serves to generate even more driving). TDM is most effective, or at least most measurable, at the local level. The impact of TDM at a corridor or regional level is very hard to evaluate. Modeling and simulation, such as that done using employer trip reduction data to show the likely impact of TDM on 1-5 in Seattle, suggests that aggressive and relatively widespread TDM programs at a local level can have a measurable and significant impact on a corridor. However, it is very difficult to measure issues of multiple influences, externalities, and causality. This points to the need to combine TDM strategies with smart infrastructure enhancements such as Active Traffic Management (ATM). When efficiency improvements are combined with efforts to reduce peak demand, the greatest impacts can be realized. TraditionalTDM HOV/HOT/ Managed Lanes Employer Trip Reduction Programs Alternative Work Arrangements School -based Trip Reduction Event -based Trip Reduction Recreation -based Trip Reduction Car -sharing Vanpool Programs Land Use/Active Transportation Developer Trip Reduction Land Use Strategies Car -free or Access -restricted Zones Bicycle Facilities and Programs Pedestrian Facilities and Continuity Transit Transit Service Improvements Transit Prioritization/BRT Transit Fare Discounts Park and Ride Lots 8.8.2 Other Impacts Parking Parking Information Parking Supply Management Parking Pricing Pricing Cordon Pricing Congestion Pricing General Financial Incentives Vehicle -Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax Systems Management Ramp Metering Integrated Corridor Management Traveler Information Eco-driving Traffic Light synchronization The sections above have discussed the documented impacts of TDM on travel behavior, traffic, and air quality. This section suggests that TDM can have a positive impact on other policy objectives, such as goods movement, land use, livability, and economic development. Unfortunately, very little empirical research exists documenting the impact of TDM strategies toward these policies in a comprehensive, systematic, and comparative manner. As such, individual case studies are summarized below: 19 OECD, Road Travel Demand: Meeting the Challenge, 2002. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-142 Goods movement — A strategy of consolidated deliveries has been shown to reduce the number of delivery vehicles, in places like Burgos, Spain, but other impacts have not been documented, such as congestion reduction. A delivery scheme in two French cities, using electric vehicles, reduced related CO2 by 58%. Pricing strategies, on the other hand, have been proven to be quite effective. Truck tolling in Germany has resulted in a small shift from truck to rail and a reduction in empty deadheading trips. Peak period fees at the Port of Los Angeles have reduced congestion in the terminal areas and have reduced midday truck volumes on 1-710. Land use — TDM is often used as a mitigation strategy to reduce the additional trips generated by new development, and success cases revealing trip reductions on the order of 10-25% are fairly abundant. Land use and design issues, as a longer -term strategy, have the potential to increase non -automobile modes, as revealed in comparisons of the mode split between towns with and without good bike, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. Livability — Measuring the impact of TDM on livability can be a subjective process. But livability might be seen as the product of several other effective roles for TDM, namely reduced congestion, increased safety, improved environment, and healthy economic conditions. Mostly, livability can be associated with increased travel choices, a fundamental purpose of demand management. Economic Development — In mitigating the negative impacts associated with growth (congestion, air pollution, energy consumption, reduced safety), TDM can improve the attractiveness of a region or city to prosper economically. As seen in cases such as Lund, Sweden, and the Sustainable Travel Town pilots in the U.K., economic growth can be decoupled from traffic growth. In Lund, the region grew substantially (population and employment) during a period when TDM was being implemented, reducing VMT by 1-2% overall. The growth in travel demand was met by increases in transit use and bicycling. FHWA-HOP-12-035, INTEGRATING DEMAND MANAGEMENT INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: A DESK REFERENCE, August 31, 2012 8.9 Financial Analysis and Concurrency The State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that a jurisdiction's transportation plan contain a funding analysis of the transportation projects it recommends. The analysis should cover funding needs, funding resources, and it should include a multi -year financing plan. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that each jurisdiction's transportation plan is affordable and achievable. If a funding analysis reveals that a plan is not affordable or achievable, the plan must discuss how additional funds will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed. The City of Port Orchard is including the financial element in this transportation plan in compliance with the GMA as well as to provide a guide to the City for implementation of this plan. 8.9.1 Federal Transportation Revenue Sources Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" (BIL) On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the "Bipartisan Infrastructure Law" (BIL) into law. The BIL authorizes $550 billion over fiscal years 2022 through 2026 in new Federal investment in infrastructure, including in roads, bridges, mass transit, water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband communications. This funding includes $350 billion for highway programs, including over a dozen new highway programs. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-143 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) The STBG provides flexible funding that may be used by States and local agencies for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal -aid highway, bridge, and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. STBG-eligible projects may be located on any federal —aid highway system facility including the National Highway System (NHS), bridge projects not located on the federal -aid system ("off system bridges"), transit capital projects, modifications of existing public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regardless of whether the sidewalk is on the federal —aid system right of way, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. An apportionment of these funds is to be obligated to areas with population greater than 5,000 but no more than 200,000 (the Washington State Office of Financial Management' April 2023 report estimated the 2023 population of Sultan at 6,730). The State is to identify projects in these areas for funding in consultation with regional planning organizations. A portion of the funds are reserved for rural areas and may be spent on the federal -aid functionally classified system including Minor Collectors. Project eligible for funding include all City arterial and collector improvement projects recommended in this Plan. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/. Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) The BIL continues the Transportation Alternatives set -aside from the STBG program. Eligible uses of the set -aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under the Transportation Alternatives Program under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). This encompasses a variety of smaller -scale transportation projects such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, recreational trails, safe routes to school projects, community improvements such as historic preservation and vegetation management, and environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure- law/ta.cfm. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The BIL continues the HSIP to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non -State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The BIL maintains the previous FAST Act definition of highway safety improvement projects and adds under that definition several additional types of projects: • Intersection safety that provide for the safety of all road users, as appropriate, including multimodal roundabouts; • Construction and improvement of a railway -highway grade crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices or a grade separation project; • Construction or installation of features, measures, and road designs to calm traffic and reduce vehicle speeds; • Installation or upgrades of traffic control devices for pedestrians and bicyclists including pedestrian hybrid beacons and the addition of bicycle movement phases to traffic signals; • Roadway improvements that provide separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists, including medians, pedestrian crossing islands, protected bike lanes, and protected intersection features; and • Pedestrian security features designed to slow or stop a motor vehicle. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/hsip.cfm. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-144 Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The BIL reauthorized the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) for Federal fiscal years 2022 through 2026 as a set -aside of funds from the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set -Aside under STBG. The Recreational Trail Program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized travel. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational trails/ . Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) program is to provide K-12 students a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Organized by the USDOT and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), this federal program also includes a Washington state funded portion that provides funding for engineering and construction, education efforts and enforcement activities within two miles of schools. There is no match requirement. Projects are to be submitted as complete projects and fully funded. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business- wsdot/support-local-programs/funding-programs/safe-routes-school-program. Bridge Investment Program (BIP) The BIL authorized the Bridge Investment Program, a competitive, discretionary program that focuses on existing bridges to reduce the overall number of bridges in poor condition, or in fair condition at risk of falling into poor condition. It also expands applicant eligibilities to create opportunity for all levels of government to be direct recipients of program funds. Alongside states and federal lands management agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and local and tribal governments can also apply directly to FHWA, making it easier to advance projects at the local level that meet community needs. For more information, visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/bip factsheet.cfm. Railway -Highway Crossings Program (RHCP) The BIL continues the Railway -Highway Crossings Program (RHCP), which provides funds for safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public railway -highway grade crossings. Funds may be used to install or upgrade protective devices at railroad crossings, including gates, pedestrian crossings, signal systems, and signing. Funds may also be used to eliminate grade crossings by closing them or providing grade separation. For more information, visit https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/nccp.cfm. 8.9.2 Washington State Transportation Revenue Services The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) provides funding to foster investment in quality local government transportation projects. The TIB distributes grant funding from revenue generated by three cents of the State's gas tax to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. TIB administers several funding programs, each with its own set of criteria used to facilitate project selection. The project selection process for all programs is completed annually. The TIB programs are summarized below. TIB Urban Programs The TIB provides funding to cities within federally designated urban areas with a population greater than 5,000. For jurisdictions of this size, four state -funded grant programs are administered through TIB: • Urban Arterial Program (UAP) for road projects for urban agency construction projects that address safety, growth & development, physical condition, mobility, sustainability and constructability criteria; • Active Transportation Program (ATP) for projects which improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, enhance pedestrian and cyclist mobility and connectivity, or improve the condition of existing facilities; Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-145 Arterial Preservation Program (APP) to address declining street conditions for medium sized cities through overlay of federally classified arterial streets; Complete Streets Award is a funding opportunity for local governments that have an adopted complete streets ordinance. TIB Urban Program projects require financial participation by the local agency. Minimum local match requirements range from 10% to 20% depending on the assessed value of the local agency. Local match is typically a mixture of private and public funds. Projects are selected annually using a rating system based on criteria developed by TIB. TIB awards more than $70 million to new projects each year. The Snohomish County Tomorrow 2023 Growth Monitoring Report identified Sultan as one of Snohomish County's 11 "Cities and Towns," with a 2023 population estimate of 6,727. The City is eligible to compete for TIB Urban Program funds. For more information, visit: http://www.tib.wa.gov/grants/grants.cfm. Several other programs are administered by TIB including: • Route Jurisdiction Transfer Program (RJT) reviews petitions from cities, counties or WSDOT for additions of deletions from the state highway system. • Route Transfer Program (RTP) provides funding to offset extraordinary costs associated with the transfer of state highways to cities. Local Bridge Program This local bridge program includes funding from the NHPP and STBG for both on- and off -system bridges. Its purpose is to improve the condition of bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance. In 2023, the program awarded approximately $150 million in funding. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding- progra ms/local-bridge-program. Move Ahead Washington Railroad Crossing Program The Move Ahead Washington Railroad Crossing Grant Program provides up to $5 million in state funds to match federal funds for city and county projects which eliminate at -grade highway -rail crossings. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding- programs/move-ahead-washington-railroad-crossing-program. County Safety Program The County Safety program provides funding for projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on county roads using engineering improvements/countermeasures. Projects are identified through each county's local road safety plan, that identifies and prioritizes projects based on the top crash type(s) in the county. Projects can be at intersection(s), spot or mid -block location(s), and/or on corridor(s) throughout a county or over wide areas within a county. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding-programs/highway-safety- improvement-program. City Safety Program The City Safety program provides funding for projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on city/town streets and state highways using engineering improvements/countermeasures. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/funding- programs/highway-safety-i mprovement-program. The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program The Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program was initiated to reduce the nearly 400 statewide fatal and injury collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles each year. Similar to the federal Safe Routes to School Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-146 Program, the purpose of the program is to aid public agencies in funding cost effective projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education and enforcement. For more information, visit: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/fundinR- programs/pedestrian-bicycle-program. 8.9.3 Local Transportation Revenue Services Street Fund The Street Fund for the City is comprised of revenue from the motor vehicle excise fuel tax and a portion of property tax revenue. It is allocated to the City based on the number of residents within the corporate limits. These funds can be used only for road projects. Current Expense The City has supplemented the Street Fund with Current Expense money in previous years. Current Expense funds have many sources including business taxes, local retail sales and use tax, property taxes, and motor vehicle excise tax. Transportation Impact Fee Program In 2015 the City adopted a transportation impact fee, a financing tool which allows the collection of revenue to offset the traffic impacts of new development. The impact fee rate is based the net new PM peak hour trips generated by a development and is $6,063.94 per vehicle trip. Transportation Benefit District The City has established a Transportation Benefit District (TBD), an independent taxing district which is authorized to raise revenue for the preservation, maintenance, operation, and construction of transportation infrastructure. The TBD currently imposes a $20 vehicle license fee and a 0.1 percent sales tax. 8.9.4 Revenue Forecast The projected revenues for the City's Street Operation and Street Capital funds are shown in Table 8-19. The Transportation Benefit District and Transportation Impact Fees are expected to fund approximately 40 percent of capital improvements. An additional 8 percent of Transportation Capital Facilities Plan improvement funding is anticipated to come from SEPA mitigation fees, developer contributions and transfers in from other funding sources. The remainder of the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan will be funded by through grants and appropriations as needed. This strategy ensures that the City can accomplish the transportation plan and use the available funding options efficiently. The revenue forecast described in this section was prepared by projecting historical trends from the City's financial records. Table 8-19. Transportation Revenue Forecast, 2024 to 2044 Funding Source Description Revenue Forecast, Revenue Forecast, 2025-2044 ($) 2025-2044 (/o) Street Opera ting Fund - Unrestricted Transportation $20 license fee $12,174,000 17.9% Benefit District (TBD) Licenses &Permits Right of way encroachment $200,000 o 0.3/ permit fees Intergovernmental City Share of motor vehicle $6,473,000 o 9.5/ Revenue fuel tax (MVFT) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-147 Fees for services rendered by Charges for Services transportation operations $440,000 0.6% staff including plan review and construction inspection Other sources of unrestricted Miscellaneous revenue (Property Tax $38,570,000 56.8% Allocated) Transfers to support Transfers/Other transportation operations, $10,000,000 14.7% maintenance and administration TOTAL - Street Operating Fund 67,857,000 100% Street Capital Fund - Restricted Transportation 0.1% sales tax $6,669,252 5.5% Benefit District (TBD) Transportation Fee per new vehicle trip $42,320,000 ° 34.8/° Impact Fee (TIF) Intergovernmental Grants &direct appropriations $62,218,748 ° 51.1/° Revenue Miscellaneous SEPA Mitigation fees, $500,000 0.4% developer contributions Transfers In Transfers to support capital $10,000,000 8.2% projects TOTAL - Street Capital Fund $121,708,000 100% 8.9.5 Capital Costs for Recommended Improvements Previous sections in this Element identified transportation capital improvement projects necessary to achieve the City's nonmotorized system vision and to maintain intersection and street segment Levels of Service through 2044, serving existing residents and businesses while supporting anticipated housing and employment growth. The total estimated cost of identified nonmotorized improvement projects is $209,290,000, and the total estimated cost of identified street segment and intersection capacity improvement projects is $121,708,000. These project lists contain significant overlap, with multiple projects serving both nonmotorized system vision and street segment or intersection capacity needs. The combined cost of the recommended transportation capital improvement projects, excluding duplicate projects, is $238,918,000. 8.9.6 Summary of Costs and Revenues Based on the revenues and costs listed above, the City's expected revenues are sufficient to support the projects required to maintain minimum street segment and intersection LOS standards through 2044. Additional revenue will need to be secured to fund proposed projects which provide nonmotorized improvements beyond maintaining minimum LOS standards. Table 8-20 summarizes the costs and revenues analyzed in the Transportation Element. The revenue forecast described herein assumes no additional debt issuances. However, if federal and state grant revenues fall short of the stated forecast, additional debt may be necessary to fully fund the transportation capital improvement project list. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-148 Table 8-20. Summary of Capital Costs and Revenues Category Total, 2025-2044 Projected Revenues $130,401,000 Predictable sources $59,489,252 Grant and other sources $70,911,748 Projected Expenditures $238,918,000 Street and Intersection Capacity Improvements $121,708,000 Nonmotorized-Only Improvements* $117,210,000 *Cost of remaining nonmotorized improvements which do not overlap with street and intersection capacity improvement projects In the event of a revenue shortfall, Port Orchard will need to reassess its projects transportation expenditures. Reassessment strategies may include reducing Level of Service standards or imposing a development moratorium until adequate transportation funding can be secured to maintain adopted LOS standards. 8.10 Intergovernmental Coordination The City of Port Orchard works to maintain positive relationships with neighboring jurisdictions, regional agencies and service providers, and state and federal governments. The City has a shared interest and concern in maintaining a vital local and regional economy, and a high quality of life for its citizens, which depend on transportation mobility across jurisdiction boundaries. The City has agreements in place that demonstrate its active commitment to working with Kitsap County, other regional partners and state and federal agencies to address transportation issues, share information and solve problems. The development and ongoing monitoring of the City's Comprehensive Plan demonstrates that commitment. The Growth Management Act requires that plans between neighboring jurisdictions maintain a level of consistency through coordination of planning efforts. Increasingly, Port Orchard's transportation system functions as an integral part of a larger regional system — of roadways, transit routes, park and ride lots, ferry routes, and non -motorized facilities that allow walking and/or biking the first and final mile and making connections in-between. The development of this Plan depended on land use forecasts provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council. Coordination efforts are expected to be ongoing with: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) on the recommended revisions to the City's Roadway Functional Classification System, the addition of new truck routes to the state Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS), and needed improvements on designated State Routes within the city; Kitsap Transit on Transportation Demand Management activities by major employment sites, providing access to ferry and transit facilities and services, and on maintaining and expanding transit service quality within the City; Kitsap County to address the needs of travel across jurisdiction limits, including mitigating the impacts of land use development outside the City, providing for needed street improvements in annexation areas, and furthering the expansion of the regional non- motorized trail system. Lastly, the City anticipates a certification review of this Comprehensive Transportation Plan Element by the Puget Sound Regional Council to ensure its conformity with the adopted regional VISION 2050 plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-149 8.1 1 Equity Framework for Transportation Planning Vision Statement Port Orchard is committed to identifying and prioritizing transportation projects of benefit to disadvantaged populations and traditionally underserved communities, especially communities of color, populations with limited English proficiency, low-income communities, and persons with disabilities. Equity Goals The City aims to eliminate structural inequities in overburdened communities who have experienced disproportionate environmental, health, and mobility impacts and prioritize these populations for equitable distribution of transportation resources and benefits. The City will prioritize equity in transportation planning by ensuring that policies and programs are developed with an equity lens to eliminate disparities in transportation safety, access, and mobility. See Goals T-9 and T-10. Community Engagement The City will engage its overburdened and disadvantaged populations through meaningful and inclusive public participation processes to reach people of color, low-income groups, persons with disabilities/disability service providers, and populations with limited English proficiency. It will also engage community members who depend on walking, bicycling, public transit or other assisted modes of transportation for trips to daily destinations. Transportation Equity Impact Assessment There is no single tool, dataset, or method for integrating equity considerations into transportation planning. In the context of transportation, equity needs identification frequently focuses on system deficiencies (such as level of service mitigation) or geographic dispersion and can overlook the needs of specific underserved populations. Current best practices recommend engaging multiple perspectives to first understand a community's existing demographics and inequities and then identify and prioritize projects to address them. According to the US Census Bureau's 2022 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, the City of Port Orchard has the following demographic trends relative to Washington State as a whole: • Poverty: 12.1% of the population meets the poverty threshold, which is higher than 10.3% statewide. • Language: 9.7% of homes have a language spoken other than English, which is lower than 21.5% statewide. • Persons of Color: Port Orchard includes small numbers of Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Black or African American, and American Indian and Alaska Native, people of two or more races, or some other race (comparison to statewide unavailable). • Older Population by Age: 14.2% of the population is 65 years and older, which is lower than 17.1% statewide. • Disability: 12.4% of the population has a disability, which is less than 13.9% statewide. • Veteran Status: 15.9% of the population are veterans. This is more than double than 7.6% statewide. Another source of information is the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Opportunity Mapping Report, that identifies Port Orchard census tracts with a transportation opportunity score of "low" or "very low" as compared to the PSRC regional average for presence of and access to resources. Yet another source of information is the Washington Environmental Health Disparities Map produced by the WA State Department of Health. The tool estimates cumulative environmental health impact scores for each census tract reflecting pollutant exposures and factors that affect people's vulnerability to Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-150 environmental pollution. Nineteen "vulnerability" factors inform the cumulative index score and include socioeconomic factors of race/ethnicity, population living in poverty, primary language other than English, and transportation expense, among other factors. According to this equity index, census tract 53035092200 which includes downtown Port Orchard ranks a 7 out of 10 overall, 8 out of 10 for the Socioeconomic factors' subgroup, and 8 out of 10 for population living in poverty (<_185% of federal poverty level). These demographics indicate underserved populations exist in Port Orchard and transportation project selection and prioritization should include considerations for the transportation needs for these vulnerable groups across Port Orchard, particularly in census tract 53035092200. Regular Review and Reporting The City commits to reviewing the equity impact assessment tools, data, and methods it employs to ensure equity considerations remain relevant and integral to the comprehensive planning process with respect to transportation planning. Documentation of ADA Transition Plan barrier removal is one such form of reporting that is recommended on an annual basis. 8.12 Transportation Goal and Policies The transportation goal and policies described below establish the vision for this Transportation Element and support the overall vision of the Comprehensive Plan. These goals and policies are organized under the categories local and regional transportation planning, supporting the economy, protecting the environment, and facilitating innovation. These policies are consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies. T Goal I. The City of Port Orchard has a sustainable, equitable, affordable, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system that promotes vitality of the economy, environment, and health. Local and Regional Transportation Planning Policy T-1 Maintain and operate transportation systems to provide safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people goods, and services. Policy T-2 Protect the investment in the existing system and lower overall lifecycle costs through effective maintenance and preservation programs. Policy T-3 Reduce the need for new capital improvements through investments in operations, pricing programs, demand management strategies, and system management activities that improve the efficiency of the current system. Policy T-4 Improve the safety of the transportation system and, in the long term, achieve the state's goal of zero deaths and serious injuries. Policy T-5 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to, and promotes, human health. Policy T-6 Pursue alternative transportation financing methods such as user fees, tolls, and other pricing mechanisms to fund the maintenance, improvement, preservation, and operation of the transportation system. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-151 Policy T-7 Fund, complete, and operate the highly efficient, multimodal system described in the Comprehensive Plan. Coordinate with WSDOT, regional, and nearby local agencies, in collaboration with the state legislature, to build the multimodal system. Policy T-8 Strategically expand capacity and increase efficiency of the transportation system to move goods, services, and people throughout Port Orchard. Focus on investments that produce the greatest net benefits to people and minimize the environmental impacts of transportation. Policy T-9 Implement transportation programs and projects that provide access to opportunities while preventing or mitigating negative impacts to people of color, people with low incomes, and people with special transportation needs. Policy T-10 Ensure mobility choices for people with special transportation needs, including persons with disabilities, seniors, youth, and people with low incomes. Policy T-11 Design, construct, and operate a safe and convenient transportation system for all users while accommodating the movement of freight and goods, using best practices and context sensitive design strategies. Policy T-12 Emphasize transportation investments that provide and encourage alternatives to single -occupancy vehicle travel and increase travel options. Policy T-13 Increase the proportion of trips made by transportation modes that are alternatives to driving alone by ensuring availability of reliable and competitive transit options. Policy T-14 Integrate transportation systems to make it easy for people and freight to move from one mode or technology to another. Policy T-15 Prioritize investments in transportation facilities and services in the urban growth area that support compact, pedestrian- and transit -oriented densities and development. Policy T-16 Improve local street patterns — including their design and how they are used — for walking, bicycling, and transit use to enhance communities, connectivity, and physical activity. PolicyT-17 Promote and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian travel as important modes of transportation by providing facilities and navigable connections, including connected and protected bike and pedestrian pathways where contextually appropriate. Policy T-18 Promote coordination with developers to ensure that mixed -use developments are designed in a way that improves overall mobility and accessibility to and within such development. Policy T-19 Design transportation facilities to fit within the context of the built or natural environments in which they are located. Supporting the Economy Policy T-20 Make transportation investments that improve economic and living conditions so that industries and skilled workers continue to be retained and attracted to Port Orchard. Policy T-21 Improve key facilities connecting Port Orchard to the regional transportation network to support the economic vitality of the city. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-152 Policy T-22 Ensure the freight system supports the growing needs of global trade and state, regional and local distribution of goods and services. Policy T-23 Maintain and improve the existing multimodal freight transportation system in the region to increase reliability, efficiency, and mobility, and prepare for continuing growth in freight and goods movement. Protecting the Environment Policy T-24 Provide infrastructure sufficient to support widespread electrification of the transportation system. Policy T-25 Advance the resilience of the transportation system by incorporating redundancies, preparing for disasters and other impacts, and coordinated planning for system recovery. Policy T-26 Reduce stormwater pollution from transportation facilities and improve fish passage, through retrofits and updated design standards. Where feasible, integrate with other improvements to achieve multiple benefits and cost efficiencies. Facilitating Innovation Policy T-27 Prepare for changes in transportation technologies and mobility patterns, to support Port Orchard with a sustainable and efficient transportation system. Policy T-28 Be responsive to changes in mobility patterns and needs for both people and goods, and encourage partnerships with the private sector, where applicable. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 8-153 Chapter 9 Capital Facilities 9.1 Introduction This periodic update to the Capital Facilities Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan provides information about the City's existing facilities and plans for future facilities needed to service the growing population. The Capital Facilities Element helps guide the City in providing appropriate facilities and desirable levels of service to its residents and businesses. The Capital Facilities Element reviews the general requirements and available funding, connects capital facilities planning to other functional plans, and reviews goals and policies that guide planning. It also provides an overview of the current capital facility portfolio and identifies future needs and investments for the next six years. Capital Facilities Vision The City of Port Orchard owns and manages a variety of capital facilities, which include roads, parks, utility Provide outstanding capital facilities to systems, police facilities, and administrative buildings. In serve a growing and changing city. addition to the facilities owned and managed by the City, there are publicly owned capital facilities managed by other entities. These include, but are not limited to, schools, library, sewage treatment, and public transit. Privately owned utilities (electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications) conduct their own planning processes and maintain their own system plans. The City influences private system planning through its authority to regulate land uses and its obligation to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Plan. The state requires the City to demonstrate comprehensive and coordinated planning for all capital facilities serving the City's residents, businesses, and community. The Public Facilities and Services Goal of the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate at the time of occupancy and use, without decreasing service levels below locally established minimum standards. Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies also require the City to have a plan that ensures adequate facilities and services are or will be available to serve the City's employment and population growth allocations. If limited funding or other circumstances would prevent the city from providing adequate facilities and services, the GMA requires the city to re-evaluate the Land Use Element and make sure that plans for capital facilities and land use are consistent. Ensuring that public facilities are available when growth occurs is critical to the quality of life for Port Orchard's residents, businesses, and visitors. The implementation of the Capital Facilities Element and related plans will help realize the community's vision for community facilities, as well as the vision and goals of the Land Use Element. This Element also functions in coordination with the Comprehensive Plan's Utilities, Parks, and Transportation Elements and functional system plans for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These are discussed in more detail in Section 9-3. Capital facilities and functional plans guide planning and budgetary decisions. A list of capital facility improvements planned in the next six years are described in Section 9-3. The functional plans provide a complete facility inventory, as well as needs, projected costs, and funding sources. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-154 9.2 Financial Overview The City strategically manages community resources and carefully balances investments in new facilities and infrastructure with costs to maintain and operate existing facilities. Identifying costs and funding for capital projects planned in the next six years supports the development of the City's annual budget and provides a path toward implementing facility projects. The Capital Facilities Element uses many revenue sources to fund the capital improvement projects, including sales tax, business and occupation tax, utility rates, state revenues, bonds, and grants. Impact fees and other specific revenues allowed under the Growth Management Act also offer potential funding sources. A partial list of capital facilities funding sources and financing tools is included below: Tax Revenue Bonds • Property Tax • General Obligation Bonds • Retail Sales and Use Tax • Revenue Bonds • Business License Fees • Levy Lid Lift • Real Estate Excise Taxes Federal Funding Programs • Utility Tax (Electric, Water, Sewer, Refuse, Stormwater, Natural Gas, • Surface Transportation Program (STP) Telephone) • Transportation Alternatives Program • Other tax revenue may include lodging (TAP) excise taxes, admission tax, liquor tax, • Highway Bridge Program (HBP) transportation benefit district (TBD), • Highway Safety Improvement Program and motor vehicle fuel taxes (HSIP) • Safe Route to School Program (SRTS) Impact Fees • Transportation, Community, and • Transportation Impact Fees System Preservation (TCSP) Program • Park Impact Fees • Recreational Trails Program • School Impact Fees (Transferred to • Community Development Block Grants South Kitsap School District pursuant to . Energy Retrofits for Public Buildings — Interlocal Agreement) Department of Commerce Enterprise Activities • Public Works Board funding — Department of Commerce • System Development Fees (Capital • Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Facility Charges, General Facility Fees, etc.) Washington State Funding Programs • Water User Fees/Rates • Washington State Transportation • Sewer User Fees/Rates Improvement Board • Stormwater Utility Fees/Rates • The Pedestrian Bicycle Safety Program • Public Works Board funding — Department of Commerce Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-155 9.3 Planning Connections Capital improvement recommendations are drawn primarily from City leadership and the functional plans specific to each City department or facility type. Water, sewer, and stormwater have specific requirements according to state and federal law and planning for parks and recreation facilities is included in a parks focused functional plan. Each plan contains a system inventory and a forecast of demand and capacity based on population and regulatory mandates. The functional plans identify capital investments that replace or maintain existing facilities for continued service required to meet future demand for at least a 20-year period. The plans also define the customer service level for each facility and provide system -specific operating policies. Planning for capital facilities also coordinates with other agency efforts. For example, Port Orchard's capital facilities plan considers Kitsap County's plans to redevelop the governmental campus, invest in transportation infrastructure, etc. 9.4 Functional Plans The Capital Facilities Element highlights recommendations from the City's functional plans in the table below. These plans are adopted into the Capital Facilities Element by reference. Table 9-1. Functional Plan Update Schedule FUNCTIONAL PLAN UPDATE FREQUENCY Water System Plan (2021) 10-year cycle, as needed Provides a basis for six -year capital improvement planning and forecasts 20-year needs General Sewer System Plan (2016) 6-10-year cycle, as needed Addresses aging infrastructure and system expansion to accommodate development; updates policies and practices, data, finances, and growth forecasts; Recommends improvements for the City's wastewater system Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan (2023) 6-10-year cycle, as needed Establishes the city's storm and surface water policy Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan (2022) 6-10-year cycle, as needed Recommends 20-year capital project projects to guide growth and development of Port Orchard's parks and open space system. Transportation Improvement Program (2025) every 1-2 years, as needed Identifies improvements to the City's transportation network planned for the next six years as well as within a twenty-year horizon 9.5 Future Needs While there are unique challenges in each functional area, aging infrastructure, compliance with new laws and regulations, and increased demand for services impact all Port Orchard's capital facilities plans. Aging Infrastructure. Some of Port Orchard's capital facilities are aging or inadequate for current service needs and will require repairs and replacement over the next 20 years. The costs of replacing utility infrastructure, roads, and municipal buildings can be substantial and take years to plan and implement. To get an accurate picture of capital facility needs, Port Orchard will conduct a comprehensive facility condition assessment (FCA). The FCA will highlight current deficiencies at the systems and facility level Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-156 and projected repairs needed over the long term. It could include recommendations to prioritize preventative maintenance and develop a feasible schedule to address capital facility needs. The FCA is a critical first step to improve the way Port Orchard manages, maintains, and funds its capital facilities to be more resilient and cost-effective. New Laws and Regulations. Changing state and federal mandates governing capital facilities systems require the City to monitor and review its systems to ensure compliance. For example, requirements for implementing projects, programs, and maintenance continue to evolve and are more stringent than in 2007 when the City received its first National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES), a Federal Clean Water Act mandate that affects programs citywide. The City operates in accordance with the 2024-2029 General Permit (Ecology 2024). The 2024 General permit includes numerous requirements including but not limited to the adoption of the 2024 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington; updates to the City's development regulation, operations, mapping, and public outreach; and a source control, inspection, and reporting program. The City intends to comply with all 2024 General Permit conditions in accordance with the timelines specified therein. Increased Demand. Capital facility investments will also be needed to ensure the City continues to deliver the high -quality municipal services customers expect and keep pace as the community grows and changes. Increased demand for services will also require investing in capital facilities across all functional areas. To plan to meet future service demands, the City should conduct a citywide facilities study. Building on findings from the facility condition assessment, this plan will assess current and future space needs, recommend investments to address critical near -term deficiencies, and develop an implementation strategy to provide facilities needed to serve the Port Orchard community into the future. This plan will consider facilities investments to better serve the community that could potentially include expanding the downtown civic campus, investing in appropriately sized public works and police facilities, and increasing investments in maintenance and operations of City parks and throughout the portfolio. Partner Efforts. The Port Orchard community benefits from its proximity to centers for recreation, open space, and sports fields outside City limits and/or owned and managed by other agencies or groups, such as the South Kitsap School District and Kitsap County. Creating and strengthening regional partnerships enable Port Orchard and its partners to provide greater facilities and opportunities than would be possible alone. The City should coordinate with and support these non -city service providers, such as school districts, libraries, and solid waste processors, as they plan for new or improved facilities, for example Kitsap County's campus redevelopment. The City of Port Orchard is already working with Kitsap County and other nearby jurisdictions to implement the 2001 Mosquito Fleet Trail Master Plan to expand a regional water trail including shoreline access with launch points, rest areas, and parking facilities. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-157 9.6 Capital Facilities Goals and Policies The goals and policies for Port Orchard's capital facilities align with the Comprehensive Plan vision and build on the goals and policies in each Element. CF Goal I. Ensure that infrastructure, facilities, and services are adequate to meet present and future needs. Policy CF-1 Establish minimum levels of service (LOS) and regularly monitor and update standards for staffing and public facilities to reflect community preferences for quality -of -service delivery and align with functional plans. Correct LOS deficiencies through capital improvements. Policy CF-2 Require that urban level facilities and services are provided prior to or concurrent with development. These services include, but are not limited to, transportation infrastructure, parks, potable water supply, sewage disposal, stormwater and surface water management, and solid waste management. Policy CF-3 Facilitate adequate planning for services and facilities by coordinating with utility providers on annual updates of population, employment, and development projections. Encourage providers to improve accessibilityto public services by making information available, convenient, and complete. Policy CF-4 Address disparities in historically underserved populations by ensuring transportation, utilities, telecommunications, and other infrastructure are equitably distributed and maintained, and that siting or expansion of essential public facilities does not unduly affect any one group of people or geographic area. Policy CF-5 Maintain an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities. Policy CF-6 Acquire property sufficient to provide capital facilities at established levels of service, according to the deficiencies and needs provided in the City's functional plans. Policy CF-7 Ensure that new growth and development pay a fair, proportionate share of the cost for facilities needed to serve such growth and development. Seek to reduce the per unit cost of facilities and services by coordinating improvements such as utilities and roads and encouraging urban intensity development within the City and Urban Growth Areas. CF Goal 2. Leverage facilities investments to efficiently use public resources and improve quality of life. Policy CF-8 Direct growth within the community where adequate public facilities exist or can be efficiently provided when feasible. Policy CF-9 Encourage the joint use of utility corridors for open space and non -motorized pathways and trails, provided that such joint use is consistent with limitations prescribed by applicable law and prudent utility practice. Coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions to encourage cooperative planning of future facilities, reduce redundancy, and implement multijurisdictional utility facility expansions and improvements. Policy CF-10 Explore opportunities to acquire land to serve the public and municipal purposes. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-158 Policy CF-11 Consider developing multi -use facilities that can serve more than one public need. Explore opportunities for public/private partnerships and funding sources that could provide a mix of public facilities and other uses such as commercial and residential within the same development, where appropriate. Policy CF-12 Consider investing in sidewalks, trails, and other capital facilities that enhance walkability in an effort to reduce health disparities and improve well-being and quality of life. Policy CF-13 Design and locate capital facility improvements to reduce crime risks and optimize public safety through increased visibility at joint use facilities (e.g., streets, public buildings, etc.). Policy CF-14 Ensure that site selection, construction, operation, and maintenance of capital facilities is environmentally sensitive, safe and reliable, aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses, economical to consumers, and does not adversely impact vulnerable populations. CF Goal 3. Equitably engage with the community around capital facilities planning. Policy CF-15 Provide meaningful inclusive opportunities for community involvement in the planning of capital facilities, prioritizing the inclusion of historically underrepresented populations. Policy CF-16 Coordinate with local Tribes in planning capital facilities, especially in areas with cultural significance. Policy CF-17 Encourage public awareness and consult public input when considering the need for and proposed locations of new public facilities. CF Goal 4. Develop and maintain adequate and convenient parks, recreation, and open space areas and facilities for all age groups to serve both the existing and future population of Port Orchard and surrounding areas. Policy CF-18 Encourage private property owners and developers to donate public trail access and parcels for park development in areas identified for future municipal parks and trail connections. Policy CF-19 Increase the size and number of parks and open spaces by providing input on development plans for public parks within Port Orchard's Urban Growth Boundary. Policy CF-20 Reevaluate the City's park impact fee at least every four years to ensure that the fee is appropriate based on the City's LOS for parks acquisition, improvement, and maintenance. Policy CF-21 Collaborate with Kitsap County to explore forming a Municipal Parks District to help fund and develop community and neighborhood scale parks throughout the city and Urban Growth Area. Policy CF-22 Encourage implementation of the City's PROS Plan that outlines a citywide system of trails that will serve park, recreation, and open space needs. Link a system of trails between neighborhoods and parks, school sites, and other public property. Utilize public lands and existing rights -of -way for trail purposes whenever feasible. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-159 Policy CF-23 Place interpretive signs along trails to encourage community, historical, and environmental awareness, and place distance markers along the trail for walkers and runners. Policy CF-24 Create new parks in recently annexed areas and update existing parks within newly annexed portions of the City. Policy CF-25 In conjunction with partners, develop the Port Orchard Community Events Center as a recreational and civic amenities hub for Port Orchard and the South Kitsap region. CF Goal S. Ensure that an adequate water supply is available to support the level of population growth and land development projected within the City. Policy CF-26 Maintain water system facilities and drinking water quality in accordance with State and Federal standards to ensure the high quality of drinking water and level of service is provided to all customers while maximizing the life of facilities to protect the investment of ratepayers. Policy CF-27 Provide adequate water for high quality domestic and fire protection service within the retail service area. Policy CF-28 Utilize City -owned and operated sources of supply to maximize efficiency and cost effectiveness of the water system. Policy CF-29 Construct new facilities as required to serve the existing and future populations of the established water service area and South Kitsap Urban Growth Area. Policy CF-30 Interconnect the City's main water system with the independent facilities serving the City's 580 and 660 Pressure Zones (McCormick Woods System). This will allow for combining the two existing systems under one water system identification number. Policy CF-31 Encourage, implement, and maintain land use and water use efficiency and conservation programs to discourage water waste, promote the prudent use of water resources, and support protection of habitat and the environment. Policy CF-32 Work with neighboring water utilities, participate in regional water planning efforts to establish common goals of uniform water system standards, and facilitate coordination of efforts toward the adequate provision of water service throughout the region. Policy CF-33 Revise water service boundaries in cases where the designated water service provider cannot provide timely or reasonable service. Policy CF-34 Ensure that land uses permitted in aquifer recharge areas do not lead to contamination of water resources. Policy CF-35 Encourage new developments adjacent to properties with private wells or existing septic systems to connect to the City's water system or, if not feasible, ensure that adverse impacts to existing wells or septic systems from new development is avoided or mitigated. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-160 CF Goal 6. Provide safe, reliable, and timely sewer service to consumers at a fair and reasonable price. Policy CF-36 Coordinate construction of sewage improvements with other utilities. The City shall require all new development to connect to public sewer and water systems, unless physically or financially infeasible. CF Goal 7. Ensure that all utility and transportation infrastructure expansion provides an adequate level of public service to support new development and is consistent with current land use plans and development regulations. Policy CF-37 Utilize best construction methods and practices and innovative techniques in the design and construction of utilities. Policy CF-38 Evaluate, monitor, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the construction and operation of capital facilities. Policy CF-39 Whenever possible, utility construction should be scheduled to minimize disruption of access to area residences and businesses. Policy CF-40 Schedule utility construction activities to avoid sensitive times in the lifecycle of fish and wildlife, such as spawning, nesting, and migration. CF Goal 8. Minimize development related impacts to existing hydrologic conditions and functions and strive to correct current deficiencies resulting from past development practices such as stormwater-related flooding. Policy CF-41 Identify areas within and adjacent to the City and its UGA which are highly sensitive to changes in hydrologic conditions and functions. Within these highly sensitive areas, establish standards that provide for near zero change in hydraulic and hydrologic function on a property, such as no net increase in the peak flow or volume of runoff or erosion products leaving a site post- development. Policy CF-42 Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) strategies for stormwater management through incentives and flexibility in application of regulatory requirements. Policy CF-43 Utilize new inventories of flood hazard -prone properties in the decision -making process to prioritize stormwater system improvements. Policy CF-44 Coordinate the basin planning process with the community planning process to address surface water runoff and flooding issues. Policy CF-45 Integrate public regional stormwater detention and retention facilities into the natural environment. Policy CF-46 Recognize that regional facilities can provide aesthetics, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat in a community park -like or open space setting. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-161 CF Goal 9. Support provision of adequate, timely, and efficient fire protection and emergency medical service within the City. Policy CF-47 Coordinate with South Kitsap Fire and Rescue on planningfor the location of new fire stations to ensure that they are dispersed throughout the City and located near areas of high population concentration. Policy CF-48 Encourage consolidation of duplicate services between fire districts and other entities to use resources more effectively. CF Goal 10. Coordinate land use and school district capital facilities planning. Policy CF-49 Recognize that schools provide a unifying social and physical amenity that are a key focus for successful neighborhoods. Encourage elementary schools to be located in or near neighborhood centers and middle schools, junior high schools and senior high schools to be located near community centers, including the McCormick Village Center. Policy CF-50 Support the South Kitsap School District School Board in maintaining and funding individual school levels of service as adopted and encourage proactive coordination around growth trends to support the district's demand forecasting (e.g. sharing permitting application data), in accordance with the City's intent to provide adequate school facilities for the community. Policy CF-51 Coordinate with the South Kitsap School District to develop strategies to ensure that students are not forced to attend a school outside their neighborhood. Policy CF-52 Review annual reports and update school impact fees as needed. Policy CF-53 Explore opportunities to develop joint use facilities with the South Kitsap School District, such as recreational and community center facilities. Develop neighborhood parks adjacent to school sites whenever possible to promote facility sharing. Facilities on the neighborhood park site should supplement uses that the school does not provide such as trails, open space, picnic areas, playground equipment, and multi -purpose paved sport courts. 9.6 Capital Facilities This section addresses capital facilities in the following four categories: 1. Administration and Community Facilities 2. Public Safety Facilities 3. Public Works Facilities 4. Parks Facilities Each section contains a capital facilities inventory, summarizes key context and issues, recommends improvements, and proposes projects for the next six -year planning period, with estimated costs and potential funding sources. 9.7.1 Administration and Community Facilities This section first covers the facilities supporting City administration and the overall community. It also briefly covers the Fire Protection and Schools, community facilities that are owned and maintained by partner agencies. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-162 Inventory Facility City Hall (includes Police Station & Municipal Court) Location 216 Prospect St Size (sq ft) 28,370 720 Prospect Street Facility (DCD) 720 Prospect St 2,925 Library 87 Sidney Ave 8,586 730 Prospect Street Facility (Kitsap County Prosecutor) 730 Prospect St 8,028 Employee Parking Lot (Gravel) 213 & 215 Prospect Street 1 6,500 Existing Conditions City Hall City Hall has served as the primary municipal building for Port Orchard's administrative functions since it was built in 1999. The building is approximately 28,370 square feet with three stories and a partial fourth floor. The first floor is occupied by the Police Department and the second floor by the Mayor's Office, City Clerk, Public Works Administration, and Finance. The City Council Chambers and Municipal Court are located on the third floor. Public Works operations staff are located in the Public Works Shop. Refer to Public Works Facilities and Public Safety Facilities sections for more information. Figure 9-1. City Hall City Hall is in good condition for its age and was renovated in 2024 to address needed repairs, security, and ADA accessibility, a■■■■i C I ml and improve the first floor. Condition and improvement btimaJ information for the first floor is discussed in the Public Safety Facilities section. Even with these improvements, functional issues remain, including security concerns, challenging wayfinding, and limited parking. There is also not enough work and support space; for example, breakrooms have been repurposed as workspace and the Community Development Department was relocated due to space limitations. Municipal Court is rightsized to accommodate future growth. Planning for City Hall should consider the space needed to accommodate future growth and the operational efficiency gained by co -locating all departments. In response to a need for a new community event center and aligned with Policy CF-25, the City is in the process of designing the new Port Orchard Community Event Center. This new facility would have rentable event space for community programming. Designs also include space for the library to relocate. The City's Council Chambers could also be relocated if supported by leadership, which would free up space for use in City Hall. See the Library section below for more information on existing conditions and needs. 720 Prospect Street Facility The Department of Community Development (DCD) is in two facilities, one located adjacent to City Hall at 720 Prospect Street with Building, Code Enforcement, and Parking Enforcement functions (as well as the City's IT department), and one at 600 Kitsap Street with Planning functions. The Kitsap Street facility is leased. The Prospect Street facility is undersized for current and future operations and in fair condition, requiring maintenance to address age -related needs such as upgrades to the HVAC system. The division Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-163 of staff between two buildings and separation from City Hall creates communication and operational inefficiencies. There is limited parking and City vehicles are parked at City Hall. The public interface also requires patrons to go between the Prospect Street facility and City Hall to complete applications. For pedestrians passing between these two buildings, there are no crosswalks and limited ADA compliance. A downtown government campus master plan is needed to plan the long-term use of this site. Library Built in 1960, the City -owned library building houses the local branch of the Kitsap Public Library. The building is nearing the end of its useful life, is costly to maintain, and requires upgrades or relocation of the library functions. A 2020 site selection process identified a site for the new library and community events center. 730 Prospect Street Facility In 2024, the City purchased the building located at 730 Prospect Street that includes 20 surface parking spaces and houses the Kitsap County Prosecutor Family Support Division. The Kitsap County Prosecutor plans to relocate to the new County Courthouse Campus in the long term, and this building can be repurposed to support the City's staffing and employee parking needs as it grows. A downtown government campus master plan is needed to plan for the long-term use of this site. Figure 9-2. Kitsap Regional Library's Port Orchard branch Future Needs As Port Orchard's population has grown, City staffing has increased to maintain service standards and meet basic functional requirements. The following investments are needed: • In accordance with Policy CF-14, perform required maintenance at all administrative and community facilities. Consider conducting a facilities condition assessment to document current conditions and near- and long-term maintenance needs for all capital facilities. Develop a downtown government campus master plan to plan for the long-term use of the City's downtown offices and property. • Invest in the following near -term projects: o Improve wayfinding at City Hall by installing a centralized reception kiosk and improved signage. o Increase security by adding lighting and safety features around exits and limiting publicly accessible areas. o Aligned with Policy CF-10, consider paving gravel lots, acquiring property, or constructing structured parking to increase available staff and public parking. Provide ADA-accessible parking near public entrances. The block that includes 640 Bay Street should be considered for this purpose, consistent with the Downtown Subarea Plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-164 o As space becomes available, add staff work and support space, including workstations, break rooms, and a lactation room. • As part of a citywide facilities plan, estimate future staff and operational space needs to guide near -term improvements and property acquisition as well as longer term investments. Encourage public awareness and input as stated in Policies CF-15 and CF-17. Endeavor to accommodate future needs, consolidate staff to improve operational efficiency, address accessibility, and other functional challenges. Aligned with Policy CF-11, consider developing multi -use facilities and partnering opportunities to meet public need. Consider Police Department needs and coordinate with plans; see the Public Safety Facilities section. • As the City designs the Port Orchard Community Event Center, consider relocating the Council Chambers as an interim or long-term solution to free up space at City Hall and improve security. Relocate the library to the event center and determine the best use for the current property. Priority Investments Maintaining and strategically planning for Administration and Community capital facilities are the priorities for the next six years. Funding Source Project City Grant Unfunded 6-Year Total City Hall Renovations 11,300,000 11,300,000 Facility Condition Assessment 100,000 100,000 730 Prospect Street 2,000,000 2,000,000 Citywide Facilities Plan 200,000 200,000 Downtown Government Campus Master Plan 100,000 100,000 Acquire Property for Government Campus 500,000 500,000 Downtown Parking Structure (including property acquisition) 2,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL 13,300,000 2,900,000 16,200,000 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-165 Expenditures Years City Hall Renovations 31577,775 ExpendituresPrior 2024-2030 7,722,225 11,300,000 Facility Condition Assessment 100,000 100,000 730 Prospect Street 2,000,000 2,000,000 Citywide Facilities Plan 200,000 200,000 Downtown Government Campus Master Plan 100,000 100,000 Acquire Property for Government Campus 500,000 500,000 Downtown Parking Structure (including property acquisition) 2,000,000 2,000,000 TOTAL 3,577,775 12,622,225 16,200,000 9.7.2 Fire and Schools Fire Protection The City of Port Orchard formerly maintained its own Municipal Fire Department. In 1998, that department was merged with Kitsap County Fire District 7, which served the greater South Kitsap area. In 2005, Kitsap County Fire District 7 was renamed South Kitsap Fire and Rescue to better represent the communities it serves. There are currently two staffed fire stations located within the City of Port Orchard: Station 17, located at 7990 McCormick Woods Drive SW, and Station 31, at 200 Tremont Street. Figure 9-3. Tremont Fire Station More information on Fire Protection levels of service can be found in South Kitsap Fire and Rescue's Strategic Positioning Plan 2021-2023. Schools The South Kitsap School District provides public education to Kindergarten through 121h Grade for the residents of Port Orchard and the South Kitsap area. It serves 9,112 students. The facilities include ten elementary (K-5) schools, three middle schools (6-8) schools, one high school, one alternative high school, and an academy that encourages family involvement. One elementary school, Sidney Glen, is located within Port Orchard City limits, as is one middle school (Cedar Heights), and South Kitsap High School and Explorer Academy. The School District owns property at the northwest corner Figure 9-4. Aerial view of South Kitsap High School M Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-166 of Old Clifton Road and Feigley Road in the McCormick Village Center that was acquired for future school facilities. The site is large enough to accommodate two schools, including a second high school and a middle or elementary school. The South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan can provide more information on the facilities and plans to improve them. It is adopted by reference as a part of this document. Inventory In addition to the facilities above, Fire Station #7 operates as the operations center in case of an emergency. This facility is owned by the City and leased and operated by South Kitsap Fire and Rescue. Existing Conditions City Hall The Police Department occupies 5,500 square feet of the first floor of City Hall. While 2024 renovations will maximize space use and improve some operations, they will not address many critical needs or add space to accommodate long- term growth. To alleviate the severely limited space in the near term, some staff are located in a secure off -site leased space. Like the administrative department, most support space has been converted to offices or workspace. Storage space is also inadequate; many areas have been repurposed as storage, such as the sallyport. Police officers have take-home vehicles, but there is no secured parking area for staff vehicles and inadequate parking for department meetings. Figure 9-5. Police offices on ground floor of City Hall In addition to City Hall, the Police rent a 3,000 square foot warehouse for tactical training and storage. This facility is also used to process vehicles for evidence prior to moving them to long-term storage. Police Shooting Range and Storage The police shooting range provides a safe location for officers to train and practice using firearms. The range is aging, in poor condition, and in need of maintenance investments, including lane resurfacing and roof replacement. There is a Conex box on -site that offers limited storage, but the site lacks bathroom facilities. There is also concern the outdoor range may cause increased noise disturbance as the surrounding residential areas grow. Long-term storage is located in a fenced area on the same parcel adjacent to the Public Works Operations Yard. Figure 9-6. Shooting range Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-167 Future Needs The Police department has grown a lot in recent years and expects to increase staff aligned with the City's population growth. Many Public Safety facilities are aging with most not sized to accommodate current staff or future growth. Continued operations to meet Port Orchard's needs rely on the following steps: • Review operations and establish level of service standards, where appropriate to assess current and future needs. The plan should consider workload, geography, and Port Orchard community needs. Once current and future staffing goals are in place, space needs can be assessed in accordance with Policy CF-13, to determine the facility space needed to support the Police department into the future. • Incorporate plans to construct a Public Safety facility to accommodate future staff and operations into the citywide facilities plan. Provide secure fleet parking, co -locate large vehicle evidence storage, and determine the future use of the long-term evidence storage property. If possible, include tactical training space and an indoor shooting range. Consider building in a central location free from natural hazards. Purchase property when feasible or use existing City property for a new facility as outlined in Policies CF-6 and CF-14. Encourage public awareness and input as stated in Policies CF-15 and CF-17. • If unable to include in a new Public Safety facility, modernize the existing range by covering and resurfacing lanes and upgrading parking; install sanitation, water, and electric utilities; and add secure storage, classroom space, and a firearm cleaning station. Priority Investments Funding and expenditures for the needs assessment, facilities plan, and Police Station renovations are included with financing for City Hall renovations; refer to the Priority Investments chart in the Administration and Community Facilities section. There are no other major investments budgeted for Public Safety in the six -year planning period. 9.7.3 Public Works Facilities The City of Port Orchard and the Public Works Department owns, operates, and maintains infrastructure to provide drinking water, sewer, stormwater, and surface water services to its residents and businesses. Investment in this infrastructure is necessary for continued delivery of utility services that are critical for human health and safety, economic development, as well as supporting a sustainable, healthy environment. Capital facility investments help to ensure that the City can continue to deliver the high - quality municipal utility services customers expect. This section first covers the general facilities supporting staff and then briefly covers the individual utilities. See the Utilities Element or individual functional plans for more detailed utility information. Inventory Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-168 Existing Conditions Public Works Shop The Public Works Shop houses Public Works operations crews and the City's maintenance vehicles and equipment. The main building is in fair condition and provides space for crew support, shops, and storage. Materials storage is severely limited, often forcing crews to obtain supplies from local vendors. Transportation signage is purchased as needed as the existing shop space does not include an area for sign fabrication. Limited crew space is unable to support growth in staff and operations. Figure 9-7. Public Works Shop Staff and fleet parking space is limited and unable to accommodate growth. There are also two adjacent structures providing covered parking for fleet and equipment. Fleet requiring heated parking can be stored in the main building's shop space as well as in one bay at the South Shed. The rest of the site is significantly undersized with limited yard material storage and no room for expansion. The facility is located on the west side of Highway 16, making it well located near the McCormick Woods development, but separated from a large portion of the City, staff, and facilities, including City Hall. This location may provide operational challenges in the event of a natural hazard. South Shed The South Shed Facility is located on a 3.77-acre site located at 2035 Sidney Avenue with 2,000 square feet of warehouse for material and equipment storage. Most of the land at this location is utilized as a park. Originally a fire station, the South Shed was repurposed for Public Works storage in addition to seasonally providing heated parking for equipment such as sweeper and vactor trucks. This aging facility is in poor condition but could be rehabilitated to provide staff workspace and storage. Expanding outdoor storage will require the relocation of Figure 9-8. South Shed parks amenities, access, and parking. - Operations Yard The Operations Yard is located near the Shop and contains a decant facility and materials laydown storage. The decant is in good condition but is at capacity as it is used as a regional facility. Spoils frequently do not have adequate time to dewater, requiring the City to add wicking materials that increase weight and cost when taken to the Kitsap transfer station. The site has limited materials storage but is large enough to accommodate additional crew space and materials bins. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-169 Future Needs Public Works is anticipating an estimated staffing increase in the next ten years, growing from 25 to 32- 40 or more staff to meet the needs of the rapidly growing community. The City will need to expand Public Work facilities to accommodate needed staff and equipment. Major needs for this planning period as identified by Public Works leadership include: • In accordance with Policy CF-14, perform required maintenance at all public works facilities. Conduct a facilities condition assessment to understand the current conditions and near- and long-term maintenance needs for Public Works and other capital facilities. • In accordance with Policy CF-1, conduct a citywide facilities plan to review current and future level of service standards, add staff where needed, and increase operational space to accommodate current and future staff and operations. • Provide a new public works annex at the industrial center public works yard to house operations utility staff. The proposed facility should include crew support space (offices, bathroom, showers, etc.); a heated warehousing for plumbing, electrical, and other materials storage; employee parking; heated and covered storage bays for equipment and materials; and expanded yard areas for laydown and materials storage. • Upgrade the existing Public Works Shop facility to better utilize vertical storage. • Upgrade the decant facility to increase capacity and add a new composting facility. • Provide a new Operations East satellite streets facility west of SR16, preferably near the intersection of Bethel and Lund, and include a crew room and restroom facilities, heated bays for snowplow equipment, and material storage yard. • Upgrade the south shed facility to provide additional storage and work space. Priority Investments Financial information to support the facility condition assessment and citywide facilities plan can be found in the Administration and Community Facilities section. Investments for the next six years have not been identified for the general Public Works capital facilities. Please see the Utilities section below for priority infrastructure investments. Funding Source UnfundedProject City Grant Total Public Works Annex 5,000,000 5,000,000 Decant Facilities and Yard Improvements 1,750,000 1,750,000 PW Operations East Station (Property Acquisition) 5,000,000 5,000,000 PW South Shed Upgrades 2,400,000 2,400,000 TOTAL 14,150,000 14,150,000 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-170 Expenditures Prior Years 2024-2030 Expenditures Total Public Works Annex 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 Decant Facilities and Yard Improvements 0 1,750,000 1,750,000 PW Operations East Station (Property Acquisition) 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 PW South Shed Upgrades 0 2,400,000 2,400,000 TOTAL $0 $14,150,000 $14,150,000 9.7.4 Utilities and Transportation Port Orchard's Public Works Department operates and maintains the City's utilities and transportation systems. Some of Port Orchard's capital facilities are aging or inadequate for current service needs and will require repairs and replacement over the next 20 years. The costs of replacing utility infrastructure and roads are substantial and take years for planning and implementation. The City is working to address substandard infrastructure and comply with changing state and federal mandates governing capital facilities. In accordance with Goal 1, the City should ensure that all utility infrastructure expansion provides an adequate level of public service to support new development consistent with the City's policies, criteria, and standards. In addition, utility expansion should also be consistent with current land use plans and development regulations of the State of Washington, Kitsap County, and appropriate local planning agencies. The following sections list priority projects for Transportation, Stormwater, Sewer, and Water between 2023-2028. More information on these facilities is provided in the Transportation and Utilities Elements as well as the individual functional plans. Transportation Port Orchard is responsible for City roads and other aspects of the City's transportation system. Details on all City transportation systems can be found in the Transportation Element as well as the Transportation Improvement Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Funding Source City Grant UnfundedProject Total Annual Street Preservation 6,800,000 6,800,000 Projects Citywide Street Lighting 210,000 1,100,000 1,310,000 Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway Segments 6,675,000 2,000,000 8,675,000 6-11 Bethel Phase 1 11,808,000 3,000,000 14,808,000 Bethel Phase 4a: Lund RAB 101,250 648,750 300,000 1,050,000 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-171 Bethel Phase 4b; Vallair Ct 1,000,000 1,000,000 Connector Bethel Phase 5a: Bethel/Lincoln/Mit 3,006,507 2,485,493 5,492,000 chel RABs Old Clifton Non - Motorized 600,000 2,700,000 3,300,000 Improvements Old Clifton/Anderson Hill Intersection 2,300,000 2,300,000 Improvements Pottery Ave Non - Motorized 837,183 644,000 1,481,183 Improvements Sedgwick Rd W Study 300,000 300,000 Sidney Rd Non- Motorized 1,005,000 1,395,000 2,400,000 SR 160/Sedgwick Phase 2a 550,000 695,000 1,245,000 SR 166/Bay St Reconstruction 3,532,000 3,000,000 1,746,000 8,278,000 SR166/Port Orchard Blvd Intersection 2,100,000 2,100,000 Improvements Tremont Phase 2 & 3 732,000 4,125,000 4,857,000 TOTAL 37,424,940 13,005,243 14,966,000 65,396,183 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-172 Expenditures Project Annual Street Preservation Projects Prior Years N/A 2024-2030 Expenditures 6,800,000 Total� 6,800,000 Citywide Street Lighting N/A 1,310,000 1,310,000 Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway Segments 6-11 3,900,000 4,775,000 8,675,000 Bethel Phase 1 368,120 14,439,880 14,808,000 Bethel Phase 4a; Lund Int 1,050,000 1,050,000 Bethel Phase 4b; Vallair Ct Intersection and Connector 1,000,000 1,000,000 Bethel Phase 5a: Bethel/Lincoln/Mitchel RABs 1,500,000 3,992,000 5,492,000 Old Clifton Non -Motorized Improvements 150,000 3,150,000 3,300,000 Old Clifton/Anderson Hill Intersection Improvements 151,000 2,149,000 2,300,000 Pottery Ave Non -Motorized Improvements 185,000 1,296,183 1,481,183 Sedgwick Rd W Study 300,000 300,000 Sidney Rd Non -Motorized 2,400,000 2,400,000 SR 160/Sedgwick Phase 2a 1,245,000 1,245,000 SR 166/Bay St Reconstruction 200,000 8,078,000 8,278,000 SR166/Port Orchard Blvd Intersection Improvements 2,100,000 2,100,000 Tremont Phase 2 & 3 4,857,000 4,857,000 TOTAL 6,454,120 58,942,063 65,396,183 Stormwater Port Orchard owns, maintains, and manages its stormwater collection system. Goal 8 states the City should minimize development related impacts to existing hydrologic conditions and functions and strive to correct current deficiencies resulting from past development practices such as stormwater-related flooding. Details on the City's stormwater system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-173 Funding Sources Johnson Creek City Grant UnfundedProject Total Estuary Restoration 4,171,550 2,828,450 7,000,000 Annual Stormwater Preservation 600,000 600,000 Sidney Regional Storm 563,492 3,479,841 4,043,333 Sidney Rd. SW Fish Pass Culvert 1,852,842 1,447,158 3,300,000 Sedgwick Balancing Culvert 600,000 600,000 Pottery Non - Motorized Improvements 80,000 80,000 Annapolis Creek Culvert Replacement 43,333 4,000,000 4,043,333 Downtown Retrofit 2,860,000 1,350,000 Bay Street Stormwater Improvements 600,000 600,000 TOTAL 1,286,825 6,024,392 15,815,449 23,126,666 Expenditures Project �����2024-2030 Expenditures Total Johnson Creek Estuary Restoration (WSDOT) 7,000,000 7,000,000 Annual Stormwater Preservation N/A 600,000 600,000 Sidney Regional Storm 563,492 3,479,841 4,032,333 Sidney Rd. SW Fish Pass Culvert 3,300,000 3,300,000 Sedgwick Balancing Culvert 600,000 600,000 Pottery Non -Motorized Improvements 80,000 80,000 Annapolis Creek Culvert Replacement 43,333 4,000,000 4,043,333 Downtown Retrofit 2,860,000 2,860,000 Bay Street Stormwater Improvements 600,000 600,000 TOTAL 606,825 22,519 23,126,666 Sewer The City is tasked to provide safe, reliable, and timely sewer service to consumers at a fair and reasonable price, as seen in Goal 6. Port Orchard owns, operates, and maintains existing wastewater collection and conveyance facilities. As of 2016, the City's sewer service area was approximately 2,100 acres and was expected to grow to 5,700 acres. Details on the City's sewer system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2016 General Sewer Plan Update. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-174 Funding Source City/DeveloperProject .. Annual Sewer Preservation 300,000 3,200,000 3,500,000 Marina Lift Station 5,900,000 13,000,000 18,900,000 Bay Street Pump Station Replacement 1,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 Lift Station Controls (6) & Generator (1) 25,000 800,000 825,000 Port Orchard BLVD Lift Station and Siphon 7,610,000 (WSDOT) 7,610,000 Sidney 2nd Force Main (Pottery Section) 731,000 731,000 Sidney 2nd Force Main (Ruby Creek to Pottery) 1,231,838 2,487,162 3,719,000 McCormick Lift Station #3 (Developer Funded) 1,000,000 (D) 1,000,000 Ruby Creek Lift Station 800,000 (D) 2,340,000 3,140,000 Sidney Road Gravity Sewer 2,290,000 2,290,000 Bravo Terrace Lift Station 2,500,000 2,500,000 Bravo Terrace Force Main 4,860,000 4,860,000 Sewer Facility Upgrades 2,000,000 2,000,000 McCormick East L/S and Force Main 7,600,000 7,600,000 2029 General Sewer Plan Update 350,000 350,000 TOTAL 8,187,838 14,800,000 33,627,162 66,025,000 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-175 Expenditures Project Annual Sewer Preservation Prior Years 2024-2030 Expenditures 3,500,000 Total 3,500,000 Marina Lift Station 3,100,000 15,800,000 18,900,000 Bay Street Pump Station Replacement 7,000,000 7,000,000 Lift Station Controls (6) & Generator (1) 125,000 700,000 825,000 Port Orchard BLVD Lift Station and Siphon 0 7,610,000 7,610,000 Sidney 2"d Force Main (Pottery Section) 0 731,000 731,000 Sidney 2"d Force Main (Ruby Creek to Pottery) 0 3,719,000 3,719,000 McCormick Lift Station #3 (GFF Credit) 0 1,000,000 $1,000,000 Ruby Creek Lift Station 0 3,140,000 3,140,000 Sidney Road Gravity Sewer 2,290,000 2,290,000 Bravo Terrace Lift Station 2,500,000 2,500,000 Bravo Terrace Force Main 4,860,000 4,860,000 Sewer Facility Upgrades 2,000,000 2,000,000 McCormick East L/S and Force Main 7,600,000 7,600,000 2029 General Sewer Plan Update 350,000 350,000 ��TALJ 3,225,000 62,800,000 66,025,000 Water Port Orchard Public Works Department maintains and manages the City's water system. With two systems serving the City (City System) and McCormick Woods (McCormick Woods System), Port Orchard serves over 4,000 connections. Goal 5 and its related policies state the City will ensure that an adequate water supply is available to support the level of population growth and land development projected within the City. Details on the City's water system can be found in the Utilities Element as well as the 2020 Water System Plan. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-176 Funding Source City/DeveloperProject .. Old Clifton Transmission Main (Reservoir to McCormick Woods Drive) 40,000 1,000,000 1,040,000 Annual Water Preservation 300,000 400,000 700,000 Well #13 600,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 11,600,000 Well #12 7,000,000 (D) 7,000,000 Well #11 (#3) 465,000 8,500,000 8,965,000 Melcher PS Rebuild (#10) 750,000 500,000 1,250,000 Well #7 500,000 1,015,000 1,515,000 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station 750,000 (D) 750,000 390-580 Booster Pump (Glenwood) 725,000 725,000 390-580 Transmission Main (Glenwood) 515,624 (D) 515,624 660 Zone Storage (CFC Credit) 2,850,000 (D) 2,850,000 Foster Mitigation 7,200,000 7,200,000 390-580 I ntertie and booster (Old Clifton) 5,000,000 5,000,000 TOTAL 13,995,624 16,000,000 19,115,000 49,110,624 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-177 Expenditures Project Prior Years 2024-2030 Expenditures Total Old Clifton Transmission Main (Reservoir to McCormick Woods Drive) 1,040,000 1,040,000 Annual Water Preservation N/A 700,000 700,000 Well #13 6,100,000 5,500,000 11,600,000 Well #12 (CFC Credit) 7,000,000 7,000,000 Well #11(#3) 2,100,000 6,865,000 8,965,000 Melcher PS Rebuild (#10) 114,000 1,136,000 1,250,000 Well #7 1,515,000 1,515,000 580 to 660 Zone Booster Station (CFC Credit) 750,000 750,000 390-580 Booster Pump 725,000 (Glenwood) (CFC Credit) 725,000 390-580 Transmission Main (CFC Credit) (Glenwood) 515,624 515,624 660 Zone Storage (CFC Credit) 2,850,000 2,850,000 Foster Mitigation 7,200,000 7,200,000 390-580 Intertie (Old Clifton) 5,000,000 5,000,000 8,314,000 39,281,624 49,110,624 9.7.5 Parks Facilities The Parks Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan, supplemented by the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, outlines the goals, expectations, and community vision for the City's Parks. This section draws from those plans with a concentration on capital facilities. Inventory Port Orchard owns 89.7 acres of parkland, with a ratio of approximately six acres per every 1,000 residents. This includes conservancies, resource parks, trails, athletic parks, community centers, special use facilities, and support facilities. Facility Blackjack Creek Multi -Modal Bridge Address 1301 Area Bay St Boat Ramp -Launch 533 Bay St 0.82 Central Park (Clayton Park/Dwight Park) 915 Dwight 1.4 Dekalb Pier 467 Bay St 4.1 Etta Turner Park/Blackjack Creek Park 1301 Arena Bay Street 0.16 Givens Field/Active Club 1025 Tacoma Ave 0.6 Marina And Observation Deck 707 Sidney Pkwy McCormick Village Park 3201 SW Old Clifton Rd 28.6 Van Zee Park 300 Tremont St 8.3 Parks capital facilities that include structures are listed below; refer to the PROS Plan for a full inventory of parks. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-178 Existing Conditions According to the PROS Plan, the City has adequate outdoor park and recreational facilities to serve the population during the 20-year planning horizon; however, playground, picnic, sports court, and field sites are not evenly distributed within a 5- or 10-minute walk of all residential areas, creating a need for more neighborhood parks. There are also deficits in indoor recreation facilities, community gardens, and multipurpose trails. Additional information on the City's parks and more detailed planning strategies can be found in the City's PROS Plan and in the Parks Element of this Comprehensive Plan. Future Needs The City is committed to providing parks that are safe and well -maintained, enhance residential neighborhoods, encourage shoreline access, and activate downtown areas. Considering existing level -of -service for Port Orchard owned parks, the City's projected population growth will create a need for an additional 61.4 acres of land and 15,661 facility units (square feet of courts, fields, etc.) by the year 2040, requiring an estimated expenditure of $32,326,076. This does not account for any maintenance, operation, or repair costs. See the PROS Plan for more information on existing -level -of -service standards. The PROS plan highlights the following investments that update and expand existing park facilities. • In accordance with Policy CF-14, perform required maintenance at all parks and recreation facilities. Conduct a facilities condition assessment to understand the current conditions and near- and long-term maintenance needs for all capital facilities. • As part of a citywide facilities plan, develop a space needs analysis to determine and justify staff growth and investments needed to achieve the Parks goals. Aligned with Policy CF-11, consider developing multi -use facilities and partnering opportunities to meet public need. • Continue plans to design and construct the Port Orchard Community Event Center. The center will be located at 619 Bay Street on the downtown waterfront and include 7,600-8,600 square feet of event space and meeting facilities, as well as a 7,000-9,500 square foot library facility with outdoor decks and an activities area. Consider also relocating the Council Chambers to consolidate community functions. • In accordance with Goal 4, perform required maintenance at all parks facilities. • Protect existing open space and conservancies and acquire and develop parks and trail systems. • Designate and conserve cultural and historic resources located within park properties; seek joint funding partnerships with local jurisdictions to create wayfinding and educational signage, artworks, streetscapes, and gateways. • Develop a master plan for Givens Park and assess condition, repurposing, or removal of the Active Club. • Develop a master plan for expanding Etta Turner Park to the west side of Blackjack Creek. Install lighting on the bridge and enhance Blackjack Creek. • Develop master plans for Ruby Creek Regional Park and Sherman Ave Stormwater Park. • Create and strengthen regional partnerships to enable the City and its partners to provide greater facilities and opportunities than would be possible alone. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-179 • Acquire property for future park use in areas of need as identified in the Parks Plan, with an emphasis on the Bethel/Lund and Bethel/Sedgwick Centers. Priority Investments Funding Source Impact.. Project City Credit Fees Grant Grant Unfunded 6-Year Tota I Port Orchard Community Event Center 927,430 283,900 18,729,963 6,500,000 1,658,707 28,100,000 Waterfront Plaza Shoreline Restoration/ Enhancemen t 278,920 352,300 500,000 1,376,780 2,508,000 Orchard St Plaza 792,000 500,000 3,008,000 4,300,000 Givens Park Sport Court Remodel 253,600 176,400 55,000 485,000 McCormick Village Park Phase 3 1,250,000 1,250,000 Telford Way Multimodal Pathway 979,012 979,012 McCormick Village Dr Multimodal Pathway 1,468,518 1,468,518 Sherman Ave Stormwater Park 300,000 1,861,039 2,161,039 Paul Powers Park Master Plan and Redevelopm ent 500,000 500,000 Givens Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 Ruby Creek Regional Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 TOTAL 1,759,950 3,697,530 1,428,200 19,406,363 7,055,000 8,704,526 42,051,569 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-180 Details on current and planned investments in the next 20 years can be found in the PROS Plan. Financial information to support the facility condition assessment and citywide facilities plan can be found in the Administration and Community Facilities section. Priority investments and funding assumptions targeted in the next six years are summarized below. 6-Year Expenditures Project Prior Years 2024-2030 Expenditures Total Port Orchard Community Event Center 4,064,132 24,035,868 $28,100,000 Waterfront Plaza Shoreline Restoration/Enhancement 360,194 2,147,806 2,508,000 Orchard St Plaza 78,822 4,221,178 4,300,000 Givens Park Sport Court Remodel 485,000 $485,000 McCormick Village Park Phase 3 (Impact Fee Credit) 1,250,000 1,250,000 Telford Way Multimodal Pathway (Impact Fee Credit) 979,012 979,012 McCormick Village Dr Multimodal Pathway (Impact Fee Credit) 1,468,518 1,468,518 Sherman Ave Stormwater Park 300,000 1,861,039 2,161,039 Paul Powers Park Master Plan and Redevelopment 500,000 500,000 Givens Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 Ruby Creek Regional Park Master Plan 150,000 150,000 TOTAL 4,803,148 37,248,421 42,051,569 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 9-181 Chapter 10 Climate Change 10.1 Introduction The City of Port Orchard is likely to face challenges due to climate change over the next twenty years, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and ecological shifts that will directly affect the City's existing businesses, residents and the environment. This chapter will begin the important process of planning for climate change in the City of Port Orchard, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the City's resilience to the impacts of climate change. Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Vision 2050 provides a roadmap for managing growth, transportation, and economic development across our Climate Change Vision region. By 2050, the Puget Sound region population is Port Orchard is an environmentally projected to reach 5.8 million people20. Vision 2050 plays resilient community, actively an important role in addressing climate change as the participating in the reduction of region grows by emphasizing clean energy, sustainable greenhouse gas emissions in alignment transportation, and resilient communities. The document with Washington State'sgoal of serves as a guide for local jurisdictions, including Port achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Orchard, to prepare for growth while preserving the environment and promoting equity. In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1181, enhancing the state's response to climate change. This legislation amends the Growth Management Act (GMA), requiring cities and counties fully planning under the GMA to incorporate a dedicated climate element into their comprehensive plan. Within this element, two sub -elements must be addressed: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions • The City of Port Orchard commits to ambitious goals for reducing emissions, promoting cleaner energy sources, and minimizing our carbon footprint, consistent with Washington State's GHG goal of net zero emissions by 2050. The City seeks to explore innovative strategies to encourage sustainable transportation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy adoption. Climate Resiliency Planning • The City of Port Orchard recognizes the inevitability of climate impacts and prioritizes resilience. This chapter will outline strategies to enhance community preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. • The City aims to protect vulnerable populations, critical infrastructure, and natural systems from climate -related disruptions. During the course of 2024, this chapter will be a living document and will be updated as the City's planning efforts progress. The development of a climate change element is anticipated to take approximately one year of study and should incorporate input from stakeholders and the public. To fully understand the impacts of climate change, the City must also have a baseline of current greenhouse gas emissions and other climate change indicators. Some of this information is currently available through 21 Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-182 the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's (UW CIG) Climate Mapping for a Resilient Washington (CMRW) webtool21. The City is awaiting baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Department of Commerce for Kitsap County, which will then need to be disaggregated down to the City level for Port Orchard. The City will also be seeking grants from the Department of Commerce to complete this work. This chapter should be read as a first draft of the City's Climate Change element, with the expectation that future study and planning work will be completed in the future as funding is available. 10.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions HB 1181 identifies three minimum requirements22 that the GHG emissions reduction sub -element of this chapter must address. These requirements can be met through the adoption of goals and policies that identify actions to meet these requirements. Requirement 1: Result in reductions in overall greenhouse gas emissions generated by transportation and land use within the City but without increasing emissions elsewhere in Washington. Requirement 2: Result in reductions per capita vehicle miles traveled within the City but without increasing greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in Washington. • Requirement 3: Prioritize reductions that benefit overburdened communities in order to maximize the co -benefits of reduced air pollution and environmental justice. The Department of Commerce in its Intermediate Planning Guidance23 has outlined three pathways that the City may take to set emissions -reduction targets and goals and policies to achieve those targets. The City of Port Orchard has elected to pursue Pathway 3, which the Department of Commerce has recommended for jurisdictions that are required to create a GHG reduction sub -element. Pathway 3 requires the City of Port Orchard to utilize the GHG emissions inventory provided by the Department of Commerce to set mitigation goals and policies to satisfy the minimum requirements. The City is required to adopt goals and policies from the transportation, buildings and energy, and zoning and development sectors of the Menu of Measures provided by the Department of Commerce24 that support achieving net -zero emissions by 2050. The City may also adopt goals and policies from the other sectors of the Menu of Measures based on the emission inventory. 10.3 Climate Resilience HB 118125 identifies three minimum requirements that the climate resilience sub -element of this chapter must address. These requirements can be met through the adoption of goals and policies that identify actions to meet these requirements. Requirement 1: Address natural hazards created or aggravated by climate change, including sea level rise, landslides, flooding, drought, heat, smoke, wildfire, and other effects of changes to temperature and precipitation patterns. 2' https://cig-wa-climate.nkn.uidaho.edu/ 22 RCW 36.70A.070(9)(e)(i) 23 Department of Commerce Intermediate Plannine Guidance. December 2023 24 Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023, Appendix L 21 RCW 37.70A.070(9)(d)(i)(A-C) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-183 Requirement 2: Identify, protect and enhance natural areas to foster climate resilience, as well as areas of vital habitat for safe species migration. Requirement 3: Identify, protect, and enhance community resilience to climate impacts, including social, economic, and built -environment factors, which support adaptation to climate impacts consistent with environmental justice. The Department of Commerce in its Intermediate Planning Guidance26 has outlined 11 sectors of climate resiliency that the City's Comprehensive Plan should address, with potential climate -related impacts. Not all these sectors or climate -related impacts will affect Port Orchard, and at the time of the development of this chapter, the City is currently beginning the process of studying the impacts of climate change and assessing vulnerability and risk to the City's community assets (social, economic and environmental assets). Once complete, the City will explore how changes in the climate could exacerbate natural hazards and impact these assets and develop goals and policies to address these impacts. In 2020, Kitsap County, in coordination with the City of Port Orchard, prepared the Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment27. This assessment provides a comprehensive understanding of climate impacts and risks specific to the City. The Kitsap County Climate Change Resiliency Assessment highlights several specific risks that the City faces due to climate change: Sea Level Rise As global temperatures increase, sea levels are rising. This poses a risk to coastal areas, including Port Orchard. Rising sea levels are expected to exacerbate challenges with flooding and saltwater intrusion in the City's downtown area, which the City has addressed in its Downtown Subarea Plan and Shoreline Master Program through policies that seek to address the impacts of sea level rise through the raising of the elevation of Bay Street. Extreme Heat Events More frequent and intense heatwaves are expected. Extreme heat impacts public health, especially vulnerable populations. It strains energy systems, increases wildfire risk, and affects outdoor activities. Ocean Acidification Acidification of marine waters due to increased carbon dioxide absorption harms shellfish, fish, and other marine life. Healthy marine ecosystems play an important role in the City's economy, ecosystems, and are critical to the cultural practices and way of life of the Suquamish Tribe who have inhabited South Kitsap County for thousands of years. Changing Precipitation Patterns Altered rainfall patterns affect water availability, agriculture, and stormwater management. Increased precipitation intensity leads to flooding, landslides, and soil erosion. The City may expect to see impacts to public infrastructure as a result of increased flooding, including disruption of transportation routes and damage to ferry terminals, as well as damage to stormwater and wastewater infrastructure from flood inundation and saltwater intrusion. Health Impacts Climate change exacerbates respiratory illnesses, heat -related illnesses, and mental health issues. Vulnerable populations, including the elderly and low-income communities, are at higher risk. More 26 Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023 27 Kitsap County Climate Resiliency Assessment, 2020 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-184 frequent heat waves may result in increased deaths and will require the investment in cooling centers and/or public subsidies for low income households to install air-conditioning. Increased need for air conditioning will also have an adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions in the City. Habitat Disruption Changing ecosystems affect wildlife migration, breeding patterns, and food availability. Protecting habitats is critical for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Warmer stream temperatures and lower summer flows will affect fish species that use these habitats. New invasive species and diseases could also emerge due to changes in the climate. Economic Disruptions Climate impacts can disrupt local businesses, tourism, and agriculture. Planning for economic resilience is vital. The City has a large workforce employed in construction. Outdoor laborers are especially vulnerable to extreme heat events and are likely to experience lost labor hours due to extreme heat and poor air quality. Sea level rise and increased flooding may also affect property values within coastal areas or floodplains. Water Resources Challenges The City provides drinking water within the City supplied by six active wells and from additional planned wells. Altered hydrology due to climate change will affect water supply, groundwater recharge, and streamflow. Balancing water needs for residents, agriculture, and ecosystems is a priority. Resiliency planning will address these risks, ensuring Port Orchard remains adaptable and prepared for a changing climate. 10.4 Baseline Conditions Effective decision -making requires understanding baseline conditions, including greenhouse gas emissions and climate resiliency indicators. This information will serve as a benchmark to measure the effectiveness of any strategies or initiatives implemented towards achieving these goals. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Emissions (2022) The baseline for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represents the starting point against which we measure progress. It encompasses historical emissions data, including those from energy production, transportation, industry, and land use changes. The Department of Commerce is creating emissions inventories for the 11 counties that are required to include a GHG reduction sub -element in their comprehensive plan. The inventories use 2022 as a baseline year but do not disaggregate emissions to the city level. Once the GHG emissions inventory for Kitsap County is available, the City will need to hire a consultant to complete the technical analysis required to disaggregate the emissions down to the city level consistent with guidance published by the Department of Commerce. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (2022) Per capita VMT serves as a critical indicator of transportation -related emissions. The baseline VMT includes historical data on miles traveled by various vehicle types (cars, trucks, buses) over time. Future analysis will be necessary to establish per capita vehicle miles traveled for the City. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-185 Climate Resilience The CMRW developed by the UW CIG has identified the following climate hazards that may pose a risk to the City of Port Orchard. The following climate indicators have been identified based on the historical normal for the period of 1980-2009 and provide a baseline for addressing the risk climate change poses to the City under the high emissions scenario for the years 2020-2049 (30-year period). • Agriculture & Food Systems • Emergency Management • Water Resources • Agriculture & Food Systems • Economic Development • Ecosystems • Human Health • Buildings and Energy Climate Indicator Hazard Notes Drought 29% chance any given year High emissions scenario. will have a total summer Increase in likelihood for precipitation below 75% of 30-year period. the historical normal summer precipitation Climate Impacts Below normal summer precipitation indicates a greater likelihood of drought. Drought can affect the well-being of people and water availability for crops and ecosystems. More frequent droughts is also expected to increase need for emergency services to respond to water shortages that may occur due to voluntary or mandatory conservation requirements. Climate Indicator Extreme Heat Climate Impacts Hazard 3.50 increase in average summer temperature Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 30-year period. Warmer summers will directly impact the health and well-being of people, create stress for crops and reduce water availability. Warmer summer temperatures could also decrease opportunities for warm season recreation activities. Warmer summer temperatures are expected to reduce soil moisture and increase stress on plants and animals. Climate Indicator Extreme Heat Climate Impacts Hazard +177 degree-days during the 30-year period Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 30-vear period. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-186 • Cultural Resources and Practices • Economic Development • Ecosystems • Emergency Management • Transportation • Water Resources • Zoning and Development • Cultural Resources and Practices • Ecosystems • Zoning and Development An increase in cooling degree days will increase energy demand for air conditioning in the summer when regional hydropower supply is expected to decrease. Climate Indicator Hazard Notes Sea Level Rise .75' Likely Sea Level Rise to High emissions scenario. 1.5' High Sea Level Rise Increase in likelihood for the year 2050. Climate Impacts Sea Level Rise will inundate culturally relevant and important sites, such as traditional fishing grounds. Sea level rise may also intensify coastal flooding which can disrupt business operations, damage property, reduce the land area suitable for development, impact coastal transportation infrastructure, and increase need for emergency services to recover from flooding. Sea level rise can also increase coastal erosion and flooding reducing habitats for some aquatic, wildlife and plant species. Sea level rise is also expected to increase saltwater intrusion into groundwater and coastal aquifers, which could reduce water quality. Climate Indicator Extreme Heat Climate Impacts Hazard 14.30 increase in August stream temperature Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 2030-2059. Warmer stream temperatures are expected to reduce habitat quality for salmonids, reducing abundance of and access for Northwest Tribes. Warmer stream temperature have the potential to reduce the ability to meet water quality standards set on wastewater treatment facilities. Sector(s) Climate Indicator • Economic Flooding Development • Ecosystems • Emergency Management Climate Impacts Hazard Return Interval of 25-yr Peak Streamflow Blackjack Creek — 9.8 years Notes High emissions scenario. Increase in likelihood for 30-year period. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-187 • Transportation The 25-year peak streamflow is the streamflow that occurs on average every • Waste Management 25 years, heavier precipitation is anticipated to cause this to occur every 9.8 • Zoning and years for Blackjack Creek, which could leak to increased flooding and impacts Development to homes and businesses, increased need for emergency services, as well as increased flood damage to roads, bridges, and railway. Increased flood zones could also reduce the suitability of some areas for development. Increased streamflows can also cause juvenile salmonids to be flushed downstream prematurely, reducing salmonid migration returns. Flooding of waste management facilities can also release contaminants and hazardous materials. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Economic Extreme 7% increase in the High emissions scenario. Development Precipitation magnitude of 2-year storm Increase in likelihood for • Transportation 30-year period. • Waste Management • Zoning and Development Climate Impacts Heavier precipitation is expected to intensify flooding in low-lying areas and require higher capacity storm water drainage systems. Heavier precipitation events may lead to flooding, landslides and erosion which can interrupt transportation routes, damage infrastructure and increase maintenance and repair costs. Storm damage may also generate waste and debris. Increased urban flooding could also affect zoning restrictions on new buildings and require revised building codes or increased development in frequently flooded areas. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Ecosystems Drought 7.8% decrease in late High emissions scenario. • Water Resources summer precipitation Increase in likelihood for 30-year period. Climate Impacts A decrease in summer precipitation is expected to lower streamflows, reduce water quality and increase water temperatures. Less summer precipitation will also contribute to drought stress on plant growth and will contribute to summer water shortages. Water quality may also decrease with less summer precipitation and warmer water temperatures. Sector(s) Climate Indicator Hazard Notes • Emergency Extreme Heat +14.4 days above 900 High emissions scenario. Management during the 30-year time Increase in likelihood for • Human Health period 30-year period. Climate Impacts Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-188 More frequent extreme heat event are expected to increase the demand for emergency services. They may also impact emergency services due to transportation disruptions such as warped and buckling pavement on roads. An increase in the number of days above 901 is also expected to increase heat - related deaths, illnesses and hospitalizations. 10.5 Goals and Policies In this Chapter the City has set forth its vision and commitment to a sustainable future. Recognizing the challenges posed by a changing climate, these goals and policies are designed to steer the City towards resilience and adaptability while also aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The goals and policies contained within this iteration of the Climate Change element represent direction to complete this Chapter as well as preliminary goals and policies adopted from the Department of Commerce's Menu of Measures28 to address the sectors and climate hazards identified from the CMRW in Section 10.4 above. C Goal 1. Complete this Climate Change Element. Policy C-1 Apply for funding from the Department of Commerce to complete the climate planning related activities necessary to complete this Chapter and implement House Bill 1181. • When funding is available, hire a consultant to help complete the technical analysis required to establish baseline greenhouse gas emissions and VMT. Policy C-2 Complete a Community Assets Inventory and risk assessment of the City's social, economic and environmental assets that the community wants to protect. • Evaluate the current risk exposure and vulnerability of the city's community assets against the impacts of climate change. Policy C-3 Complete an audit of the City's existing plans to identify gaps, opportunities and barriers to building resilience to climate change. Policy C-4 Refine the goals and policies contained within this first iteration of the City's Climate Change element, either adapting the goals and policies, developing new goals and policies, or adopting a hazard mitigation plan (see Climate Resilience Pathways in the Department of Commerce's Intermediate Planning Guidance). Policy C-5 Conduct robust public engagement on the development of this Chapter. Policy C-6 Set incremental emissions reduction targets that lead to achieving net zero emissions in 2050. C Goal 2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the City consistent with the Washington State target of net -zero emissions by 2050. Buildings and Energy Policy C-7 Maximize solar access of site design, where practicable, for new solar -ready residential and commercial buildings. • Encourage solar panels on buildings with large rooftops, as well as within or over parking areas. 28 Department of Commerce Intermediate Planning Guidance, December 2023, Appendix L Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-189 Policy C-8 Encourage buildings that use renewable energy, conservation, and efficiency technologies and practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Encourage energy efficient housing types that conserve non-renewable energy and help minimize impact on air quality and climate. (Policy HS-25) • Encourage the retrofit buildings for energy efficiency. • Incentivize green building certification to improve energy and environmental performance. Policy C-9 Encourage the adaptive reuse of buildings, recognizing the emission -reduction benefits of retaining existing buildings. • Encourage the preservation and weatherization of housing in overburdened communities, particularly at higher densities, to reduce emissions and increase resilience. Ecosystems Policy C-10 Increase tree canopy cover to boost carbon sequestration, reduce heat islands, and improve air quality, prioritizing overburdened communities. • Require the retention and replacement of significant trees in the City.(Policy NS- 9) • Adopt a canopy coverage target for the City and monitor progress on a regular basis to determine if policy changes are necessary to reach the City's target. (Policy NS-10) • Identify parks and open spaces in the City where tree canopy coverage could be increased. (Policy NS-11) • Use trees and vegetation to mitigate erosion potential, meet drainage needs and reduce the impacts of development. (Policy NS-12) • Establish programs and policies that maintain and increase forests and vegetative cover and prioritize the connectivity of forests that provide valuable wildlife corridors within the City. (Policy NS-14) Transportation Policy C-11 Convert public fleets to zero emission vehicles and develop supporting infrastructure and programs (e.g., charging stations and dedicated lanes for electric cars and buses). • Require electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new and retrofitted buildings. Policy C-12 Implement multimodal transportation planning to reduce single -occupancy vehicle dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. • Emphasize moving people rather than vehicles by providing a variety of ways to commute to work. (Policy TR-45) • Provide preferential treatments for transit, such as queue bypass lanes, traffic signal modifications, and safe, convenient, transit stops. (Policy TR-20) • Create a safe, well connected, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-190 transportation network to encourage active transportation. Policy C-13 Reduce vehicle miles traveled to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals. • Implement travel demand management (TDM) programs and strategies. Prioritize, develop, and maintain mobility hubs in transportation -efficient locations — especially in overburdened communities experiencing a scarcity of transportation alternatives. • Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. (Policy CN-3) • The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well -served by public transit. (Centers Goals 1,2,3,4,5,6; Housing, Parks, Economic Development, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements) (Policy CN-11) • Prioritize permitting for transit -oriented development (TOD) proposals. Zoning and Development Policy C-14 Increase housing diversity and supply within urban growth areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support environmental justice. Within centers, set minimum building densities that enable lively and active streets and commercial destinations. Such limits may take the form of: minimum floors or building height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. (Policy LU-11) • Evaluate a range of incentives to encourage compact development to preserve open space throughout the city, possibly to include density credits, incentive zoning, and transfer of development rights. (Policy LU-15) C Goal 3. Strengthen the City's resilience against the impacts of climate change. Buildings and Energy Policy C-15 Ensure that energy infrastructure — including generation and transmission — is able to accommodate renewable energy opportunities and to withstand and recover quickly from the impacts of extreme weather and other natural hazards worsened by climate change. • Plan and build facilities, utilities, and infrastructure projects to avoid or withstand flooding from rising sea levels and associated climate impacts. • Work with energy utilities to improve the safety and reliability of infrastructure vulnerable to climate change. Policy C-16 Ensure that buildings are designed and built sustainably to reduce environmental impacts and remain resilient to extreme weather and other hazards worsened by climate change. • Require the design and construction of commercial and residential buildings and their surrounding sites to reduce and treat stormwater runoff and pollution. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-191 • Develop or modify design standards to integrate exterior building features that reduce the impacts of climate change and increase resilience. Cultural Resources and Practices Policy C-17 Ensure that cultural resources and practices — including significant historic sites and culturally important traditional foods and natural resources — are resilient to the impacts of extreme weather and other natural hazards worsened by climate change. Work with state and federal agencies to protect, enhance, and restore ecosystems in order to meet tribal treaty rights and conserve culturally important consumptive and non -consumptive resources including foods, medicinal plants, and materials that could be adversely impacted by climate change. Maintain government -to -government relations with Native American tribes for the preservation of archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties that are vulnerable to climate impacts. Policy C-18 Ensure environmental justice by providing all residents an equitable opportunity to learn about climate impacts, influence policy decisions, and take actions to enhance community resilience. Create and implement culturally contextualized outreach and education initiatives and materials that will inform the community about near -term and longer -term climate change threats and build resilience. Economic Development Policy C-19 Ensure that the local economy is resilient to climate disruptions and fosters business opportunities associated with climate mitigation and adaptation. • Support local businesses' efforts to bolster climate preparedness and continuity of operations. Ecosystems Policy C-20 Ensure the protection and restoration of streams, riparian zones, estuaries, wetlands, and floodplains to achieve healthy watersheds that are resilient to climate change. • Implement actions identified in restoration and salmon recovery plans to improve the climate resilience of streams and watersheds. • Increase the climate resilience of native fish species and aquatic ecosystems by reducing the threat of aquatic invasive species (e.g., fish, plants, invertebrates). • Protect and restore watershed -scale processes to maximize the ecological benefits and climate resilience of riparian ecosystems. • Protect and restore riparian vegetation to reduce erosion, provide shade, and support other functions that improve the climate resilience of streams. • Increase aquatic habitat resilience to low summer flows by increasing water residence time, storing water on the landscape, conserving water, protecting groundwater, keeping waters cool, and protecting water quality. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-192 Policy C-21 Protect and restore coastal ecosystems to increase the resilience of species, habitats, and communities to climate change. • Consider sea -level rise in coastal and nearshore habitat restoration projects. • Identify, protect, and restore submerged aquatic vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, etc.) that provides aquatic habitat, "blue" carbon storage, and other ecosystem services. Emergency Management Policy C-22 Develop and maintain local government staff members' technical expertise and skills related to climate change and environmental justice so as to improve communitywide policy implementation, equity, and resilience. • Create evacuation plans and outreach materials to help residents plan and practice actions that make evacuation quicker and safer. Policy C-23 Enhance emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts to mitigate risks and impacts associated with extreme weather and other hazards worsened by climate change. • Map transportation infrastructure that is vulnerable to repeated floods, landslides, and other natural hazards, and designate alternative travel routes for critical transportation corridors when roads must be closed. • Incorporate sea -level rise information, along with tsunami hazard mapping, into critical area delineation for siting critical infrastructure, land -use planning, and emergency management. • Develop resilience hubs — community -serving facilities that are designed to support residents, coordinate communication, distribute resources, and reduce carbon pollution while enhancing quality of life. • Factor climate impacts into the planning of operations and coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery activities among first -responders and partners, including public health, law enforcement, fire, school, and emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. Health and Well -Being Policy C-24 Protect community health and well-being from the impacts of climate -exacerbated hazards — prioritizing focus on overburdened communities — and ensure that the most vulnerable residents do not bear disproportionate health impacts. • Promote the use of health impact assessments and other tools to address the potential impacts of health, equity, and climate change on vulnerable communities. • Prioritize the development of anti -displacement programs in overburdened communities when increasing densities. • Review land use maps and identify opportunities or barriers to responding to rapid population growth or decline, rebuilding housing and services after disasters, and other extreme climate impact scenarios. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-193 • Provide overburdened communities subsidies to offset potential cost increases associated with conversion to non -fossil -fuel energy sources. • Develop and maintain a program to distribute cooling units and install heat pumps, prioritizing households with residents (e.g., low-income seniors) most vulnerable to extreme temperature events. Transportation Policy C-25 Ensure that the local transportation system — including infrastructure, routes, and travel modes — is able to withstand and recover quickly from the impacts of extreme weather events and other hazards exacerbated by climate change. Design and site new and expanded roads to have the least possible adverse effect on the shoreline, account for sea level rise projections, not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, or adversely impact existing or planned water -oriented uses, public access, and habitat restoration and enhancement projects. Water Resources Policy C-26 Protect and preserve water quality and quantity from drought, extreme heat, and other hazards exacerbated by climate change. • Utilize water conservation methods and technologies in development of irrigation infrastructure within parks and recreation areas so as to foster climate resilience. • Develop and implement a comprehensive drought resilience strategy that factors in projected climate impacts and sets action levels for different drought stages. • Identify and implement strategies to prepare for and mitigate the effects of saltwater intrusion into aquifers and drainage systems. • Require the use of green infrastructure and low -impact development to address increased storm intensities and stormwater runoff. • Evaluate the long-term adequacy of water delivery infrastructure to ensure that changes in hydrological patterns (e.g., increases in flooding frequency or reduction of late -summer water availability associated with climate change) can be anticipated and managed effectively. Zoning and Development Policy C-27 Establish land use patterns that increase the resilience of the built environment, ecosystems, and communities to climate change. Restore and maintain critical areas and open space areas to maximize the climate resilience benefits they provide. • Direct new development into areas where exposure to climate hazards is low. • Identify and implement strategies to increase the resilience of the shoreline environment to sea -level rise and other climate hazards, while also protecting Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-194 shoreline ecological functions, allowing water -dependent uses, and providing public access. Policy C-28 Ensure that development and redevelopment projects are resilient to the impacts of climate change. • Establish development regulations that incorporate best practices for reducing the risk of wildfire, extreme heat, flooding, and other climate -exacerbated hazards. • Consider future climate conditions during siting and design of capital facilities, including changes to temperature, rainfall, and sea level, to help ensure they function as intended over their planned life cycle. • Identify and plan for climate impacts to valued community assets such as parks and recreation facilities, including relocation or replacement. • Consider climate change, including sea -level rise, extreme precipitation, increased winter streamflow, and other impacts, in floodplain management planning. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Page 10-195 ■0u ■0u ■| 0 ] ! | � | ) \ \ 1. o | | IN \ \ So | tNo | • ! k \ \ j � | § \ \ \ | |cio , , $ | Noo o /\ k\\c5 - — = §& 2ƒ ]vsEw )) / )� 7 �. oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u _ o p n E � o o c o $ c 0 o o 0 o N 0 0 0 o o z° v 0 o 0 N a F V Q V U V a w r L a N y o 0 0 0 0 o N ry v N N°i ry N ry O O. v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w N ai C w E 'ict o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 v c m O L o. O O O N Y w o N N a L? � 4 ooc^ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 F °• a c o N o Lm u 0 o o o v N0 o 0 o 0 0 o 4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C w N N o N N 00 yn � � e v .i � LL F O 1O v O a a T V a — N m — MO m m m E m ? m c o0 3� uo Z o c c u .3 a— .3 E o 0 o N o o c t a 3 a 3 Y� •Y_i7 9 w~ Y = m " m E p umr _ , m mr °� 2 o fW ,'a 3 w o y o .. :� v o o o a _ "0 a o w v Y 'o c~« Y ' y �«.3 V? o w Y.6 w o.r 3ca-- 0 3 .w ,. as ? 0.3 0.3 3 u? 3om ° w w o E w a w _ s° a a rc° "' 3 C o w 3 v u m o\ v u m r F a N a o N Y N Q \ y n mo 3 L L 3 z 3 O Ti 'p - a01 c me a �n zw o `o_ E 4 Z r O V ry N �y H ry N �y H o oN N LL H a o N LL N F N LL H u N o N LL F o N N u F oN 0 NN 0 0 0 og o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 wo - og o 0 o O o 0 00 �m s sss a u a u a a a a u a LL r N i a i a m N ry m o oo No ry o N N ry o m m n N N N O a` v c w g o 0 0 o N v a C E 'i o 0 0 o oo N N 0 voi voi O L C O E � C j N o O o 0 •� � ''y W G G n O O O O O O O F N rl N °• a c o a N F cY U M O N co o O 00 o 1. O V O o Oo o g ry N N ry O W F O 1O O m v O o T V « « wT, O « « W y O N a O b 0 c w? a z°mwi7i °�' °�� oac� �m 7i LL - H LL� °gym ° ]2 - .- g c E w 3a o mY-o N jOOE eu E _ o - 3E L 3 E E a o c E o 0 o a m - c- 3W.m- w o > N b o- oy._-°a m`o'+' •c 3 « y � 3 y� .°., w'" a '" _ E 3� •`- _ y a o «« a a 3 v� v y ° WE c 'd o a- .o v33i _ w a« 00 J c m - N-° ° `c_ 3 �! w? o- a -o c v b 3w m ° r E c O E c -moo - H F y c � .o E - 3 o IV o fV o fV 0 0 F fV F IV F o o o E /t / / \ \ » !� IN I jz r)f )\ ` MO { E §� §k |5 /. -- \( )( k� \/ \ 0 _ !! -- -§E 2§J ! !� ��k �k }�k \k �r'a -® /( - !- \\/ $; !f# %®; ©%�� ; {\ E\ |7 /mot !/) K\)\) §\\\ }\/) �{ ) �\! !7! �7! - _ �= 2�&3 _ !� § £ ; 0E14 4 4 j 4 14 !!% ; o o § _ o mo \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \( \ \ \ \ ( \ \ \ \\ � rk{) ){ k )/Z] £! ±}t !7 ±7 / /} !! ƒ6 \\t t}\ in _lz_\ !fE |§— k E \( k> \\E2 F ! -\§) \ /) )\ (\ - _ .\}\ }([ |6kE-0 _ 1\\ )\k \ )\} k)(\\ o._ }} -2 2)k }ml o } | § § | | § S § 14 , \ \\\ \ { \\f -!I !E f/\ 0 {; }} \ o o j cs o o o }) / i ! (\/> (!!ol f#!! g 3': \o § - �7\§® 7 !) .2E �mw - ![&yB \— w kr >o �/ k\ -�,_ !];§! {2 . §` I14 Appendix B: Plans Adopted by Reference PLAN OR DOCUMENT South Kitsap School District Capital Facilities Plan (Provided Annually Pursuant to ILA 035-22) West Sound Utility District / Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility 2009 Capital Facilities Plan West Sound Utility District 2007 Sewer Plan West Sound Utility District 2023 Water Plan City of Bremerton 2020 Water System Plan Kitsap County 2003 South Kitsap UGA/ULID#6 Sub -Area Plan & EIS Pavement Management Analysis Report (2016) Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan (2016) Blackjack Creek Watershed Assessment and Protection & Restoration Plan (2017) City of Port Orchard 1994 Ross Creek Comprehensive Management Plan City of Port Orchard 2010 McCormick Village Park Plan City of Port Orchard 2021 Shoreline Master Program City of Port Orchard 2013 Public Art Program City of Port Orchard 2020 Water System Plan City of Port Orchard 2020 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Update City of Port Orchard 2022 Parks, Recreation, & Open Space (PROS) Plan City of Port Orchard 2025-2030/2031-2044 — 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Plan City of Port Orchard Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan City of Port Orchard 2020 City Hall Space Analysis City of Port Orchard 2023 Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan Appendix B-1 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: May 2024 * ryrTpir "`-., ..x1 •. _ ~'off. : +-'-:. �� �Y ;� ti_. sue• `, +� 1,� '''`'}"'i:'i - �~♦]_ ''s .14 c I i Acknowledgements Mayor Robert Putaansuu City Council Members Bek Ashby John Clauson Fred Chang Cindy Lucarelli Scott Diener Jay Rosapepe Shawn Cucciardi Planning Commissioners Trish Tierney Stephanie Baily Annette Stewart Mark Trenary David Bernstein Phil King Joe Morrison Suanne Martin Smith City Staff Nicholas Bond, AICP, Director Keri Sallee, Long Range Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews, Associate Planner Josie Rademacher, Intern Consultant — Makers Architecture and Urban Design (Graphics and renderings) Bob Bengford Scott Bonjukian Disclaimer: The user of this Plan should be aware that although the City has taken great care to use the most current mapping and environmental data available to produce the information contained herein, the maps, illustrations and calculations of potential critical areas, buildable areas and redevelopment potential are based on existing data sources, not on field surveys. This Plan and its contents are provided for planning purposes only, and cannot substitute for field surveys to determine the locations of critical areas or buffers, to determine critical areas typing or classification, or the development potential of any parcel. Chapter 1. Introduction. In 2016, the City of Port Orchard completed its periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan. This 2016 Plan included for the first time, a "centers" approach to planning (See section 2.7 of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan). The centers approach to planning is provided in Vision 2050, the regional plan completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council, and in the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by all jurisdictions in Kitsap County. In 2016, Port Orchard identified center locations, but did not have the resources to complete subarea plans at that time, and instead identified goals for subarea planning to be completed in the future. This plan is the result of that goal. In late 2019, Port Orchard set out to complete a subarea plan for the area located near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. At the time that the planning work began, this neighborhood did not have a name or much of an identity. The name "Ruby Creek Neighborhood" was selected to highlight a significant environmental feature located in the neighborhood. Ruby Creek is a major tributary to Blackjack Creek and has been the focus of significant habitat restoration projects just outside of the City limits in Kitsap County. Highlighting the name of this stream in the neighborhood name will have the effect of raising awareness of this sensitive environmental feature, and was chosen as a way of ensuring that future residents, businesses, and developers are conscious of their surroundings and can be good stewards of the environment. This plan was also developed during the unprecedented challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic. Public outreach was initiated in the weeks before large parts of the nation were closed to prevent the spread of the virus, including Kitsap County and Port Orchard. This resulted in the cancellation of the City's plans to conduct in person workshops with neighborhood residents and property owners. The City has instead relied on online surveys and public hearings before the Planning Commission that were held remotely. The City hired a consultant to help explore design alternatives for the subarea. Due to the critical area constraints found in the neighborhood, these alternatives contained only small differences. The main variable considered in the subarea plan was whether to locate a Kitsap Transit park and ride facility within the neighborhood. This variable was prompted by a parallel study being conducted by consultants hired by Kitsap Transit to identify possible sites for park and ride facilities in the South Kitsap area. The alternatives considered are as follows: 1. Concept 1: Mixed use neighborhood with no park and ride facility. 2. Concept 2: Mixed use neighborhood with park and ride facility on the east side of Sidney. 3. Concept 3: Mixed use neighborhood with park and ride facility on the west side of Sidney. Ultimately, the Kitsap Transit study eliminated Concept 3 early in their analysis due to critical area and space constraints. The preferred alternative selected here was a hybrid between Concepts 1 and 2. The preferred alternative preserved the mixed use feel of the Sidney Road SW corridor while allowing for flexibility in areas further to the east along Sidney Road SW. This flexibility meant that under the plan framework, either apartments, commercial uses, mixed uses, or a park and ride facility would be permissible in areas located in the neighborhood core but off the Sidney Road SW "Main Street". Chapter 2. Vision and Preferred Alternative. 2.1 Vision. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood is a thriving and attractive walkable neighborhood with easy access to goods and services, a variety of housing types, and convenient access to employment via Kitsap Transit and its proximity to SR-16 and SR-160. Residents can walk to the neighborhood grocery store, restaurants, and businesses providing other goods and services, as well as to Sidney Glen Elementary School and Cedar Heights Middle School. The Ruby Creek central business district consists of walkable shopfronts along Sidney Ave SW. Natural environmental features and park and recreation amenities along Ruby Creek and Blackjack Creek along with this central business district form the heart of the neighborhood. Bicycle paths run through the neighborhood and connect to other areas of the City. 2.2 Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative requires the development of storefronts along Sidney Road SW but allows the development of a Kitsap Transit park and ride to the east of the neighborhood core in lieu of apartments or commercial development. A park and ride concept is shown in Figure 4. This park and ride facility would reduce the population capacity for the neighborhood slightly, but would help drive economic activity in the neighborhood at certain times of the day, would reduce the traffic impacts resulting from plan implementation, and would provide for the sharing of parking facilities for the proposed public park and for residential units which would likely have peak parking demands (nights and weekends) which differ from those of commuters (weekdays). In the following sections of the plan, the subarea is broken into 3 parts for discussion: the neighborhood core in the center of the neighborhood, the north end (north of Ruby Creek), and the Sidney/Sedgwick crossroads (south end). Figure 1: Preferred Alternative Ruby Creek Neighborhood. 3 2.3 Neighborhood Core. The preferred alternative seeks to develop a new neighborhood core along Sidney Road SW. The center of the neighborhood is located approximately halfway between Ruby Creek and SW Sedgwick Road, and is marked by a new intersection that provides access to properties on the east and west of Sidney Road SW. The buildings near this intersection consist of single -story shopfront and mixed -use shopfront building types, with storefronts that face Sidney Road SW. Off-street parking and secondary access to ground floor shopfronts is provided to the rear of these buildings, out of sight from Sidney Road SW. Sidney Road SW is characterized by wide pedestrian oriented sidewalks, street trees and on -street parking. The center of the neighborhood has a small-town downtown feel. To the west of this new intersection, access is provided to new commercial and/or residential development. To the east of this development, flexibility is provided to allow either commercial and/or residential development, or a park and ride facility. The center of the neighborhood is also anchored by a new public park that has helped to enhance the natural amenities provided by Blackjack and Ruby Creeks. This new park has provided restoration of habitat, informational and educational opportunities, and opportunities for low impact recreation. Figure 2: The heart of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood as seen from the southwest. 4 RUBY —-——--—----——� 1 CREEK s z BLACKJACK71 ,lp a CREEK y WETLAND B �I I u TUT ' r I a .5. PROPOSED vr- !I _ I PUBLIC OPEN SPACE r 4 ACCESS ''' U� RE ISIONS yQ /nA\ '-h1ihNu OPTION 2 W ��•� SITEBOTY LINE " EXISTING PREANB PROPOSEO LAKI)KRUSSHELTER QTULARINATEB -------PROPERTYLINE EXISTING STREAM OPROPOSEOlANBSCAPING FMNRE AIGNT OF WAY SW SIDNEY RD/NORThf OF WEDGWICK N ExI8TI4GKF8AP - - - - WETIANDWREAM BUFFER © 120'20NING SETNACK SR M PARKAND RIDE 31- 1-TJ TRANSITRGUTE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LEVEL 3 SITE LAYOUT. KITSAP TNANSIT Figure 3: Neighborhood Center Park and Ride Alternative. This alternative preserves Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zoned development pads along Sidney to ensure storefront development. Figure 4: Neighborhood Center Site Plan Illustration. This illustration does not include a possible park and ride facility located to the east of the Sidney Road SW storefronts. 9 2.4 North End. To the north of the neighborhood core is a residential area characterized by landscaping along the street, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, landscape islands in the street, and street trees. Although mixed use commercial development is permitted along this section of Sidney Road SW, it is seen as less viable due to the distance from SW Sedgwick Road and because it is separated from the commercial neighborhood core by Ruby Creek and its large protective buffers. Apartment development is permissible and anticipated in these locations. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes now connect this neighborhood to the Sidney Glen Elementary School, the Little League baseball fields, and places of worship located to the north of the neighborhood, as well as to the commercial core to the south which includes the neighborhood's main grocery store. These new residents can utilize transit service in the corridor for access to jobs throughout the region. Walking paths along Ruby Creek allow for recreation and access to a new city park. W Figure 5: The north end of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood as seen from the northwest. 0 Figure 6: North End Site Plan Illustration. 2.5 Sidney/Sedgwick Crossroads. The area near the crossroads of SW Sedgwick Road and Sidney Road SW is already characterized by significant development. There is a large grocery store, two gas stations, restaurants, shopping, and apartments in this area. One vacant development pad remains at this intersection. At this location, the City seeks the development of mixed -use shopfront buildings, or live work ground floor units in an apartment building, to help make the area feel more urban. Parking for this pad is provided behind these buildings and out of view of the intersection. In addition, the project has provided public amenity spaces near the prominent street corner at this intersection. Other properties in the neighborhood may eventually develop, but redevelopment is not expected in the near term. 7 IF �-1 mmu^ .. AWAW low AOR IRA — Figure J:The south end ofthe Ruby Creek Neighborhood asseen from the northeast, showing the crossroads of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Figure8: South End (Sidney Road 6VVand SW6edgvxickRoad) Site Plan Illustration. AWAW low AOR IRA — Figure J:The south end ofthe Ruby Creek Neighborhood asseen from the northeast, showing the crossroads of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Figure8: South End (Sidney Road 6VVand SW6edgvxickRoad) Site Plan Illustration. 2.6 Centers. Countywide Center — PSRC Criteria The Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center is planned as a Countywide Center as described in the Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Centers Framework. As a designated Countywide Center, the Ruby Creek Neighborhood: 1. Is a local priority for investment. This plan includes transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, electrical, and park projects to support center development. 2. Is planned for more than 10 activity units (jobs + housing units) per acre. The center is planned to include 14.82 activity units per acre. 3. Is planned for a mix of residential and employment uses. The center is planned to consist of 73% residential and 27% commercial at full buildout. 4. Has capacity for additional growth. The center has capacity for an estimated 1,352 additional persons and 281 additional jobs at full build out. 5. The center supports multimodal transportation (including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles). Chapter 3. Land Use 3.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood is located near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Its boundaries are generally SR-16/Blackjack Creek to the east, Birch Road to the north, the City limits to the south, and a critical area complex to the west. The center is primarily designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan land use map and contains commercial heavy (CH), Commercial Corridor (CC), Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), and Greenbelt (GB) zones. The area is also subject to overlay district regulations which aim to implement the preferred alternative as depicted in the maps and figures in Chapter 2. Ruby Creek Neighborhood - Countywide Center Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations - Gom martial _ GraenCell - High pansi[y Rasidea[iel �� � Low pensiy Residential - Putrlic & C--ty S-- Rudy Creak Cerrtar 7� �t +s� 4b i\Fy� �w Figure 9: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for the Ruby Creek Center. Figure 10: The Zoning Designations for the Ruby Creek Center. As of the writing of this plan, there is an abundance of vacant and underutilized land within the center. Vacant and underutilized parcels are either zoned DMU, CMU or CC, depending on whether apartments are permitted outright in the absence of a commercial component within future buildings, and depending on the percentage of lot frontage along Sidney Road SW intended to be storefronts. The CMU zone allows apartments as a building type under POMC 20.32, whereas the CC and DMU zones do not. It is anticipated that large areas of the CMU zone will develop as apartments; however, commercial retail type uses are allowed and if constructed would be most likely to locate along the Sidney Road SW street frontage. The CC and DMU properties are intended for a "main street" development pattern, and have strict build -to -zone requirements to ensure that the Sidney Road SW corridor is developed with storefronts that are located close to the street. The DMU zone requires a higher percentage of the Sidney Road frontage to contain buildings, as compared to the CC zone. The GB zone is only applied along the streams, dedicated open space, and areas encumbered by flood plains. 3.2 Ruby Creek Center Land Area and Development Potential. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood measures 166.45 acres in land area. Of these 166.45 acres, critical areas (including wetlands and flood plains) associated with Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek occupy approximately 52 acres, leaving approximately 70 acres of developed land and 45 acres of vacant or underutilized land. 10 1)2 21-�- Infill Potential Map -- '� - Ruby Creek Subarea voreormam.wa i Vacant Land r.•r �C 16 \ Underutilized Land FlYN 1 — -�� IA I Developed Land Figure 11: Infill Potential Map. To further illustrate development potential in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood, the map below (Figure 12) has combined potential critical areas and zoning to illustrate how much land area is available for redevelopment. The vacant and underutilized parcels have been assigned letter designations based on current ownership groupings. Later in this plan, these letters as shown on this map will help to show the land capacity within the center for both employment and population. This map is not based on site visits or a critical areas delineation, and reporting and actual development potential may be more or less than what is shown here. In addition, the City's critical areas code can allow buffer reductions through a variance, provided that these reductions are mitigated. Likewise, flood plain development requires flood elevation certificates to be prepared by a surveyor to certify that buildings are elevated to reduce flooding risk. The true development potential for any of these sites cannot be determined without preparing a critical areas report that meets the standards of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. 11 mom Ruby Creek Center Planned Housing Ruby Creek Ruby Creek Ownership am c:=e-ao ova asap = Potential U,,t-1 A— Z-1.9 ors HU cmu CI PR PIZA DMLI CC RI am R3 CH Figure 12: Estimated Developable Land Map. 12 3.3 Population and Employment. As of June 24, 2020, the Ruby Creek Neighborhood contained 464 residents and 371 jobs. This equates to 5 activity units per acre under the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. Current population is accommodated in 232 existing apartments and 8 existing houses within the center. Current employment is provided in approximately 213,638 existing square feet of commercial space. The plan envisions adding 647 additional housing units and 100,400 additional square feet of commercial space. The expected future level of activity units equates to 14.82 activity units per acre, above the PSRC threshold of 10 activity units per acre. (1,816 persons + 652 jobs) / 166.45 acres = 14.82 activity units per acre Ruby Creek Center Population and Employment Capacity: With approximately 45 acres of vacant and underutilized, and unencumbered (critical area free) land remaining in the neighborhood, it is estimated that the total population and employment capacity in the center is 1,816 persons and 652 jobs. Actual growth will vary depending on a variety of factors, including whether the DMU and CC zones develop with single story shopfront buildings vs. mixed -use shop front buildings, and whether a park and ride facility occupies some of the land within the center. Table 1: Activity Units — Population and Employment — Existing and Future Existing Population 464 Planned Population 1352 Total Population at Build Out 1816 Existing Employment 371 Planned Employment 281 Total Employment at Build Out 652 Existing % Activity Units Dedicated to Housing 56% Planned % Activity Units Dedicated to Housing 73% 3.4 Land Use Goals for the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center (these goals are in addition to existing goals found in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan): Goal LU-1: Accommodate enough residential development in the Ruby Creek Countywide Center to ensure a thriving business district. Policy LU-1: Allowed uses, building types, and height limits should accommodate at least 1,800 residents in the Ruby Creek Countywide Center. Goal LU-2: Encourage the development of a Ruby Creek Central Business District along Sidney Ave SW, between SW Sedgwick Road and the Ruby Creek stream buffer. Policy LU-2: Provide storefront uses on the ground floor in the form of a "Main Street" along Sidney Ave SW, between SW Sedgwick Road and Ruby Creek. Regulations for the Ruby Creek District shall ensure that buildings line the street without landscape setbacks and with pedestrian entrances oriented towards the street as shown in Figure 13 below: 13 Figure 13: Block Frontage Map for Ruby Creek Neighborhood (Core and South End). Policy LU-3 Require a build -to -zone along the storefront area shown in Figure 13 in accordance with the DMU and CC zoning designations as shown on the Zoning Map (Figure 10), but provide exceptions for public plazas between buildings and at significant street corners. Goal LU-3: Provide opportunities to extend the Ruby Creek "Main Street" feel between Ruby Creek and Hovde Road. Policy LU-4: Provide greater flexibility in building types and land uses between Ruby Creek and Hovde Road using a commercial mixed -use zone and varied block frontage as shown on Figures 10 and 14. Figure 14: Block Frontage Map North End. Goal LU-4: Ensure that development in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. 14 Policy LU-5: Designate high visibility street corners as defined in the City's design guidelines in strategic locations along the Sidney Road SW corridor and establish requirements in these locations to accentuate building or plaza design with special design features. Policy LU-6: Require facade articulation when any proposed building exceeds 120 feet in length in the center. Policy LU-7: Ensure that there is at least 60% facade transparency on the ground floor of single - story shopfront and mixed -use shopfront buildings with a Sidney Road SW facing facade. Goal LU-5: Allow for the development of a park and ride transit facility within the center, provided that it be located at least 120 feet from the planned Sidney Road SW right of way (additional ROW needed for the Sidney Road SW project) and located behind future development sites as viewed from Sidney Road SW. See Figure 3. Policy LU-8: Ensure that park and ride facilities are a permitted or conditional use in the CMU zone within the Ruby Creek Center. Chapter 4. Housing. 4.1 Introduction. Existing housing in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood consists of two large existing apartment complexes built around 2013, and a handful of small farmstead type homes which are mostly vacant pending redevelopment. There are 232 apartment units and 8 houses in the Ruby Creek Center as of the writing of this plan. Dwelling units in the center contain about 1.9 residents per household (PSRC analysis). According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, multifamily projects containing 5 or more units in Port Orchard contain on average 2.09 persons per household, whereas detached houses contain 2.68 persons per household. No other housing types currently exist in the center. There is a large single-family neighborhood (Stetson Heights) under development to the west of the Ruby Creek Center, containing 299 single-family residential lots with future phases planned. This project is eventually projected to contain 450 to 600 housing units. It is expected that residents of this neighborhood will regularly visit this center seeking goods and services. These single-family areas should be considered part of the neighborhood walkshed even if they are located outside of the center boundaries. There also exists rural large lot development just beyond the City boundary to the northwest and south. A population of a few hundred County residents could also be characterized as being part of this new neighborhood although rural roads make pedestrian access to the centerdifficult. 4.2 Ruby Creek Center Planned Housing. For planning purposes, most future housing expected within the subarea would occur in the CMU zone. This plan encourages development of mixed -use shopfront buildings in the DMU and CC zones which could contain a significant number of housing units. Estimated housing development is provided in Table 2 below, based on parcel characteristics as shown in Figure 12 in Section 3.2. The housing unit and population shown in table 2 is only an estimate and actual development yields may vary. 15 Table 2: Housing and Population Projections Property Grouping (See figure 12) Zoning Total Acreage Developable Acres (Estimated) Projected New Housing Units Estimated New Population (2.09 PPH) Per OFM 2020 A CMU 18.5 13.06 235 491 B DMU/CMU 19.49 6.14 100 209 C DMU/CC 4.58 1.61 0 0 D DMU/CC 4.79 1.81 0 0 E CC 5.14 1.82 0 0 F CH 0.95 0.95 0 0 G CC 1.82 1.8 54 113 H CC 0.86 0.86 0 0 1 DMU/CMU 9.67 3.75 45 94 J CMU 2.68 2.68 25 52 K CMU 4.24 4.24 108 226 L Cl 8.97 8.97 0 0 M PR 2.04 2.04 0 0 N CMU 2.65 2.65 80 167 O Cl 4.54 4.54 0 0 P CH 2.79 2.79 0 0 Q CH 5.82 5.82 0 0 Total 647 1352 16 4.3 Goals and Policies. (Additional goals and policies beyond those already in the Comprehensive Plan) Goal H-1: Provide for a mix of housing types including but not limited to apartments (apartment buildings or apartments in a mixed -use shopfront building), townhomes, and live -work units. Policy H-1: Ensure that the development regulations allow the development of the building types described in Goal H-1 in the center, pursuant to the Zoning Map in Figure 10. Goal H-2: Provide housing serving a mix of income levels that may be owner occupied or rental housing. Policy H-2: Offer 12-year multifamily tax exemptions throughout the center in support of affordable housing. Chapter 5 Economic Development. 5.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center currently contains a variety of businesses, goods, and services. The center is currently anchored by a 60,000+ square foot grocery store. A small strip mall, medical complex, and two gas stations also provide goods and services near the intersection of Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Non-residential square footage in the center is currently 213,638 square feet and supports 371 existing jobs. This figure includes an elementary school and a church. That equals 1 job per 575 square feet of nonresidential space in the center. The assumption for new commercial square footage in the center is 1 job per 300 square feet, as the expected uses would be retail, restaurant, and bars, which have a higher number of jobs per square foot of space compared to the existing uses in the center. The Ruby Creek Center plan envisions the establishment of a new central business district along Sidney Road SW between the existing development at the intersection with SW Sedgwick Road and Ruby Creek. This new central business district is intended to take the form of a "Main Street" with shopfronts on the ground floor abutting yet to be constructed sidewalks. Parking is to be provided on -street along Sidney Road with supplemental parking behind or below these shop fronts, or as on -street parking on new yet to be developed public and/or private streets. It is critical to the success of a new business district to ensure that there are a sufficient number of dwellings within walking distance to support these businesses. This will lower parking demands and increase activity in the area. The minimum residential threshold for the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center should be 1,800 residents within walking distance (1/2 mile) of the central business district. Nonmotorized improvements, transit, on- and off-street parking, gathering spaces, and an active streetscape will all contribute to a vibrant business district. 5.2 Ruby Creek Center Planned Employment. For planning purposes, most future employment expected within the sub area would occur in the CC, CH, and DMU zones. Some employment is expected in the CMU zones, but this is expected to be limited to jobs that support the leasing, recreation, and maintenance of multifamily housing. Expected employment per 1,000 square feet of future commercial square footage is shown in Table 3 below. The letters in the property group column correspond to the map (Figure 12) in section 3.2. The employment estimates shown in Table 3 below is only an estimate and actual development yields may vary. 17 Table 3: Square Footage and Employment Projections Property Grouping Zoning Total Acreage Developable Acres (Estimated) Acreage Designated CC, DMU, Expected New Commercial Square Footage New Jobs (1 Job Per 300 square feet) A CMU 18.5 13.06 0 1500 5 B DMU/CMU 19.49 6.14 1.83 15500 52 C DMU/CC 4.58 1.61 1.61 5800 19 D DMU/CC 4.79 1.81 1.81 6200 21 E CC 5.14 1.82 1.82 0 0 F CH 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0 G CC 1.82 1.8 1.8 5000 17 H CC 0.86 0.86 0.86 9000 30 1 DMU/CMU 9.67 3.75 1.07 14900 50 J CMU 2.68 2.68 0 0 0 K CMU 4.24 4.24 0 1500 5 L Cl 8.97 8.97 0 0 0 M PR 2.04 2.04 0 0 0 N CMU 2.65 2.65 0 1000 3 O Cl 4.54 4.54 0 0 0 P CH 2.79 2.79 2.79 40000 80 Q CH 5.82 5.82 5.82 0 0 Total 99.53 65.53 20.36 100,400 281 Total employment in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center is projected to be 652 (371 existing + 281 new) jobs once the center is fully developed. 5.3 Goals and Policies. Goal ED-1: Provide zoning for ground floor shopfront development and retail, service, restaurant, and other compatible uses along Sidney Road SW. Policy ED-1. Require ground floor shopfront development along Sidney Road SW from SW Sedgwick Road north to Ruby Creek, through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. Policy ED-2. Allow ground floor shopfront development along Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road. Policy ED-3. Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. IM Policy ED-4: Encourage mixed -use shopfronts on CC zoned properties by offering multifamily tax exemptions for the multifamily portion of the project. Goal ED-2: Ensure that uses which are not compatible with building a walkable neighborhood center are prohibited. Policy ED-5. Prohibit additional drive through businesses, gas stations, storage facilities, or other commercial uses that don't contribute to a walkable neighborhood center. Chapter 6 Parks. 6.1 Introduction. It is critical to consider the availability of parks and recreational amenities when planning countywide centers. Parks provide a gathering place for neighborhood residents, and recreational facilities contribute to public health and provide connections within the neighborhood. Within the existing apartment complexes in the Ruby Creek Center there are private park and recreation facilities maintained by the apartment owners. This type of private open space is required for all development per the design standards found in the City's municipal code. No public parks currently exist in the center, although there are school recreation facilities at Sidney Glen Elementary School consisting of grass fields, covered basketball hoops, and playground equipment. There are also two Little baseball fields on property located in the north end of the center along Sidney Ave SW, which is owned by the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department and leased to the South Kitsap Western Little League. The development of public parks and recreation facilities in the Ruby Creek Center is critical to developing a successful neighborhood center. The preferred alternative depicts a public park to be constructed to the southwest of the confluence of Blackjack Creek and Ruby Creek. This proposed park plans to use pockets of developable land, critical area buffers, and floodplain areas to provide recreational amenities. Amenities would include parking, restrooms, playground equipment, walking paths along and over Ruby Creek via a pedestrian bridge, and other public amenities. Due to the degraded nature of these critical areas and flood plains, and the desire to provide public access (walking paths) along and across Ruby Creek, it is expected that critical areas variances will be needed to allow for park construction. Any variance will require significant habitat restoration and enhancement. All active recreation and parking areas will be constructed outside of critical areas but walking paths and a pedestrian bridge would be constructed within these buffers. Due to the significant opportunities to complete restoration work, it is expected that the park would include a landscape that is adaptive to flooding and that significant education and interpretive opportunities could occur in the park. For more information on this planned park, please see the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Goal P-1: Encourage the development of a public neighborhood park in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood. Policy P-1: The neighborhood park should incorporate natural or environmental features. Policy P-2: Provide walking paths along Ruby and/or Blackjack Creeks and (a) pedestrian crossing(s). Goal P-2: Encourage the development of public plazas and other gathering spaces along Sidney Road SW. 19 Policy P-3: Designate significant street corners on the block frontage standard maps as shown on Figures 13 and 14 to encourage the development of public gathering spaces along the central business district corridor. Policy P4: Provide extra sidewalk width in the central business district as part of the Sidney Road SW road section. Goal P-3: Provide recreational paths and trails, public and private sidewalks, and public bike lanes and paths within the center. Policy P-5: Provide bicycle lanes on Sidney Road SW through the center. Policy P-6: Ensure that sidewalks are constructed along all public and private roads within the center. Chapter 7 Natural Systems. 7.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Center and the lands adjacent to the center contain critically important habitats, especially creeks and wetlands. Blackjack Creek runs along the eastern boundary of the center. Ruby Creek, an important tributary to Blackjack Creek, flows through the center and crosses under Sidney Road SW. This watershed is a critical habitat to a variety of species including summer and fall Chum Salmon, Coho and Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Cutthroat. Of these species, Steelhead are currently listed under the endangered species act. Fish barriers exist along both Blackjack and Ruby Creek. WSDOT has plans to replace the partial barrier located under SR-16. The City is seeking grant funding to replace the Ruby Creek culvert under Sidney Road SW. Sidney Road currently lacks pedestrian improvements and will likely need to be widened. This widening will likely require some mitigation for impacts to the Ruby Creek corridor which could occur in conjunction with the park project described in Chapter 7. Although the Ruby Creek Center is planned as urban development, it is critical to take a sensitive approach to design to ensure compatibility between new development and these natural features. 20 ff A MXWATE MOB'+' ' i LP2Ert tiYsy'l'SflT J Figure 15: The City has developed preliminary culvert replacement plans for the Ruby Creek culvert under Sidney Road SW and is seeking grant funding for this project. 7.2 Goals and Policies. (Additional Goals beyond those already in the Comprehensive Plan). Goal NS-1: Encourage the protection of Ruby and Blackjack Creeks and provide educational and interpretive opportunities to residents about the critical functions that these features serve. Policy NS-1: Provide wildlife viewing areas and interpretive signage. Policy NS-2: Ensure that wetland buffers and fish and wildlife habitat buffers are provided consistent with critical areas regulations. Policy NS-3: Ensure that minimum flood plain elevations are observed. Goal NS-2: Ensure that all critical habitats, especially anadromous fish habitats in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood, are protected, restored, and enhanced. Policy NS-4: Seek opportunities to enhance and restore wetlands, streams, and buffers in the Ruby Creek Neighborhood. Policy NS-S: Provide for extensive use of low impact development in project and street design. Policy NS-6: Remove City owned fish passage barriers within the subarea. Goal NS-3: Allow for the development of low impact walking paths and trails along Ruby Creek and Blackjack Creek to encourage protection, education, and stewardship. 21 Policy NS-7: Permit walkway, trail, and pedestrian bridge construction, provided that habitat mitigation is provided in accordance with the critical areas code. 7.3 Natural Systems Project List. The following are projects to improve natural systems that have been identified for completion within the subarea: Table 4: Natural Systems Project List Project Name Agency Project Cost Funding Source SR-16 Blackjack Creek WSDOT 11,200,000 State Culvert Replacement Sidney Road SW Ruby City of Port Orchard $1,800,000 Grant/Stormwater Creek Culvert Utility Replacement Blackjack/Ruby Creek City of Port Orchard $500,000 Grant/Parks Stream and Floodplain Impact Fees Restoration Chapter 8 Utilities. 8.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Center is served by City water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater, Puget Sound Energy (electric and gas), Xfinity, Wave, Century Link, and KPUD (cable, phone, and/or internet). Significant utility upgrades are required to support the development and buildout of the Ruby Creek Center. Water source and storage, sewer lift station, force main, and gravity main improvements, stormwater improvements, and extension of underground power, gas, and telecommunication infrastructure are all necessary to support development. Although the City's water and sewer system plans will contain the most up to date information, several projects are currently identified to support the level of development identified in this plan. Those projects are listed in Table 5. Some of the projects listed in Table 5 have their locations indicated on Figures 4, 6, or 8. Other projects may be located outside of the center boundary but are needed to support center build out. Table 5: Utilities Project List Water/Sewer Project Name Project Description Water Well 13 Well 13 increases available water source in the 390 pressure zone. Water 390 Booster Pump Some areas in the 390 zone (outside of the Ruby Creek Area) could see pressures below the minimum 30 PSI if additional connections in the 390 zone are made. A booster pump will increase pressure to these properties. 22 Sewer Albertson's Lift Station Capacity The wet well at the Albertsons Upgrades lift station is undersized for anticipated development. Sewer North Ruby Creek Lift Station A sewer lift station is needed to support growth in the sub area to the north of Ruby Creek. Sewer South Ruby Creek Lift Station A second South Ruby Creek lift station may be needed if the Albertson's lift station cannot be upgraded sufficiently. This project would support growth in the center and west of the center and south of Ruby Creek. Sewer Sidney Road SW Second Force A second sewer force main will Main be needed to support the full buildout of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood Center running from the Albertson's lift station to the Cedar Heights Lift Station. Electric PSE Sidney Ave undergrounding and Underground distribution and transmission relocation service lines and move transmission poles (Schedule 74). Goal U-1: Encourage a comprehensive and collaborative approach between the City and developers to improving utility systems in the Ruby Creek basin. Policy U-1: The City should facilitate meetings between private developers and encourage the use of all legally available financing mechanisms for building out utilities in the center. Policy U-2: The City's water, sewer, and stormwater system plans should identify needed improvements in the center and determine which projects are in support of development vs. projects needed to correct existing deficiencies. Policy U-3: The City should ensure the costs and benefits for system improvements are equitable between all landowners and existing rate payers. Goal U-2: Ensure that adequate operational water supply and fire flow are available to support development in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy U-4: Provide employment and population assumptions for the center as contained in this plan to the City's water system manager for inclusion in the next water system plan update. Goal U-3: Ensure that sanitary sewer facilities are available to support development in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy U-5: Secure the needed property and/or easements to expand the Albertson's lift station, or, identify a site for a new sewer lift station in the center. 23 Policy U-6: Extend gravity sewers throughout the center to support development. Policy U-7: Ensure the sanitary sewer force main leaving the center is adequately sized for full build out of the center. Goal U-4: Ensure that adequate stormwater facilities exist to serve the public streets and sidewalks in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy U-8: Build low impact development (LID) stormwater facilities to manage stormwater created by new public and private streets within the center. Figure 16: Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Techniques incorporated into street design. This sort of design is encouraged in the Ruby Creek neighborhood. Goal U-5: Ensure that telecommunication facilities are adequate to support 21" century users. Policy U-9: Ensure that KPUD has access to trenches as roads and utilities are installed. Policy U-10: Provide for integration of 5G wireless facilities in the streetscape along Sidney Road SW. Chapter 10 Transportation. 10.1 Introduction. The Ruby Creek Center is established along the Sidney Road SW corridor near the intersection of SW Sedgwick Road. Historically, Sidney Road SW was a primary north -south route through Kitsap County connecting Purdy and Gig Harbor to the south with Port Orchard (Town of Sidney). This road's role was changed with the construction of SR-16. Access to SR-16 and SR-160 is provided at an interchange to the southeast of the Center. Kitsap Transit provides transit service to the center and is evaluating the possibility of a park and ride in or near the center. SR-160 provides access to the Southworth Ferry Terminal, with ferry service continuing on to Vashon Island, West Seattle, and Downtown Seattle via WSDOT and Kitsap Transit Ferries. As part of center development, improvements are envisioned for both Sidney Road SW and SW Sedgwick Road along with other new public or private roads. Sidney Road SW is classified as a Minor Arterial. Pursuant to the City's Public Works and Engineering Standards, Sidney is planned to be improved as a complete street through the center. To achieve Countywide Center requirements, the standard road section has been modified to ensure wider 24 sidewalks, required bicycle lanes, and low impact development landscape treatments. The Sidney Road section in the "main street" core of the center is designed to slow traffic, facilitating a safe walking and shopping environment as well as street parking. The Sidney Road SW streetscape is a critical public infrastructure facility required to transport this neighborhood into a Countywide Center. The Sidney Road SW section drawings are shown in Figures 17, 18, and 19. SW Sedgwick Road is classified as a Principal Arterial. Pursuant to the City's public works and engineering standards, SW Sedgwick Road is planned to be improved as a complete street that provides access to the Ruby Creek neighborhood and allows significant throughput. This road is significantly constrained due to critical areas between Sidney Road SW and SR-16, and experiences regular backups. Widening this road may require some sacrifices such as sidewalks on one side of the roadway to ensure that critical environments are protected. To the west of Sidney Road SW, a developer plans to install a non -motorized pedestrian pathway along the north side of SW Sedgwick Road west to the city boundary to provide access to a single-family residential development to the west of the Ruby Creek Neighborhood. Although the City will not be making improvements to the SR-16/SR 160 interchange, it is important encourage the state to make improvements to this facility. Improved access to these state highways from the Ruby Creek Center will be needed as the City grows. Sidney Road - Commercial Area South of Ruby Creek 88' Right of Way Parallel Bike ♦ � ♦ Bike Parallel SidewmalkParking Lane Travel Lane Turn Lane! Median Travel Lane Lane ParkingSidewallkl Curb Curb Figure 17: Sidney Road SW — Storefront Road Section. This road section corresponds with the section of Sidney Road SW designated as a storefront street in Figure 13. Sidney Road - Residential Area North of Ruby Creek 88' Right of Way 1 Sidewalk Sidewalk 6' 6' 6" 8' 6' 12' 11' 12' 6' B' 6" 6' 6' Curb Curb Figure 18: Sidney Road SW. This road section would be used in the center to the north of the Ruby Creek crossing. 25 Sidney Road - Crossing Ruby Creek 60' Right of Way Lane Travel Erne Trm; Lanc 12 Figure 19: Sidney Road SW. Where Sidney Road SW crosses Ruby Creek, the road will narrow and taper to the above standard. This will minimize impacts to Ruby Creek while providing for nonmotorized connectivity. This section requires culvert replacement. Goal T-1: Improve Sidney Road SW between SW Sedgwick Road and Hovde Road generally in accordance with Figures 17, 18, and 19 above, with center medians generally placed in accordance with the site plans in Figures 1, 4, 6, and 8. Policy T-1: Provide pedestrian crossings across Sidney Road SW at regular intervals through the corridor. Policy T-2: Ensure that driveways and roads to the north and south of Ruby Creek are aligned across Sidney Road SW to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings of Sidney Road SW. Figure 20: Align driveways to facilitate pedestrian crossings throughout the Sidney Road SW corridor. Policy T-3: Provide on street parking through the center along Sidney Road SW. Policy T-4: Minimize pedestrian crossing distances through the corridor using bulb -outs. Policy T-5: Design Sidney Road SW in a way to reduce vehicle speed and increased pedestrian safety. 26 Policy T-6: Integrate urban low impact development stormwater management features in the roadway design, including landscaped infiltration galleries between the on -street parking lanes and sidewalks. Ensure that the infiltration galleries allow ample opportunities for access between parking areas and sidewalk. (See Figure 16.) Goal T-2: Improve SW Sedgwick Road between Sidney Road SW and SR-16 to ensure that traffic can flow freely through this constrained road segment. Policy: T-7: Continue to work with and lobby WSDOT to improve SR-160 and the interchange at SR-160 and SR-16. Policy: T-8: Improve SW Sedgwick Road as a complete street and add additional lanes if warranted. (SW Sedgwick Road should be evaluated to determine whether widening is warranted or whether the deficiency in this corridor is caused by WSDOT facilities.) Goal T-3: Improve connectivity between the Ruby Creek Neighborhood and areas to the north, including SW Berry Lake Road, Cedar Heights Middle School, and the Tremont Street corridor. Policy T-9: Coordinate City improvements to Sidney Road SW between Tremont Street and SW Sedgwick Road with intersection improvements at Berry Lake Road, to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and safety throughout this north -south corridor. Goal T-4: Discourage private surface parking lots in favor of on -street parking, under building parking, and structured parking. Policy T-10 Consider offering multifamily tax exemptions to projects that do not use surface parking lots. Policy T-11: Provide an exemption to surface parking standards for parks and park and ride facilities. Goal T-5: Encourage the development of storefronts along the frontage of Sidney road SW. Policy T-12: Designate Sidney Road SW as "storefront block frontage" in the city's design standards and require a build -to -zone along this frontage. Goal T-6: Support expanded and more frequent transit service in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-13: Adjust transit stop locations for maximum convenience as Sidney Road SW corridor develops. 27 Figures 21 and 22: Kitsap Transit map and schedule showing current Route 5 location, stops, and frequency. Policy T-14: Support the development of a park and ride in or near the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-15: Support increased transit frequency for transit service in the Ruby Creek Center. Goal T-7: Support bicycle infrastructure and provide bicycle amenities in the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-16: Provide bike lanes or grade separated pathways running east/west and north/south through the Ruby Creek Center. These may be in the SW Sedgwick Road and Sidney Road SW right of way or running parallel to the ROW. m Policy T-17: Ensure that bicycle parking is provided in the Ruby Creek Center. Goal T-8: Provide pedestrian Infrastructure throughout the Ruby Creek Center. Policy T-18: Ensure that existing and proposed streets in the Ruby Creek Center are constructed with sidewalks on both sides of the street and landscape strips for pedestrian vehicle separation. Policy T-19: Provide pedestrian connectivity between and within development projects in addition to that which is provided along public and private streets. Goal T-9: Provide safe multimodal access to the schools located along Sidney Road SW and Pottery. Policy T-20: Ensure that sidewalks are provided between the center and Sidney Glen Elementary School and to Cedar Heights Elementary School. Goal T-10: Coordinate electrical transmission and power pole relocation and undergrounding with road projects on Sidney Rd SW. Policy T-21: Undergrounding of powerline distribution and service should be required through the storefront section of the Sidney Road SW corridor. Undergrounding of transmission lines in the storefront section is encouraged if feasible. Goal T-11: Evaluate options for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements in the vicinity of Sidney Glen Elementary school, to ensure safe walking and bicycling conditions, safe and efficient pickup and drop-off for students, and safe vehicle turning movements at intersections. Policy T-22: As part of a future Sidney Road SW corridor project, ensure that pedestrian and bicycle safety and access improvements are made at the intersection of SW Birch Road and Sidney Road SW. 29 0 �-r 17 •Q+�- ,'-y, � -ter -. - _�/ - PROJECT INFORMATION Port Orchard is a small but growing city in the Puget Sound region of Washington State. It enjoys an outstanding natural setting in close proximity to major urban employment centers. This setting and its role as Kitsap County Seat, Port Orchard has the opportunity to be an important regional center for growth. Keeping these opportunities in mind the Department of Community Planning at City of Port Orchard, along with its consultants are conducting a subarea plan and planned action EIS for the Port Orchard Downtown and County Government Campus. These areas have land uses and conditions that are unique to the City and would benefit from the subarea process as they will need to accommodate a proportionate share of the City's growth allocation in accordance with Vision 2050. The subarea and planned action EIS planning process will address issues such as current land uses, development capacity, future development mix and location of densities and uses, transportation, utilities, public facilities, amenities, and natural resources. The result of the planning process will be a subarea plan which will be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan. The subarea plan requires early and continuous public participation consistent with RCW 43.21 C.420. The planned action EIS shall meetthe requirements of RCW 43.21C.440(1) (b)(ii). The subarea plan and planned action EIS, which will be partly funded by an E2SHB 1923 grant administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce, must also comply with the requirements of the Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill (E2SHB) 1923 (Chapter 248, Laws of 2019). Additionally, the subarea plan shall address the PSRC Countywide Center criteria. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS City of Port Orchard Department of Community Development 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 planning @cityofportorchard.us Mayor: Robert Putaansuu City Council Members: Bek Ashby John Clausen Fred Chang Cindy Lucarelli Scott Diener Jay Rosapepe Shawn Cucciardi Planning Commission: Trish Tierney Stephanie Bailey Annette Stewart Mark Trenary David Bernstein Phil King Joe Morrison City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Director Keri Sallee, Long Range Planner Jim Fisk, Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews, Associate Planner Contact: Nick Bond nbond@cityofportorchard.us Keri Sallee kSallee@cityofportorchard.us Final: May 18, 2021 CONSULTANT TEAM Urban Design, Architect Real Estate and Economic Analysis GGLO Heartland 1301 First Avenue, Suite 300 1301 First Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98101 Contact: Contact: Jeff Foster Mark Goodman jfoster@GGLO.com mgoodman@htland.com Mitch Ptacek mptacek@gglo.com Civil Engineer - Sanitary Sewer and Water Infrastructure Engineers and Environmental Services BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Seattle, WA 98101 Inc., PBC Contact: 2200 6th Ave #707, John Gillespie Seattle, WA 98121 john.gillespie@bhcconsultants.com Contact: Rich Schipanski rschipanski@eaest.com Transportation Engineer Transportation Solutions, Inc. Civil Engineer - Storm Water 8250 165th Ave NE, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 Reid Middleton, Inc. Contact: 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Andrew Bratlien Everett, WA 98204 andrewb@tsinw.com Contact: Julian Dodge jdodge@reidmiddleton.com Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 5 CONTENTS 09 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 STUDY AREA 1.3 PSRC FRAMEWORK 15 SECTION 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY ANALYSIS 2.1 HISTORY 2.2 RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS AND CURRENT PLANNING 2.3 EXISTING BUILT FORM AND CONTEXT 2.4 PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS 2.5 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING 2.6 CIRCULATION, ACCESS AND PARKING 2.7 UTILITIES 2.8 ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE 2.9 MARKET CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 2.9.1 ECONOMIC PROFILE 2.9.2 DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE 2.9.3 BUILD -ABLE LANDS 2.9.4 BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND ACTIVITY UNITS 2.9.5 MARKET YIELD ASSESSMENT 59 SECTION 3 - DRAFT SUBAREA PLAN GOALS AND VISION 3.1 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 3.2 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 3.2.1 WEST DOWNTOWN 3.2.2 EAST DOWNTOWN Final: May 18, 2021 6 CONTENTS 3.2.3 COUNTY GOVERNMENT CAMPUS 3.3 LAND USE AND HOUSING 3.4 ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING SECTION 04 - APPENDIX A - PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN AND OUTREACH SUMMARY B - HEARTLAND ECONOMIC PROFILE AND BUILD -ABLE LANDS ANALYSIS Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 7 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.1. PLAN BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The 2014 City of Port Orchard periodic Comprehensive Plan update incorporated a new "centers" strategy to guide future planning and designated the first ten "local centers" (See section 2.7 of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan). The Centers strategy evolved from the State Growth Management Act of the early 1990's as a means to combat urban sprawl development patterns that defined the post-war era. This strategy strives to accommodate growth in designated areas while preserving the existing character of the community, thereby retaining more open space and the dominant pattern of existing development. The centers approach to planning is provided in Vision 2050, the regional plan completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council, and in the County -wide Planning Policies adopted by all jurisdictions in Kitsap County. The latest Comprehensive Plan designated eight "countywide centers" and four designated "local centers". In addition, the City identified the Downtown and the County Campus as a potential candidate for a Regional Center designation under Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050. This plan addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. In late 2019 the City received a Department of Commerce E2SHB 1923 Grant intended to develop plans and actions that will increase residential building capacity. The grant provided partial funding for the City of Port Orchard to contract with consultants to complete the Downtown and County Campus Centers Subarea Plan and planned action EIS. The Center boundaries identified in the Comprehensive Plan do not meet the latest PSRC requirements for Regional Centers. After consultation with PSRC it was decided to expand the study area boundary to identify recommendations of expansion of the current Centers. The City and their consultants explored design alternatives for the subarea to be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Statement (See Section 3). Due to most of subarea being previously developed land, the alternatives include a single redevelopment plan for the East Downtown, West Downtown, and Government Campus while considering different programmatic approach to identified developable lands. The alternatives considered are as follows: • Alternative 1 - No Action • Alternative 2 - Residential Focus • Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT This original Public Participation Plan (See Appendix A) was developed just prior to state and local mandated closures to prevent the spread of corona -virus. This resulted in project delays and the cancellation of the City's plans to conduct in person workshops with neighborhood residents and property owners. The City has instead relied on internet surveys and public hearings before the Planning Commission that were held remotely. INITIAL GOALS 'Establish a vision for a vibrant urban center that is economically feasible and context sensitive' The city is defined by its physical and social environments and the ways in which they are connected. This subarea plan seeks to lay out a vision for Port Orchard that is founded on connectivity and the idea that stronger connections will ultimately lead to a stronger community. The following initial goals were derived from City of Port Orchard Department of Community Development initial project definition goals summary: • Develop a Subarea Plan that establishes a vision for Port Orchard as vibrant urban center that supports denser residential living in a walkable neighborhood. • Increase Housing supply consistent with the goals of E2SHB grant. • Focused growth in designated centers to support residential living in walkable neighborhoods. • The plan should meet the PSRC criteria for designation as a countywide center. • Prepare a Planned Action EIS to identify potential SEPA regulatory compliance barriers and encourage economic development. • Plan for the City of Port Orchard to accommodate growth as a proposed high capacity transit community under Vision 2050. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Study Area City of Port Orchard Centers • County Campus • Downtown Study Area • 329 total acres Principle Arterials • Bay Street & Bethel Ave • Port Orchard and Mitchell Streets • Sidney Ave and Cline Ave Existing Land Use • Neighborhoods - Residential • Private Property / Commercial Uses • Government - City / Kitsap County • South Kitsap High School • Marina Waterfront Targeted Redevelopment Areas • West Downtown Waterfront • East Downtown Waterfront • County Campus `py'e'�+fir• `s y` ' + i a ♦ �- may, I �4 Downtown i rl •. Mw A Plan Center "W, ,' `; - } "'E I. � � F,YJ 1dE ra .11, � :� ° �.@ � i a.■, m I + +'�l,11 ■ . Y 1. EF,a � ib EE�l: I..' 3 s � t RE0, T] ;aR24 y fps al n � A W '� d' ■i e R. BCounty Campus Plan Center, ---- OP ' 6 �eaw all qp R RP " R e Cl 17, Fes' v ° R ORION STUDYAREA MAP AND PREVIOUS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CENTERS SCALE: 1 " = 1000' O Final: May 18, 2021 10 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION DEFINING THE SUBAREA BOUNDARY The original Subarea Boundary consisted of the Downtown and the County Government Campus Centers as delineated in the Comprehensive Plan. After initial evaluation and consultation with the City and PSRC three additional study area boundaries were developed for consideration. The goals of the study area boundary evaluations included: • Include sufficient context to allow the plan to include a holistic approach. • Preference for boundaries to cross streets such that planning can encompass a corridor approach. • Provide sufficient developable land inventory. • Provide a strong basis for a future PSRC Regional Centers Application. 1 a Arp�o rEn .. T — � Mrfrr•� 119.82 Acres Original Centers -r S �pxrn5e:f• ' L�IYNI L' ■+ M Ao _ � € "- ex ■■ k T �5V11■S J . g {, - oir�,�Fmr3rre r _W_�gdJ�?NVdrii.IF �1 a■ irYiii_ ^ 258.81 Acres �* 1 The selected subarea boundary is a combination of option 1 and option 3. The selected boundary Guidance from PSRC suggested that it would be easier to reduce the boundary for a centers application than it would be to propose a large application boundary than what was previously studied. While the study area is extensive (329 acres), changes will not be proposed in all areas. Planned development is envisioned to primarily occur in or near the existing urban centers, along existing principle Arterials, and at currently underutilized parcels (see Section 2 and enclosed Appendix B). n�A o�orf o���sal,.i.L'a ttiw�N r _ �« 'r ah„o old_ i ,.■' y A-Z'g' a ^ x(n _ • tT 207.83 Acre Option 2 1e Are 3 City of Port Orchard 2019 Urban Center Alternatives Urban Center Options Option y.r.rr.e o nr8 in uP 3 N W E 5 Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 CM or Pon o—d Department or Common ty Development 216 Prospect Street, Pon Om— M 98366 PM (NO) 874 5533 Fax. (NO) 8764980 cry fPon � N. STUDYAREA OPTIONS O SCALE: N.T.S. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 11 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework SUBAREA BOUNDARY rL)PULAi j"im r ivv EMPLOYMENT The City has no designated Regional Growth centers at this time, but the Downtown and County Government Campus Centers are being considered as a candidate for a future combined regional growth center. The selected subarea boundary does not meet the PSRC existing activity unit requirements, but it will identify the location of potential future capacity. URBAN GROWTH COUNTYWIDE CRITERIA • Existing density - 18 activity units per acre minimum • Planned target density - 45 activity units per acre minimum • Mix of uses - Regional growth centers should have a goal for a minimum mix of at least 15% planned residential and employment activity in the center. • Size - 200 acres minimum - 640 acres maximum • Transit - Existing or planned fixed route bus, regional bus, Bus Rapid Transit, or other frequent and all -day bus service. May substitute high -capacity transit mode for fixed route bus. Service quality is defined as either frequent (< 15-minute headways) and all -day (operates at least 16 hours per day on weekdays) -or- high capacity • Market potential - Evidence of future market potential to support planning target • Role - Evidence of regional role • Clear regional role for center (serves as important destination for the county) • Jurisdiction is planning to accommodate significant residential and employment growth under Regional Growth Strategy COUNTYWIDE CENTER CRITERIA • Identified as a countywide center in the countywide planning policies • Located within a city or unincorporated urban area • Demonstration that the center is a local planning and investment priority: • Identified as a countywide center in a local comprehensive plan; subarea plan recommended • Clear evidence that area is a local priority for investment, such as planning efforts or infrastructure • The center is a location for compact, mixed -use development; including: • A minimum existing activity unit density of 10 activity units per acre • Planning and zoning for a minimum mix of uses of 20 percent residential and 20 percent employment unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. • Capacity and planning for additional growth • The center supports multi -modal transportation, including: • Transit service • Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities • Street pattern that supports walkability • Bicycle infrastructure and amenities • Compact, walkable size of one -quarter mile squared (160 acres), up to half -mile transit walkshed (500 acres) Alternate Subarea Study Boundaries (PSRC Existing Conditions Analysis) Total PopulationEmployment Covered Total Acres Activity Units/Acres Option 0 - Current Comp Plan 733 1,607 120 20 Option 1 1,275 2,113 259 13 Option 2 1,163 2,018 208 15 Option 3 1,424 1,697 223 14 Option 4 - Selected Subarea Study Boun 1,806 111111111111111P.150 329 12 Source: PSRC, 2020 TOTAL ACRES: PSRC references the total acreage of the Study Area, which includes the gross parcel and public right of way acreage. Analysis contained later in the report referencing gross and net buildable lands does not include existing public right of way. Final: May 18, 2021 12 SECTION 01 1 INTRODUCTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 13 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 2 Existing Conditions Final: May 18, 2021 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History z.1. HISTu.:r ur PORT ORCHARD The City acknowledges that the Port Orchard and the broader Kitsap Peninsula is home to two Native American tribes, the Suquamish Tribe and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The City of Port Orchard and Sinclair Inlet are within the Tribe's adjudicated Usual and Accustomed (U&A) fishing, hunting and gathering area. The Tribe has a strong historical and present connection in Sinclair Inlet that is significant and well documented. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Suquamish Tribe inhabited the area in and around Port Orchard and Sinclair Inlet and has utilized its natural resources (including fish and shellfish) for thousands of years. Sinclair Inlet has been and continues to be an important cultural, historical, economical, and a place of well-being of the Suquamish Tribe. Significant tribal salmon fisheries exist in the inlet. Port Orchard, located in south Kitsap County, was platted as Sidney in 1886 by Frederick Stevens who wanted to name the future town after his father, Sidney Merrill Stevens. He chose a site on the southern shore of the Sinclair Inlet, part of Port Orchard Bay. Sidney quickly became known for its lumber industry, pottery works, small businesses, and agricultural opportunities. In 1890 it became the first town to incorporate in Kitsap County. Sidney residents took an active role in bringing the Puget Sound Naval Station (later Puget Sound Naval Shipyard) to Kitsap County. The navy employed many residents of Port Orchard and greater Kitsap County from the turn of the century onwards, and became the most important employer in the county. In 1893, after building a courthouse and donating it to the county, Sidney was chosen as county seat. After 1903, Port Orchard continued to grow due to the expansion of the naval yard during the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, and the 1960s, and due to Port Orchard's reputation as a quiet waterfront community located in a beautiful environment and close to Seattle. -.1� 1950's Street in Port Orchard, WA I 1940's Kitsap County Court House 1970'a Port Orchard Marina 1908 Ferry Docks Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 15 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History SINCL.,AJR, INLET City V \��`�� r County Bldg Part Orchard Blvd Ravine Historic Geographic influenced Development Pattern Commercial Filled Tidelands FWestbay Upland Bluff r W 160 Blackjack - Creek �^ Ravine Final: May 18, 2021 16 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS NATURAL FEATURES AND GEOGRAPHY The geography and natural landscape of Port Orchard is defined by its waterfront on Sinclair inlet, the multiple stream ravines, and the steep topography that divides them. Just as these stream valleys bring rains to Sinclair Inlet, the valleys at Port Orchard Boulevard and Bethel Avenue now discharge residents and visitors into the West and East Downtown as they travel from the uphill and inland neighborhoods. The original waterfront shoreline was generally located at the current site of Bay Street prior to the infill of historic waterfront tidelands. These filled lands present a challenge potential redevelopment due to flood risks, poor soil conditions, and a high water table f terminal rocery produce mov tag e' �y et livery navy viezr hotel " •' R dW P ago ance ha] � �� N{ NoIL ® q i_ j T 8 � t.; Historic Waterfront Figure -Ground - 1914 4 m �� iJr�� it, ■ $ f t Historic Waterfront Figure -Ground - 1982 Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 17 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 History 1994 1908 - Port Orchard - Ferry Docks 1950's - Port Orchard - Bay Street Final: May 18, 2021 18 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2020 - Port Orchard - Ferry Docks 2020 - Port Orchard - Bay Street Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 19 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.2 Existing Built form and Context The analysis has identified three distinct areas within the broader study area, the West Downtown, the East Downtown and the County Government Campus. All three areas have a different built -form and character. They areas are divided by the geographic barriers including the change in topography between West Downtown and the County Campus, and the Blackjack Creek Ravine between the County Campus and Bethel Corridor. The West Downtown Neighborhood The West Downtown Neighborhood is the current and historical cultural and civic hub of the community. Its is also the recreational hub with ferry connections to the neighboring cities. The area includes a mix of land uses like the City Hall and public library, the Kitsap Bank and restaurants and retail services. Restaurant and Retail along Bay Street The East Downtown Neighborhood The East Downtown is geographically separated from the West Downtown and was developed later with a more auto - centric development pattern. The neighborhood includes a mix of commercial uses from the junction of Bay Street and Bethel Ave and the waterfront. Further it extends in south to Mitchell Corridor which is higher in density with a mixture of single-family homes surrounding South Kitsap High School. Single Family Homes Around Mitchell Corridor County Campus The Kitsap County Government campus is both the heart of the Center and the City's largest employer. The Port Orchard Blvd and Black Jack Creek valley's along with the historic steep shoreline isolates the Center from the Downtown. The County Campus is surrounded by single family houses separated from the campus by Sidney and Cline Ave which are also the neighborhood arterials providing vehicle and transit access to downtown. Single Family Homes Around County Campus Final: May 18, 2021 20 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS p � � •, d�a O .,a M ° C 8 ° e �4kt Vi I tft . � �� .74'.'.- "' Ems. b. • � � '�W' '(lt d� �'3[�' .q'�J�1 r. _ O� � G Aw a. �8°.. ` ff a o, C O ' . e * `i. r a i { �': �. � , a •� 7p �R's `" s . �\�' `��a'e-•' � ':.Yry_..9 � ` - � V�-C i'RR rase F ■_ 11 z f 3 .$ ' a ..., • to � 1 __.R [ hbq + btld m4 "' m -i 0 1 .ifr a R0.Y r � • � N � � • U -S p l•.rR d - •��ey 1 �- .. .. !! n Soft --WI r r e I a-�l [ - � � • a .CL l a. !r .i � .a � ■ ir d a ' - °i - .+ t 0�. a 6�I i * � A • � � g O � 4 is � �� ! 1'/h ��6 6..a d� • .a-� � p _ e Geoqraphic Districts Map EO Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 21 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.3 Recent Achievement and Current Planning BAY STREt I rtut5 I K...4 PATHWAY The City of Port Orchard is constructing a new 1.0 mile long multi -purpose path/trail, broken into 11 segments beginning at the downtown Port Orchard ferry facility and ending at the Annapolis ferry facility. The completed multi -purpose trail will become a part of the Mosquito Fleet Trail. A future extension is also being planned from downtown to east of Port Orchard blvd. This portion of the Mosquito Fleet Trail along Bay Street, also known as the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway, will be a significant segment of the off -road link in the Mosquito Fleet Trail, which eventually will connect Kingston to Southworth along the eastern shore of Kitsap County. It will also provide a much needed recreational facility within downtown Port Orchard, and a safe alternative transportation mode for its citizens and workforce. Users are expected to include lunchtime walkers, bicycle commuters, families with children, and recreational cyclists on both organized and independent tours. The trail is also likely to experience heavy multiple use during special events organized and hosted by the City of Port Orchard. BAY/ BETHEL STREET INTERSECTION REDESIGN Roundabouts are safer than traditional traffic signals or stop sign controlled intersections, and they accommodate vehicles of various sizes, including emergency vehicles, buses, semi -trucks with trailers, farm and logging equipment. Studies show roundabouts reduce injury crashes by 75% at intersections where stop signs or traffic signals previously existed. Roundabouts improve the flow of traffic because users don't have to wait for a green light to get through the intersection. Other benefits of a roundabout include vehicles moving in the same direction which helps improve traffic flow. Roundabouts reduce maintenance and repair costs when compared to traffic signals. SOUTH KITSAP COMMUNITY EVENTS CENTER SINCLAIR INLET PPOPOM SCiTY sxa0.E�tir TEePNN ��•~ w'�^ ••GVPGO.F � 4 �E XE.ATeP vAAK N4 -�••• `. � vYw 000K SITE b - f a PPovpyEo •n � •fTGP 9nNN it �W The South Kitsap Community Events Center (SKCEC) is a collaboration between the City of Port Orchard, and the Kitsap Regional library. Concepts suggested a 24,000-square- foot multi -use facility that includes 9,000 square feet for the new Library. In 2019, the Kitsap Public Funding District allocated up to $12 million in phased funding to support the project. Under Rice Fergus Miller's guidance, a site has been selected at the corner of Bay Street between Port Street and Orchard Ave. Initial concepts placed the new facility in downtown Port Orchard with a project scope that would include shoreline restoration, public open space, and parking solutions. Final: May 18, 2021 22 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS WATERFRONT LIFT STATION AND PLAZA ales New multi -use building r % %low % ` New multi -use ttrail continuation;miJw� New plaza The City of Port Orchard (City) uses its Marina Pump Station to collect all the City's wastewater and discharges it to the West Sound Utility District's (District) Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). With the City's rapidly growing development, the Marina Pump Station must remain reliable and capable of handling the expected increased flow rates through projected build -out. The existing station is a critical piece of the City's sewer system and must remain effective during high flow events. Currently, the Marina waterfront is used frequently by the City's residents and visitors. When proposing alternatives to upgrade the Marina Pump Station, the City stressed the importance of maintaining the aesthetics of the waterfront environment for generations to come. This Predesign Report analyzes alternative pump station improvements based on current, future, and build -out peak hour flow rates, reliability, expected resiliency, and cost. PARKS PLAN UPDATE The City currently has approximately 70 acres of park area, as well as trails and other open space. However, the Parks Plan has not been substantively updated since 2011. Once updated, the Parks Plan will provide a 20-year vision for the City's parks, recreation, open space, and trails, as well as a 6-year action plan for implementing short- and medium - term steps to succeed in this vision. Steps in development of the Parks Plan update will include research, public involvement, and the creation of recommendations for all aspects of Port Orchard's park system, including a community demand, supply and needs analysis. The Parks Plan will also include a framework for fiscally sound decision -making over a multi -year planning period. The Parks Plan functions in coordination with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 23 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts SUMMARY As the team prepares to draft a subarea plan for the City of Port Orchard we reviewed the previous planning efforts done by the city. We found a lot of similarities in the recommendations of these planning efforts and we plan on addressing them in the Sub -area plan. Following are the planning efforts: 1. Comprehensive Plan of 1966 2. Port Orchard Waterfront Revitalization Plan Kasprisin Plan -1983 3. Downtown Port Orchard: Suggestion for Revitalization - 1999 4. Port Orchard: Economic Development Plan - 2004 �4YMJ Or r f� r� V-1, 4 ;0 .r• __ 7—-. ..c. f„rurrr ar!wvuL u. rta4ara* ■7 •'4 AG 0.�ii£�� � S f I Fil ul4..i � Pvt auk-AL_04 Ku wkCC ,,uSrJrr ME 9 .•.rrrhm10%. ,eu nws — }-4.6.AYr./d=r 2004 Port Orchard Economic Development Plan - Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections Concept Plan Final: May 18, 2021 24 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1. PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS • A waterfront park and restaurant on the newly filled tidelands COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - 1966 • A new yacht club marina, boat sale are on filled In 1966, Port Orchard completed a comprehensive plan for tidelands at the north of Blackjack Creek the city and downtown area. As a point of reference, the redevelopment recommendations for the downtown and And an expanded, east -west commercial wall to the waterfront area are summarized below. north side of the existing Bay Street complex, a civic center / auditorium was included in the development. Key recommendations include: 0 A relocation of city hall to Sidney Street and the • A scenic waterfront beach drive, from the De Kalb Blackjack Creek extension (present by-pass proposal) Street right-of-way connecting to Bay Avenue East of 0 A new waterfront motel. the West Bay Commercial area. • A substantial fill of the tidelands along the waterfront from the De Kalb Street waterway to include Blackjack Creek and West Bay. Comprehensive Plan - 1966 Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 25 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts z. 1. PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFOR I :> KASPRISIN PLAN - 1983 The objectives of this study are to develop recommendations for revitalization the downtown and waterfront areas of the City of Port Orchard. Key Recommendations: • Waterfront Drive • Substantial tidelands infill • Waterfront Park • Yacht Club and Marina • Expanded east -west commercial corridor • Relocate City Hall to Sidney and new highway bypass SR 160 • New waterfront motel Sidney Hotel Hill Climb • Building and landscape improvements • Return waterfront and stream right-of-ways to public use • Downtown as a historic marine center • Integrate plans with Kitsap transit • Prioritize by-pass • Waterfront pedestrian walkway • Visual access to the waterfront from upland areas • Prioritize water dependent / related uses on th waterfront • Improve connections to uphill neighborhoods through possible hill -climb and lookout at "Fort Hill" � � r + I r I Kasperian Plan - 1983 Final: May 18, 2021 26 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS I Blackjack Creek Pedestrian Bridge Blackjack Creek "West Bay" Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 27 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts z. 1. rKEVIOUS PLANNING EFFOII REVITALIZATION PLAN - 1999 In 1999, the University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning, prepared a revitalization strategy for downtown. This planning process included an opinion survey focused on the transportation and buying habits/preferences of individuals living in and passing through downtown Port Orchard. Key Recommendations: • Add strategic anchors • Up -zone to allow 24-30 dwelling units / acre • Increase height limits to 55' measured from Bay Street • Improve pedestrian connectivity Bill LY+ - �■ YYY . • Develop mixed -use commercial pier along the waterfront f �4 TWO Suggestion for Revitalization - 1999 Final: May 18, 2021 28 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Mouth of Blackjack Creek . W Mouth of Blackjack Creek Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 29 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Previous Planning Efforts z. i. rKEVIOUS PLANNING EFFOR i :> EDAW PLAN - 2004 The City selected a team of consultants led by EDAW, Inc. (urban design and planning) and including Property Counselors (market analysis) for these studies. Key Recommendations: • Frame the District. • Enhance the Streetscape • Strengthen the Sense of Place in the Core • Emphasize Port Orchard's Rich History • Activate the Area • Preserve and Reinforce View Corridors Observation peck • Better Connections with the Waterfront • Enhance Streetscape from Bethel to Port Orchard Boulevard • Strengthen Connections with the County • Create a Pedestrian Corridor for the Downtown Core • Tie Waterfront Park with an Expanded Waterfront Greenway 3 C,ty�tiall ;k LQ L / ;_ i J V J �_t _ O 73 Z I i VIR Lm Q z c DUALB ST. 17 i — Final: May 18, 2021 30 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ■o Commercial OPPORTUNITIES City Center - Specialty Retail Core Retain active on street uses 0 Underutilized - infill or redevelop; Encourage mix of uses, emphasis on residential ner core ninnin Marquee - Explore alternatives for Downtown idenity Encourage authenticity in architecture Enhance Streetscape - improve experience of pedestrians - visual enhancement of street corridor View Corridors - preserve views to water terminate views at Land mark features Activity Generators - Link and encourage development of added active uses Parks 4 Greenways - Extend, enhance, maximize pedestrian linkages and water access Identity - Storytelling elements - add focus on art, 'r history, architecture �i Key Intersection - Enhance Intersection to provide focus and sense of place ,d0 Downtown Gateway - Enhance landscaping to highlight entrance p N4�S0"e " /0 Eaten enway Auto Sales 1 \IS r. n o EtBay Center a Cis Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 31 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.5 Existing Land Use and Zoning C:URREN I LANU USE (..rIHKA(.. I tKIS 11(.5 Updated in 2019, Port Orchard's adopted land use code takes a form based approach to establish standard procedures for all land use and development. The code attempts to foster predictable built results and a high -quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. Because the code does not include density limits such as maximum floor -area -ratios, we used assumed residential densities included in the City Comprehensive plan amendment to establish assumed residential densities. The primary land use designations within the study area is medium density residential and Mixed -use commercial, however the study area include nearly all land use designation. The study are also includes two large public facilities campuses, the Kitsap County Campus and South Kitsap High School. Most land in the city is devoted to housing. Commercial areas and the downtown offer a range of goods and services, provide employment for local residents and those living in surrounding rural areas, and provide additional tax revenue to help fund public services and facilities. Industrial lands allow for light manufacturing and warehousing businesses, which also provide job opportunities and support the area's economy. i Port Orchard Comp Plan Centers The Land Use element establishes goals and policies that seek to: • Accommodate changes in population and demographics • Encourage development in urban areas, reduce sprawl, and deliver services efficiently • Ensure land use designations reflect need and demand • Minimize traffic congestion and encourage the development of a multi -modal transportation system • Protect open spaces and the natural environment • Promote physical activity • Support a range of employment opportunities OVERLAY DISTRICT The city's development regulations include land use overlay districts which are applied in parts of the City, as summarized below. • Downtown Height Overlay District • Government/Civic Center District • View Protection Overlay District City of Port Orchard Centers 6etnel Luna ' County Corpus Qmvrrionn Aq Lawn? V la HI4 I� hfcCormbk Woede Old Citon Irra Park - $W19-mck Belhel 30dgw k 31045V sown esuml Tree mll Uppei w1a HAI Final: May 18, 2021 32 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN PORT ORCHARD CENTER Port Orchard's downtown is the cultural, civic, and recreational hub of the community. The downtown currently contains a mix of land uses, including Port Orchard's City Hall and public library, numerous retail and service businesses, a marina and ferry dock, public parking, and a waterfront park and trail. With access from the water and from state highways 3 and 16, it remains the City's primary center for community events and activities. The City continues to work toward a balance of historic preservation, environmental restoration, and economic improvement for the downtown center. Downtown Port Orchard coupled with the County Campus may be a future candidate as a regional center. As of 2018, the Downtown Port Orchard Center measured 70 acres containing 197 residents and 787 jobs. This equates to 14 activity units per acre under the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. I COUNTY CAMPUS CENTER The City of Port Orchard has benefited from being the Kitsap County seat, as well as Kitsap County long serving as the City's largest employer. Kitsap County has proposed several phased development scenarios to provide options for the expansion of County facilities within the City of Port Orchard over the next 40 years. The District included land use and regulation proposals derived from the Kitsap County Campus Master Plan created in 2003, which was designed to accomplish the expansion of community facilities and allow uses that would serve to buffer the residential areas from the Campus. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 33 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.5 Existing Land Use and Zoning LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) RESIDENTIAL 1 (R1) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) RESIDENTIAL 2 (R2) " ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) t: �� wit•. GREENBELT (GB) RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) .• ` .,� ' PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) �0 Jkf "4 PUBLIC FACILITY(PF) ® GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU) �tW4 ; f� CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) '+ 1t 0 DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) *40 q. i Qr• Al 4 A� , 4*1 t.Nor m ON v / / � r �p IN a:w m F1'lfloKALB r'.l ii� w _''- ! / 1 # ■� ■ t ► _ 1 e ■( i'�J/�ll 'f� DWIGHT #• ' 1 I �rr. a im r r , r■ I ► IVISI N ■ r a.rrll■jai■ I li E _ ' vt o (� 1 Q1 .. r J� MAI i Aa +ti TAYL r ! 1 � ° f a0 1f a r.�"MIHNO off l if MINA," - MILE HILL 1 I - 1 j 'yr �r + r 40 ■ 1 i r Ir 4' UFE IN INC NorIN a! meIL r ■ # Existing Zoning Map T-ALN Final: May 18, 2021 34 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS s� • ♦ 6-0 �;4 �% � � ham+► • ON ld� Wi * • • '♦ IOWA ��.■• � (— /� ++•SAY. ■ sm ITAY f� � S 1 . ■ p �' ■ ■ • I I •■■ r �IdD �f Qf i �. a ■■ray■I `� I,Ik ■ �O jL ■ � r I If 71iL t . � I 40 1 ! ■�,�+n; ,do Mlt� r r �1'L' JAILOR 1 + i J • r r MILE HILL all t L f ar SROUr E r I , -to- 6:11 mile �'rr ■ ■ r Jill! 1 . 1 . o m L . . W. ■ - Y ■ i1 i Existing Height Overlay Map �N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT 1 35 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.5 Existing Land Use and Zoning LEGEND STOREFRONT VARIED LANDSCAPED MARINE GATEWAY TRAIL 0 HIGH VISIBILITY CORNER Note: Dashed lines indicate conceptual planned streets or trails DWIGH SIIN T 1 No ® �lM� @p� ,� n �. a Hf r O� r �� /• �p /F '/ ° ���r11 �_.a. /#+ra• __•�.. - ear _� _ -. � * s. �. .r .� 16'�$r I rf � IR —r s , e. N / w DEKALR i F I �_ r' i'•... w 't'i, �•. I •'� . m a.�. T T S.R.. vi r a' TAYL R a qtr. ' - SMITH TAILOR _KENDALL ,�. �PLISKO�r � � h ;77 � � �� � MILE of x . SROUFE+ i ai=° -- r i a•._—.� � � � 6 a c a • rr � Existing Block frontages Plan Final: May 18, 2021 36 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.6 Circulation, Access and Parking VEHICULAK uKCULN►i ivim mimL) ACCESS Minor arterial roads serve as key elements in the county transportation system. These minor arterial roads link together state routes or connect the state route system to Port Orchard, to other major centers, and to the ferry system. For example, Bethel Road is a two lane north/south road located in eastern Port Orchard. As a north/south road, Bethel Road connects and intersects with Sedgwick Road, Lund Avenue, and SR 166. Bethel Road terminates in Port Orchard at Bay Street. Bay Street is the East-West connector for downtown waterfront. Cline Ave and Sydney Ave are the primary vehicle connectors for county campus and downtown Port Orchard. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND ACCESS There are an assortment of pedestrian facilities located throughout Port Orchard and its UGA. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, trails and designated crosswalks. The majority of sidewalks are located along commercial corridors and in some neighborhoods. However there are some breaks in the sidewalks, continuous sidewalks would improve the safety and utility of the pedestrian environment. TRANSPORTATION STUDY See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by TSI Traffic Engineers to be incorporated into the EIS and enclosed in the document appendix. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 37 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.6 Circulation, Access and Parking 11 FurictionaJ CIr755iflcatlon IP nTLcJp&I A1CCmrI al CAP rtor Ar'm 4 a I I.I fir r �. 4 J ' U- I "J r P � I m � i i i C'. . Vehicle Circulation and Access *Reference TSI existing transportation conditions analysis for the Port Orchard Subarea Plan. (:�N Final: May 18, 2021 38 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS �+lanmatorezed Faci#ides - Bike Lane Mosquim Fleet Trail S �iRCw•dik X -- sloewalk lace sldef ---• ;ljmned klullimpdal PaViway Planned Sidewa)h ard Bike Lane Lbtal slfeel Urban GenteF I � 1/4 MILE, 5 MIN WALK � —J 1/4 MILE, 5 MIN WALK 1 _ ' ^r 1/4 MILE, 5'MIN WALK �� I ♦ ' h 7V1 j � f i Pedestrian Circulation and Access �N *Reference TSI existing transportation conditions analysis for the Port Orchard Subarea Plan. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 39 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.6 Circulation, Access and Parking Transit • Panl of Inlrrest sp 12 Park to Ride f Transit Service Plan *Reference TSI existing transportation conditions analysis for the Port Orchard Subarea Plan. (� N 40 Final: May 18, 2021 City of Port Orchard Half -Mile Buffer from Ferry Terrr and Ferry Bus Drops FerryTerminal_Buffers Urban Growth Area O Port Orchard UGA High Speed Transit (Ferry Terminals) 112 Mile Buffer Map �N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 41 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 42 Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.7 Utilities and Capital Facilities TRANSPORTATION See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided byTSI Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. STORM WATER See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by Reid Middleton Civil Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. WATER SERVICE See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by BHC Civil Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. SEWER SERVICE See existing conditions summary and EIS development analysis provided by BHC Civil Engineers to be incorporated into the Downtown Subarea EIS. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 43 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.8 Environment and Open Spaces EXIa i iimu %.vimvlTlUima Port Orchard is a community which provides a full range of parks, recreation, open space, and ecosystem services by protecting native wildlife habitat, restoring and preserving natural systems, enjoying majestic marine and mountain views, and ensuring new development enhances the natural environment. The existing City parks system is supplemented by the schools of the South Kitsap School District, and the Kitsap County Parks and Recreation Department. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PARK VISION The City of Port Orchard 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update identifies twelve (12) Centers. The vision of the Parks Element and Comprehensive Parks Plan is to ensure that every center contains and/or is connected to a park by safe non -motorized routes. The Port Orchard Parks and Trails map on the following page depicts existing park facilities in relation to the ten local centers as well as the planned trail connections between local centers depicted with dashed lines. Walking/jogging/running paths were a top priority identified in the 2015 Parks Survey. Connecting local centers and parks with safe non -motorized routes, including those in public right-of-way such as bike lanes and walking shoulders, will increase access to active transportation for all residents and benefit the entire community. The Non -Motorized section of the Transportation Element provides further detail on existing and future trails. Final: May 18, 2021 44 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS O City Boundary Flood Hazard Area ® 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard ® FEMA Zone AE ® FEMA Zone A - Floodway Wetlands Watercourses Potential Wetlands Geologic Hazard Areas of Concern - High Hazard Areas Bald Eagle Management Area Waterbodies J J i 2 i Al 1 wro m �• W w P ALY ¢ W sT m a - _---- - ° w 1:Q DEKAI D ST D IG DWI HT ST DIVI ION fT WEAEN' ST W DA ST Q AYLOR ST TA CUD LOR ST OLVES RD SMI ST SE T YLOR ST _ .... K NDA L d - L ' P -ISKO LN w Q UFE ST Port Orchard Environmental Map W W S MILE HILL DF Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 45 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.8 Environment and Open Spaces Public Park • ' p� Natural Corridor �' ~ - — - Bike/Ped Path .v�9;•a A i O # aQ {{,��! e 4 Bay Street g Pedestrian Pathway � � �� ��t�� � .�. • J a 40, • S� ! A �d J Or e Ow f 11 S + KITSAP ST V' ° 4r ✓� I r A t ° `f A.-1;* pop ip �aeAr , R �i'a �6.�■s1p— �'A P� w> 9i' m ! I DEKALB ST Cz�, �� • w �� J `°$ _. �� 11 y ��Y a f ` .y a�R r r@9Rr��+■��'__ it iA • ...■�, 6-44 ■ */i 1 DWIGHTST . jpt p 'air No DIVISION ST .■ ° ro 1 ■ 0 I x Op 1r! ?; TAYLOR ST nrtl ; a I •� °e�v7� o+ _1� 1r ld� ��� Aft ------------ ■i L----------- w.'r • � I t — Ira v 16 7 All aA 9F o i !r, rm r a1's i !: - s R i ale k/ ,AIL n } * � # Parks and Natural Open Space Corridors n. t. s. Final: May 18, 2021 46 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The City of Port Orchard classification system consists of five shoreline environments that are contained in the recommended classification system identified in WAC 173- 26-211(5). The State's Shoreline Master Program Guidelines describe the purpose of environment designations in WAC 173-26-191(1(d)). Shoreline management must address a wide range of physical conditions and development settings along shoreline areas. Effective shoreline management requires that the Shoreline Master Program prescribe different sets of environmental protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development regulations for each shoreline segment. Assigning shoreline designations, each with different policies and regulatory measures, provides a regulatory framework for environmental protection and development depending on the development and resources present in specific areas. Please note, shoreline use and development determined by the Department and classified by the Administrator is regulated under one or more of the following applicable sections. SHORELINE DESIGNATION AND FLOOD ZONE The study area includes High Intensity and Urban Conservancy shoreline designations. In addition to the shoreline designations the study area has a history of flooding during high tides, king tides, and storm events. The prevalence of flooding events is expected to increase due to anticipated sea level rise. Legend WATLFRAL - URBAN GOHSERVAW Y HIGH INTENSITY SHORELINE RESIDENTLAL miss Shu-eIine- Segrneni 1 ineg Ppi1 OffVtO UGA EM Gty Bouwz y 10 wabE bo Iies Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 47 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 48 Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.9 Market Conditions Assessment A detailed study of Economic Profile and Capacity Analysis can be found in the Section 06 - Appendix under B - Heartland Economic Profile and Build -able Lands Analysis dated 6th June 2020. 2.9.1 Economic Profile POPULATION GROWTH • Current and Historical (Source: Washington OFM) *flag years with annexations • Foretasted (PSRC Forecasts) • Overall Port Orchard has added over 3,613 residents since 2010 • The City's growth rates was higher than other Kitsap County communities and the County in part due to annexations. FORETASTED POPULATION GROWTH • Currently available forecasts produced by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) call for an additional 7,146 residents in Port Orchard by 2040 • Neighboring Bremerton is anticipated to add more than 25,000 new residents during the same time period. DEMOGRAPHICS • Composition (family households vs non -family) • Housing tenure • Age • Gender • Race and ethnicity - Port Orchard's population is more racially diverse than Kitsap County - Port Orchard, Bremerton and Silverdale share similar levels of racial diversity. • Household income - Port Orchard has a median household income of over $70,000 - Port Orchard's median income is slightly lower than the median income for Kitsap County, but exceeds that of neighboring Bremerton. • Educational attainment - Over one-third (36%) of Port Orchard's population has college degree (Associates, Bachelors or Graduate/Professional). This is five percentage points below Kitsap County as a whole. - Just under 10% of the total population of Port Orchard has not graduated high school. This is higher than all the comparison geographies. HOUSING INVENTORY IN THE STUDY AREA (ASSESSOR) • Housing growth in the City • Number of housing units by Type (single, multifamily, mobile, group quarters) • Port orchard has added 1,379 housing units inclusive of annexations, since 2010, an average of over 150 units per year HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION • Port Orchard has the highest percentage of family households of the comparison geographies. • Family households make up to 68% of households in Port Orchard, which is slightly higher than Kitsap County • Non -family make up almost half of Bremerton household composition. • Single family housing is the predominant existing land use in the study area (38% of land) • Single family housing represents 62% of total housing inventory (by unit) • There are 742 housing units in the study area Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 49 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.2 Development Pipeline DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE The Map Below illustrate the development pipeline, representing projects that are known to be in planning or permitting stages of development. All parcels in the development pipeline were excluded in the gross build -able land area calculations in Step 1. s. -�. •A �YF,1,�X���YY�. 1 u•1��IL I S1idy A roa .11 „il�r Ptpeme l i �I Development Pipeline Final: May 18, 2021 50 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS KITSAP BANK CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Planning for the redevelopment of the existing Kitsap Bank Campus, to revitalize and create a sense of place on the Port Orchard waterfront. Design of the waterfront will capture beautiful views of the surrounding Puget Sound and Olympics. Elements of the redevelopment include a blend of public and private spaces; residential over commercial, office and community centers surrounded by parks and open waterfront spaces. Organic themes are drawn from the natural beauty of the site, incorporating warm woods, stone and natural materials into the architecture and landscape. Mitigation of stormwater is integral to landscape planning and incorporated into the overall site plan in functional and aesthetically pleasing design. The entire project is planned for phased redevelopment. �_ " -,"- . I Res , AM 429 BAY STREET The development of a mixed -use building located at 429 Bay Street consisting of 39 residential units, 500 square feet of commercial space with enclosed parking provided on the ground. COUNTY COURTHOUSE The purpose of the Kitsap County Campus Master Plan is to provide for the expansion of County facilities on the Port Orchard Campus over the next 40+ years. This Plan provides phased development scenarios to en -sure that the County has options for expansion and includes recommended zoning changes to facilitate this expansion. This Plan offers suggestions for design guidelines that the City and community may want to pursue in order to further shape future public and private development. JL.—.— J II' II IkilJ L_._.J LJL J _ I MWE I - a asto € r.Ty t M p I i it h i i � = J♦ 132 i.i. T.-1 LPARI—��RL07"E _. � I L_._.J L_I_vJJ � a-# - T --1 -1, _ .—. r --I— �'s E --A - � I I I L._. I L.-.1._ � I I I--- - -i I L.._.JT"-"-I I I I lif_j I i i i i i i Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 51 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.3 Exiting Buildable Lands The map below, highlight both the net vacant and redevelopable lands along with the planned development pipeline. These maps indicate where future development capacity is located within the Study Area. r 6r Capacity by Land Use Category I - e 1•• . �r F k 7rwfl rills JIrR r +� ic _ � IN•Iy.itlTr'-1iM1iF i Epp � 44, { '<' <. VacanURedaveloRabla I�Lo MIXED USE ZONECIVIVOPEN SPACEZONI< CCMMERGIALZONE RE$tGENTjALL C)NE Final: May 18, 2021 52 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS I$. ~ti6�1 rr L.... -A Q, Pr I f� P-3 ............ � i 0 7 SludyAre%d VaC.3nt-'Rede%-ef--Pzkb1LL m VI Capacity by Vacant and Redevelopable Land Ung Wiltum Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 53 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.3 Build -able Lands BUILDABLE LAIVU AKLra The gross buildable land area is the sum of all land area for all parcels meeting one or more of the criteria listed to the right. This does not include existing public right of way which accounts for approximately 85 acres of land within the Study Area. Certain parcels were excluded from this calculation to improve the accuracy of the analysis (see Parcel Exclusions). City of Port Orchard Review. In addition, the City of Port Orchard conducted a detailed review of the study area to inform designation of vacant and redevelopments parcels and to better reflect known parcel level conditions in the City. PARCEL EXCLUSIONS Properties with zero total assessed value were manually reviewed for ownership, land use and were visually inspected. Properties that were significantly improved or public facilities, including city owned beach -front parks, were excluded. All the parcels in the pipeline were also excluded including the current phased expansion of the County Courthouse. The development capacity in the pipeline is re -incorporated in Step 3c. Examples of Exclusions: • Government Services (Prop Class) • Parks (Prop Class) • Cemeteries • Educational Services • Utilities • Condominiums GROSS BUILDABLE LANDS CRITERIA VACANT Using data from the Kitsap County Assessor, this analysis identifies vacant parcels using the assessed values of the improvements. Lots with zero improvement value are then compared against other factors such ownership and property class descriptions to determine vacancy. UNDERUTILIZED Using Kitsap County Assessor data, this analysis calculates an improvement ratio by dividing the assessed improvement value by the total assessed value. This ratio of assessed improvement value to total assessed value is a commonly used indicator for a property's level of improvement. A ratio less than 0.5 indicates the land is worth more than the improvements. This analysis uses an improvement ratio of 0.5 as the threshold. Any parcels with an improvement ratio under this threshold are considered underutilized. SINGLE-FAMILY Any Single -Family use, as defined by assessor property class field, in a high -density base -zone, is deemed to be redevelopable. Final: May 18, 2021 54 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.4 Market Yield Assessment r-u LURE C.AVAC.1 I Y ANALYSIS Using the zoning assumptions and FAR ranges, the analysis leverages variation in development densities to simulate different market conditions impacting the range of capacity across the subarea. The three scenarios, presented to the right, reflect the following: > The impact of surface versus structured parking on capacity -- serving as a reflection of different market conditions (for example, structured parking would require more favorable market conditions). > The concentration of commercial development as a standalone product as well as a share of mixed -used developments. > The overall range of capacity within the subarea The tables on the following page (Exhibit 49-51) provide details on each scenario in terms of assumptions for the proportion of structured versus surface parking and the proportion of commercial uses in mixed -use development. A detailed breakdown of FAR assumptions by zone and scenario is provided in the appendix. Scenario 1: Baseline Capacity • Mostly residential development • Standalone commercial development only in commercial only zones. Some commercial incorporated into mixed -use developments • Majority surface parking meaning lower density development Scenario 2: High Capacity, Residential Heavy • Mostly residential development • Standalone commercial development only in commercial only zones. Some commercial incorporated into mixed -use developments. • Majority structured parking, meaning higher density development Scenario 3: High Capacity Commercial Heavy • More balanced mix of residential and commercial • Some standalone commercial development in mixed - use zones plus commercial development in commercial only zone. Increased commercial incorporated into mixed -use developments • Majority structured parking meaning higher density development Exhibit,49. FAR Allocation Assumed in Zones Permitting Commercial & Residential Building Forms for Each Scenario Commercial Only Residential Mixed -Use Structured Parking Surface Parking Below Grade Parking Surface Parking 1 -Baseline 0% 0% 25% 75% 2 - High Capacity, Res Heavy 0% 0% 75% 25% 3 - High Capacity, Comm Heavy 10% 10% 60% 20% Exhibit 50. FAR Allocation Assumed in Zones Permitting Only Commercial Building Forms for Each Scenario Commercial Only Structured Parking Surface Parking 1 - Ba5ellne 25 A 75% 2 - High_Capacity, Res Heavy _ 754E 25% 3 - High Capacity, Comm Heavy 70% 30% Exhibit 51. Corn mercial Use & Res Uses permitted Commercial Capacity Percent (%) Of Total By Base Zone • SCENARIO'S SCENARIO SCENAR103 NMU 5% 5% 24% CMU 25% 25% 40% dMU 25% 25% 40% GMU 25% 25% 40% BPMU 20% 20% 36% CC 25% 25% 40% CH 100% 100% 100% CI 100% 100% 100% Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 55 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.5 Baseline Assessment a%_F_1VHRIU 1 — DHJELINr- l..HrHl..l I i Net CATEGORYIZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity The Baseline Capacity scenario more closely reflects near (Acre) (SF) (5F) (units) term market conditions in Port Orchard. In this scenario CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 362,900 0 0 housing is the predominant highest and best use in mixed RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 use zones. In addition, a large majority of development is COMMERCIALZONES 2.6 92,100 0 0 assumed to be surfaced park, thus reducing overall densities MIXED USE 20.5 278,600 800,900 1,247 achieved. TOTAL with Pipeline 34.5 733,600 800,900 7,367 • Mostly residential development Pipeline 11.2 347,D00 NA 246 Total without Pipeline 233.3 386,600 8o0900 1,121 • Standalone commercial development only in zones prohibiting residential building form. Scenario 2 Table • Some commercial incorporated into mixed use developments. SCENARIO 3 - MIXED -USE FOCUS • Majority surface parking meaning lower density The High Capacity, Commercial Heavy capacity scenario development. reflects more favorable economic conditions in Port Orchard and broader Kitsap market area, with an emphasis Net on commercial and office development. In this scenario CATEGORYIZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential a significant share of development in mixed use zones Area Capacity Capacity Capacity is assumed to be commercial. As in Scenario 2, a larger (Acre) (SF) (SFJ (Units) proportion of development is assumed to incorporate CIVICANDOPENSPACE 3.5 351,400 0 0 structured parking, thus increasing overall densities achieved. RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 • More balanced mix of residential and commercial COMMERCIALZONES 2.6 65,200 0 0 MIXED USE 20.5 206,200 566,200 954 • Some standalone commercial development in mixed TOTAL with Pipeline 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 use zones plus commercial development in commercial PipeNne 11.2 341006 NA 246 only zone. Increased commercial incorporated into Total without Pipeline 2.3.3 275,806 566206 828 mixed use developments. • Majority structured parking meaning higher density development Scenario 1 Table SCENARIO 2 - RESIDENTIAL FOCUS CATEGORYIZONE Net Developable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity The High Capacity ,Residential Heavy capacity scenario (Acre) (5F) (SF) Wmts) reflects more favorable economic conditions in Port Orchard CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 361,800 0 0 and the broader Kitsap County market area. In this scenario RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 housing is still the predominant highest and best use in mixed COMMERCIALZONES 2.6 89,400 0 0 use zones. Alternatively, a larger proportion of development MIXED USE 20.5 418,200 596,155 991 is assumed to incorporate structured parking, thus increasing TOTAL with Pipeline 34.5 869,400 596,155 1,111 overall densities achieved. Pipeline 11.2 347000 NA 246 • Mostly residential development Total without Fipeline 23.3 522,400 596155 865 • Standalone commercial development only in commercial only zones. Some commercial incorporated Scenario 3 Table into mixed use developments. • Majority structured parking meaning higher density developments Final: May 18, 2021 56 SECTION 02 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Development Scenarios with Subarea Plan Recommendations Study Area (acres) Commercial (square footage) Residential (square footage) Residential (units) Existing 329 761,645 n/a 742 *Note: All scenarios include assumed development pipeline projects. EXISTING ACTIVITY UNITS Development Total Covered Residen- Activity Activity Units Activity Units Scenarios Population Employment tial Units Units/Acre Dedicated to Dedicated to Housing Employment Existing 1,806 2,150 742 12 46% 54% • Population, employment and existing activity units provided by PSRC. • Activity units calculated as total population + employment / 329 acres Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 57 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 3 Subarea Plan Goals and Vision and Alternatives Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 03 1 VISION AND ALTERNATIVES INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final: May 18, 2021 SECTION 03 1 VISION AND ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Proposed Alternatives Approach The proposed design concepts are a single vision for achieving the broader goals outlined in this subarea plan. In the downtown areas, this includes promoting a vibrant walkable community that showcases the City's waterfront. In the County Government Campus planning area and the uphill neighborhood the plan incorporates planned expansion at the county campus, provides development flexibility along the Sidney and Cline arterials, and preserves residential areas throughout most of the neighborhood. Due to existing neighborhood constraints and the absence of large tracts of developable land the alternatives are based on a single concept plan. The distinction between each alternative is whether the assumed program of future development will consist primarily residential and standalone commercial or if it will have greater vertical mixed -use development. Alternatives Alternative 1 -No Action No action would be taken to adopt new development policies. The existing Downtown and County Campus Centers would each be retained in their present configurations; no combination or expansion of these subareas would take place; no changes to zoning or other land use regulations would be made. The capacity assumed in this alternative assumes that development will still occur, but at a density similar to existing conditions with very limited structured or below -grade parking. Alternative 2 - Residential Focus This alternative assumes a mostly residential development with commercial development only occurring in standalone buildings in nonresidential zones. The maximum building height and densities would see limited increases in locations with minimal view impacts. The alternative assumes a greater mix of structured parking to achieve greater density than the existing baseline development patterns. Potential zoning changes would focus on increasing residential capacity in existing commercial zones. Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus This alternative assumes an increase in mixed -use residential, commercial retail, and office development. The maximum building height and densities would see limited increases in locations with minimal view impacts. The alternative assumes greater mix of structured parking to achieve greater density than the existing baseline development patterns. Potential zoning changes would focus on increasing residential capacity in both existing commercial and residential zones. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 59 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION BASELINE ALTERNATIVE 3 - MIXED -USE FOCUS Net Net CATEGORY/ZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential CATEGORY/ZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (Acre) (SF) (SF) (Units) (Acre) (SF) (SF) (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 351,400 0 0 CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 361,800 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.9 0 UKN 120 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.0 0 UKN 102 COMMERCIAL ZONES 2.6 65,200 0 0 COMMERCIAL ZONES 0.0 0 0 0 MIXED USE 20.5 206,200 566,200 954 MIXED USE 24.8 486,800 752,283 1,186 TOTAL with ipe me 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 T TAL with Pipeline 35.4 848,600 752,283 1,288 Pipeline 11.2 347,000 NA 246 Pipeline 11.2 347,000 NA 246 Total without Pipeline 23.3 275,800 566,200 828 Total without Pipeline 24.2 501,600 752,283 1,042 ALTERNATIVE 2 - RESIDENTIAL FOCUS Net CATEGORY/ZONE Devlopable Commercial Residential Residential Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (Acre) (SF) (SF) (Units) CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE 3.5 362,900 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ZONES 7.0 0 UKN 102 COMMERCIAL ZONES 0.0 0 0 0 MIXED USE 24.8 310,600 1,010,100 1,509 TOTAL with Pipeline 35.4 673,500 1,010,100 1,610 Pipeline 11.2 347,000 NA 246 Total without Pipeline 24.2 326,500 1,010,100 1,364 Summary of Changes from Buildable Lands Baseline Capacity Analysis • Proposed land use changes including: proposed zoning changes and height increases. • Additional buildable land assumptions due to zoning changes and assume redevelopment areas. See updated buildable lands map in section 3.3. • Proposed required parking modifications. Ref: Document of City of Port Orchard Downtown Subarea Plan - Economic Profile and Capacity Analysis prepared by Heartland Group, May 14th, 2020 Final: May 18, 2021 60 ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON Development Scenarios with Net Developable Commercial Residential Residential Subarea Plan Recommendations Area Capacity Capacity Capacity (acres) (square feet) (square feet) (units) Existing - 761,645 n/a 742 Alternative 1 - No Action 34.5 622,800 566,200 1,074 Alternative 2 - Residential Focus 35.4 673,800 1,010,100 1,610 Alternative 3 - Mixed -Use Focus 35.4 848,600 752,283 1,288 *Note All scenarios include assumed development pipeline projects. Alternatives show new proposed development ACTIVITY UNITS SUMMARY Development Scenarios Total Population Covered Employment Residential Units Activity Units/Acre Activity Units Dedicated to Housing Activity Units Dedicated to Employment Existing 1,806 2,150 742 12 46% 54% Alternative 1 4,051 3,396 1,074 23 54% 46% Alternative 2 4,663 3,617 1,610 26 60% 40% Alternative 3 4,128 3,889 1,288 25 540o 46% • Total Population assumes 2.09 persons per unit per Washington's Office Financial Management 2020. • Employment assumed 1 employee per 500 sf of commercial development. • Activity units calculated as total population + employment / 329 acres Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 61 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.1 West Downtown Planning Area ". Imlljtu ., I It Im REDEVELOPMENT AREA West Downtown is Port Orchard's current and historical Potential Shoreline cultural, civic, and recreational hub of the community. The Restoration area includes a mix of land uses, including Port Orchard's City Hall and public library, numerous retail and service businesses, a marina and ferry dock, public parking, and a Pedestrian Plaza waterfront park and trail. With access from the water and from Bay Street to from state highways 3 and 16, it remains the City's primary the waterfront center for community events and activities. Anticipated future development includes the South Kitsap Community Events Traffic Center and a new Kitsap Bank headquarters as part of a Calming larger mixed -use development. The concept plan works to balance historic preservation, environmental restoration, and i` economic improvement. ,2 Potential Stream Daylighting ['41 Potential Stream Daylighting .N r s 0 East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram I Surface, Parking IV A. Pedestrian Hill Climb to Prospect Street Final: May 18, 2021 62 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Two-way traffic at Passenger Ferry Frederick Ave New slow waterfront Terminate Streets at the ..shared street" to create waterfront with a small plaza, front doors on Sinclair Inlet overlook, or pocket park A girl 1-0 ir, 77 A. 9 rn 1. Su ace U) �j Pa ki Lo di g/ P rki g rr, ■ 5 byee f-�o 0 c\ W 0 ILEGEND RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) 0 -C RESIDENTIAL/ MIXED USE 0 -0 (Preferred Front Orientation) rn COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) Z EKALB ST OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE (Preferred Front Orientation) CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING I L F EXISTING PIPED STREAM A) N 1 200, Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan 1 Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 63 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Community Events Center F6M 'iO5 0 Residential Mixed Use I.� East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan C. a � w m Roof Deck j Carnmercial Office i ii ' Residential i Mixed Use t ,j R ti Final: May 18, 2021 64 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Key OBay Street corridor design and frontage improvements Consolidate curb cuts where © feasible to improve pedestrian safety © Waterfront plaza / overlook OKayak launc dock © Proposed Hill Climb Traffic c Iming / specialty Opaving a�t Crosswalk to Orchard Street Pl za ancI viewpoint 0 Waterfront pe space Street improvements ©Frederick and conversion to two-way traffic OTrail Improvements New waterfront pedestrian oriented share street Street termination plaza andQD overlook LEGEND RESIDENTIAL i _ _ J (Preferred Front Orientation) ' RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE i (Preferred Front Orientation) ' COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) ' OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE i (Preferred Front Orientation) -CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) i i SURFACE PARKING EXISTING PIPED STREAM N (i) 1 = 100, Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 65 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.2 East Downtown Planning Area r L/YIV IVLV r_.._._ R ED EVE LOPMENT AREA The East Downtown is geographically separated from the West Downtown and was developed later with a more auto - centric development pattern. This area includes a mix of commercial uses primarily on larger parcels fronting Bay Street or Bethel Ave. WSDOT is currently in the process of redesigning the Bay and Bethel intersection to replace the current signal with a new round -about. The concept plan strives to break -down the scale of existing large sites to provide a more walkable land -use pattern. Large surface parking lots and many vacant properties provide an opportunity for new economic development more reminiscent of the existing historic development character of West Downtown. East Downtown - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram "Finer Grain" mixed -use development oriented toward Sinclair Inlet that reinforces views to the water. Final: May 18, 2021 66 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN e -\ i' ✓ ,' Extend Mitchell Corridor !n ,� to terminate at the waterfront P= N� Ilk SOO—h 5 is �v \aerie ab\e Vbe \,Ooc\ Ne`g, 1 i I 1 }} LEGEND — RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) — ' RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE w i (Preferred Front Orientation) — ' COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Preferred Front Orientation) OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE (Preferred Front Orientation) CIVIC (Preferred Front Orientation) OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING 0 �-- - - - EXISTING PIPED STREAM N (i) 1 " = 200' Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 67 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.2.3 County Government Campus Planning Area r ". NNED At., i i�,m REDEVELOPMENT AREA The Kitsap County Government campus is Port Orchard's largest employer. The Port Orchard Blvd and Blackjack Creek valleys, along with the historic steep shoreline isolates this part of the Center from Downtown and inhibits accessible pedestrian connections. Sidney and Cline Ave act as neighborhood arterials providing vehicle and transit access between Highway 16 and the downtown. Kitsap County is currently developing a phased development for the expansion of County facilities within the City of Port Orchard over the next 40 years. The County Campus expansion is currently anticipated to occur over five phases. The anticipated scope of development was included within the pipeline projects analyzed as part of this plan. The subarea plan encourages development to occur along the existing Sidney and Cline arterial corridors. Neighborhood mixed -use zoning is proposed to be expanded across the street from the County Campus to provide a buffer or transition between the County Government Campus and established single-family neighborhoods. Note that neighborhood mixed -use allows for both single family and small-scale or less intense commercial uses. Existing County Government Campus Final: May 18, 2021 68 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN I - Ali' , _ esva ood y - 4■ �fii�1 a r County Campus ( oExpansion a, ;.� p -v -6 ,I�( �_ � � � _ _� iJ■�I� i ' � 90 li �� - t /I 1� �?il�i//tftl Jl� �� �I Encourage development _ _ along the existing Sidney . and Cline corridors. I _ I t C I 7 1 _ i - LEGEND RESIDENTIAL (Preferred Front Orientation) ii w1iu- r 1 RESIDENTIAL / MIXED USE 4I (Preferred Front Orientation) l f COMMERCIAL/RETAIL ■ r J - (Preferred Front Orientation) /� �� OFFICE / OFFICE MIXED -USE �r i T A �, ■ i � � �� ' � � ���a � ��;�� (Preferred Front Orientation) �„ v 6 ooa �- _ �, CIVIC �\e mot I (Preferred Front Orientation) Spa ��� t . �,�t,�, t _ ■ �e OPEN SPACE (Park, plaza, or other) SURFACE PARKING 1 u��I�` ti� ��� ■ ■ .� EXISTING PIPED STREAM Kitsap County Government Campus Planning Area - Redevelopment Concept Plan Diagram (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 69 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.3 Land Use and Housing LAND USE INTK jDUCTION The primary land use designations within the study area is medium -density residential and Commercial Mixed - use, however the study area includes nearly all zoning designations. The study are also includes two large public facilities campuses, the Kitsap County Campus and South Kitsap High School. Within the individual study areas the West Downtown contains the historic City main -street. LAND USE AND HOUSING GOALS Goal LUH - 01 Develop a land use pattern that is environmentally sustainable and economically vibrant and accommodates additional housing and businesses. Goal LUH - 02 Encourage increased development in the center and along existing primary circulation corridors to create vibrant walkable neighborhoods. Goal LUH - 03 Ensure that proposed new development largely maintains existing views. Goal LUH - 04 Transform the existing East Downtown from a largely car dominant development pattern to an extension of the existing walkable downtown West Downtown area. Goal LUH - 05 Ensure that future residential development protects and restores natural ecosystems and critical areas, including wetlands, streams and wildlife habitats. LAND USE POLICIES Policy LUH - 01 Revise the existing Comprehensive Plan Center boundaries to establish a new Downtown Center that reflects this subarea plan boundary. Policy LUH - 02 Rezone parcels along Cline and Sidney Avenue from R2 to Neighborhood Mixed -use to provide a moderate increase in development and provide a transition to the residential zones. Policy LUH - 03 Extend the varied block frontage designation along Cline Street from Kitsap Street to Kendall Street. Policy LUH - 04 Revise frontage requirements along the new waterfront street and in the East Downtown to reflect the proposed concept design plan. Policy LUH - 05 Rezone the Commercial Heavy Parcels in the East Downtown to Commercial Mixed -use (CMU). Policy LUH - 06 Rezone the Commercial Mixed -use Parcels on the east side of Bethel between Dekalb Street to Mile Hill Drive from Commercial Mixed -use (CMU) Corridor to Gateway Mixed -use (GMU). Policy LUH - 07 Allow for buildings up to 5-stories on the east side of Bethel between Dekalb Street to Mile Hill Drive. Policy LUH - 08 Modify the Downtown Height Overlay District as follows: • Allow the building height for new development along Bay Street to be measured from the future road elevation consistent with Sea level rise contemplated in the Shoreline Master Plan. • Amend 20.38.640 (1) as follows: (1) DHOD Height Zones Established. Within the DHOD as shown on the zoning map, there are three different DHOD height zones with height limits established as follows: (a) DHOD 3: 48 feet - three stories. (b) DHOD 4: 58 feet - four stories. (c) DHOD 5: 68 feet - five stories. • Amend the height along the block south of Bay Street between Robert Geiger and Frederick to allow 5 stories except within 50 feet of Robert Geiger Street which shall be limited to 4 stories. Policy LUH - 09 Add an exemption to 20.35.040 to allow the minimum build -to percentage to be decreased (1) if a public pedestrian -oriented open space is provided, if the reduction is no more than what is needed to accommodate the open space, or (2) for public civic buildings (such as a community center or library). Policy LUH - 10 Support the acquisitions by the County of the needed parcels to implement the county campus expansion plan. Final: May 18, 2021 70 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN vSpFCT KITSAP 4��� •- W W U DEKALB 0 (n DWIGHT DIVISION J Q U O TAYLOR ti O a SMITH KENDALL SROUFE Subarea Plan Boundary ; f .lvz" . J 2� �O U- S °11v Z (n W O ' �v 1 [if Q �� w DEKALB Q W. = N _ U TAYLOR PLISKO MILE HILL �N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 71 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND � STOREFRONT VARIED 4% ri LANDSCAPED MARINE GATEWAY TRAIL �• ° ce Q HIGH VISIBILITY CORNER ',' ¢ • + Note: Dashed lines indicate' conceptual planned streets or trailsp • ,� c. �7� v� ti owl Oc dill ROSp � �t � � n � • Peg � / .. w .�' + « � . � / o % FCT D7N f l ,}A: ,+c � • ; 7 +F � ie of r s;�.'� �"M �' `" 'i � ""a.,� v " KITSAP T • r A z z O rDEKALB 0 Q w �U DEKALR16 DWIGHT a� �. MONK— t �r 0 IVISIN fie a !`[� pi[Y ■ a r'+ � O TAYL �.ir r� r �•in®fay' Qf 9t ■! SMITH rs 19_& "���� : r s� �� ® d TAILOR KENDALL PLISKO 16 _ ".�, lk P.M, :' MILE HIL 161 SROUFE dq go _ •-�aw..l �I Existing Block Frontage Plan Final: May 18, 2021 72 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND STOREFRONT VARIED LANDSCAPED MARINE GATEWAY TRAIL Q HIGH VISIBILITY CORNER Note: Dashed lines indicate conceptual planned streets or trails a �♦ Q � 6 � +^ �211J , 1111ELW •i���� +++ 1 . �1 DaPy PTO Q CJ �Gay N v � o f KITSAP � °�:. �e� ■ „ � iia ®. , �'° _ r v- �� s r,.�..� , ° �� `� is : -- `�� z w O J �v i z U DEKALB � Q ar , w DEKALR VW ! DWIGHT r�--fir ye + _. !`i 1 � ,a� ■ ! J df 16 �i r � 4. o y, ■ if V IISIbN O !y TAYLOR «� i O SMITH 6 1rm _JAILOR - — KENDALL PLISKO '1 tl� , MILE HIL e V, rim' — SROUFEI' al (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 73 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR(CC) ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) GREENBELT (GB) PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) PUBLIC FACILITY(PF) CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) ® DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) RESIDENTIAL (R1) RESIDENTIAL 2 (R2) RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) ® GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU) r-� w, Bq Y 4 . 10%SP ■ • KITSAP ®' Ali �■ j9 t,. ■ rLIJ ■ O■ Div ��.-. '/f� KALBo 16 DWIGHT # '� AwlMOP JL �• w r O I +■ r- IVISI N r■i �,� ■ , 1 ,1� w+e i �O 1 ■ • TAYL 7 iiL ■ 1 1 SMITH +_ s � N ; ■ r so DALL ■ ■1 % f rJ.' L !� ■I �� >L ! • ,•ri OUFE r I f .. ■ Existing Zoning Map m af, tr It MILE HILL '° 0 Final: May 18, 2021 74 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND (R2) ® BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL MIXED USE (BPMU) COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) ® COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU) GREENBELT (GB) PARKS AND RECREATION (PR) PUBLIC FACILITY(PF) CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (CI) ,r 0 DOWNTOWN MIXED USE (DMU) 0 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE (NMU) * ++ e RESIDENTIAL (R1) RESIDENTIAL 2 *+ + RCommercial Heavy to Okb RESIDENTIAL 3 (R3) Commercial Mixed -use RESIDENTIAL 4 (R4) I' 4�' r6 * , COMMERCIAL HEAVY (CH) 2,► ® GATEWAY MIXED USE (GMU)prX" 4�� # - Note: Changed are outlined in black dashed line. c,1�# Az , • , ON/ I .. . . +�f � #y/d � # �� � � mow* �'*` ' r'" • � # +� � � J F ; Nib _ ,' ,' �. � Commercial Heavy and =3 Illnz}4 +J91N.6J1 r#w w� } , ' "•�• ,' Commercial Mixed use r * r:z@+;owl --*—�•* T� `�w to Gateway Mixed use ALB- 0_ + + w DALES 4 if DWIGHT «i tii M . ` 5� *pM ::� ir 41 0 IVISI1N dki 'S + ll •� 7 4 Cie d ,'f• FOL '' f � Residential 2 to i ; r MILE HILL Neighborhood r 1P -Br a Mixed -use rp UFE dkh ir R lot lill Via. 1 ir ;1 ar ,tom Proposed Zoning Map Adjustments a110 r % Encourage development along existing neighborhood arterial corridors. Provide a buffer from commercial to residential areas and preserve established single family neighborhoods. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 05.06.2021 75 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT 116 wal *lop ' �PMr 7' �MR-0 Ott Ivisilp P. no. . AV y'� t I ' ! r • ITAY t IL i� ��1 __ I 1 ■ 1 I I `I ` I .. i 1 W. �Mftldi. r . r I or atJAY LOR IL KE'NDA '* w _7L PLISKO ■ 1 q r MILE HILL ■ 1 , y, ►, I —wi Sma RO sFE + ` t.. 0-4 Ar K + al JOL A, — Y , t", ."t 1 Existing Height Overlay Map Final: May 18, 2021 76 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN LEGEND DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT DHOD 3 DHOD 4 DHOD 5 VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT Note: Changed are outlined. Change to DHOD 5 4 stories within 50 feet of Robert Geiger Street. ?> - �..- .•r r F/ o M AL~no IV "IVISIIN49 � ■ . Eva ■.4 ■ ff10 ce Q a I -. J+O ITAY ■Iq.• ? # -.I IL 13% vp ad ,SMITH r ` Iop _KEIVDALL i L r� Sri � � ■� S.RiOOFE rl I "■ -� , r • am Proposed Height Overlay Map Adjustments -V K■ . r— 411, 7tenl[71tOD 5 j r •' v I __ ,spar d% fil V TAYLQ13_ .r Ilk PLISKO - t� MILE HILL Mb Al al'a ■ VL .+■ 1 Encourage development height increases in locations that do not impact existing protected views. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 77 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN �I w *, e a q+' e s .. N 6 4. 4+ � o- o- e � � 4? r ST F . °car o/, 40 *q ILu ^ 1 !'JfJ� '� a F■ 2 Jf N : lJ � � �...jj-R 1�.:i I b' ! r a �WIGHT" 110 I .-No- �f 1 OF m 0 1G VISI !� � �M . f .� � ff �,d .if;;� • 1 � i 9 �] + r__ _ _■ ■ Qf U p ti I b � -K.. , r MILE HILL r40 Ir I a s aA Kr ! Existing Buildable Lands or Potential Infill Development Map Pipeline Project © Vacant/ Redevelopable Single Family in Higher Density Vacant Underutilized Study Area Final: May 18, 2021 78 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN TAYLOR SMITH a - ■ ♦ 7 4 4M ■m ■ p r op MILE HILL ♦ IF +L. r lira An Updated Build -able Lands or Potential Infill Development Map that incorporates additional lands that were added due to zoning changes or anticipated development included in the subarea plan. (�N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 79 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.4 Environment and Open Space ENVIk,jNMENT ANu urtiv Jr.,CE OVERVIEW In addition to multiple public parks the defining Environment and Open Space features in the study area includes the shoreline along Sinclair inlet and numerous historic creek valleys. The existing waterfront includes large tracts of surface parking developed prior to the adoption of the Shoreline Management Act. Environment and Open Space goals strive to both enhance the environment and the public realm for City residents and guests. ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE GOALS Goal EOS - 01 Provide improved public shoreline access and recreational opportunities at the waterfront. The Port Orchard waterfront offers excellent recreational opportunities for fishing, beach walking, wildlife viewing, kayaking and paddle boarding, and more. Goal EOS - 02 Plan for resiliency and to mitigate flooding during high - tides and as a result of sea -level rise identified in, "PO SMP Sea Level Rise Advisement Report 10-2-2020." Goal EOS - 03 Consider opportunities to incorporate new open space within required shoreline buffers such that they can serve dual -purposes. (For example refer to Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Concept for existing Blackjack Creek Outlet) Goal EOS - 04 Improve safety and security along existing open spaces and around Blackjack Creek. Goal EOS - 05 Protect, enhance and maintain the values and functions of Port Orchard's natural areas, open spaces, and critical areas. Goal EOS - Ob Consider and support opportunities for restoration including but not limited to shoreline riparian areas, barrier culverts, storm water, etc. Goal EOS - 07 In redevelopment of parking areas encourage the use LID and innovative approaches, such as raingardens and bioswales, where site conditions allow to reduce runoff and protect water quality, including consideration of underground parking areas (including under new or redeveloped buildings) where feasible to reduce impervious footprint. Goal EOS - 08 Support the restoration of existing streams including Blackjack Creek, a high priority salmon and steelhead watershed in the West Sound region and consider options for removal of artificial fill to improve estuarine habitat at the mouth of Blackjack Creek. 1Vi 411. Conceptual Waterfront Plaza and kayak launch at Port Street "M Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Concept for existing Blackjack Creek Outlet ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE POLICIES Policy EOS - 01 Encourage the future replacement of existing shoreline armoring that allows for pedestrians access to the water. (For example refer to Shoreline Armor with Water Access Final: May 18, 2021 80 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Concept for the West Downtown waterfront) Policy EOS - 02 Encourage the creation of a public kayak launch dock. Policy EOS - 03 Where road ends terminate at the waterfront, they should incorporate a public plaza, overlook, or pocket park. Improvements should also consider shoreline habitat improvements and enhancements, including potential removal of hard armor and fill to establish "pocket beach" parks. Policy EOS - 04 Convert Orchard and Port Streets to pedestrian plazas with limited vehicle access. Policy EOS - 05 To enhance shoreline ecological functions in the subarea, Dry season the City shall emphasize the importance of the following Eli actions: planting riparian vegetation, especially trees, that naturally stabilize banks and shade the intertidal zone; removing hard armor where feasible; replacing hard armor with soft bank protection where feasible; reducing the footprint of hard armor (like revetments) and lLi3 FLwd gpa�n replacing with lower footprint alternatives (like vertical bulkheads pulled landward) where feasible; improving stormwater and wastewater treatment; daylighting piped stream channels; and restoring buffers for both marine and freshwater habitats. Pulling armor landward will improve access to beaches at higher tides. Policy EOS - 09 As development occurs the City will issue a notice to the local tribe on a project by project basis to allow for review and comment regarding significant developments with potential impacts to cultural and Tribal treaty natural resources. Policy EOS - Ob Support the expansion of Etta Turner Park to include a riparian buffer with bio-retention from adjacent development. Policy EOS - 07 Support shoreline restoration and consider the creation of new open space at the Blackjack Creek Estuary and Etta Turner Park. Restoration shall study the removal of artificial fill to improve estuarine habitat. Design shall work with Etta Turner Park to frame the Blackjack Creek corridor from Bay Street to the Sinclair Inlet and should focus on estuary restoration. Policy EOS - 08 Support efforts to acquire property for conservation and provide mitigation in and around the Blackjack Creek estuary. Stormwater buffer with pedestrian boardwalk Urban waterfront parkscape. Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 81 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST Funding No. Project Name Description Agency Cost Source Port Orchard Blvd The historic creek that previously existing t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Estuary at the location of Port Orchard Blvd is now OCreek Restoration piped to its terminus at Sinclair Inlet. The plan encourages estuary restoration at the outflow of this creek. Port Orchard Boat The historic creek that originates near the t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Launch Estuary County Government Campus is currently Restoration piped from approximately Austin Ave to © its outfall east of the boat launch. The plan encourages the creek to be daylit west of intersection of Bay and Robert Geiger Streets with estuary restoration at Sinclair inlet. Port Street Shared Port Street is proposed to be transformed to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Viewpoint, and a pedestrian plaza or shared street to provide ©Plaza, Shoreline Restoration pedestrian access and views to Sinclair Inlet. The plaza should terminate with a viewing plaza with potential access to the water. Orchard Street Plaza Orchard Street is proposed to be transformed t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. and viewpoint to a pedestrian plaza or shared street to provide pedestrian access and views to O Sinclair Inlet. The existing elevated viewing deck and pump station at the terminus of this corridor will be replaced with an at grade viewing plaza. Kayak Launch A publicly accessibly kayak launch dock is t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © proposed near the location of the former pier north of Port Street. Prospect Street Hill The redevelopment of the parcels located at n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. Climb the corner of Bay Street are encouraged to 0 include a publicly accessibly hill climb from Prospect Street to Bay Street. The hill climb should align with either Port Street or Orchard Street. Bay Street Pedestrian Widen the existing Bay Street Pedestrian Path t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Path Enhancements from Port Orchard BLVD to the Downtown Port Orchard Ferry Terminal to provide O multi -model access and meet existing design standards. Improvements may include viewpoints and street terminations and new landscape amenities and furniture. Blackjack Creek Provide a new waterfront park on the City t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Estuary Park and Etta parcel along the west side of Blackjack Creek Turner Park expansion and expand Etta Turner Park to provide an Q and enhancements expanded riparian buffer. These parks should include natural features and wildlife habitat. Incorporate wetland boardwalks, provided that they can comply with shoreline mitigation requirements. Waterfront shoreline New development should provide waterfront t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. enhancement shoreline restoration at the current auto 0 dealership and the Westbay center sites in compliance with requirements contained within the City SMP and the State SMA. Final: iviay 18, 2u21 82 t !� I►a f 4 i► �/ i IsT, � j. WA r - � ElIll dip ":y .Yr`�'•I ".!ki ■ti IqI pipli " �rL(II106 '_.� !;� it T■��l�,„ ����.: �' ��;• I �i� —�I I�,r—I■� a*I a- _ Y L f- --a s � r - _� �� afijp l �I:� II ��I—F J _ — — it I411 1 �f .7 I1 T•� �����I I16111T ■�I■,I L- �yEI _ _ oil 61 - - - r j ■ IV ■ ■11�t; L III _7.411111411111 In r I'y01 II I• -- — r —�--�� •�� T �� — I. li11 Ili — ' imr �. T� iraa,_. u� I � I I I I I I, +l� I 3'�- I�i Y-ji it II }'■ � I I�I i I I n I .� I F.L�J I. _ — .A ATO lei I�� ■I 1 II --— — --� r �:Z ■ •� r �I - -- ��CS . I - I - ��I +I — �I- ��� ��•-� III- �- �-�I I� ��� 7 �I Ir-� t� ,tom ; �i•� I j ■ �� I. t �W� -- — ��` EWjI As ir �ER RR Environment and open space Proposed Project List (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 83 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN 3.5 Circulation, Access, and Parking CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING OVERVIEW Downtown Port Orchard contains a well established transportation network centered on Bay Street, and Bethel Ave. Mitchell Street, Cline Ave, and Sidney Ave. These are primary minor arterials from uphill neighborhoods to the waterfront. The Downtown walk-on ferry terminal provides service to Bremerton with connections to Seattle. Improvements envisioned as part of the development include orienting new development toward the water and improving pedestrian access throughout the area. CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING GOALS Goal CAP - 01 Improve Bay and Bethel corridors such that they are safer for all users and that they define a place rather than act as just a highway. Goal CAP - 02 Ensure that adequate parking is available to support the marina and allow for downtown businesses to thrive while promoting a walkable main -street character. Goal CAP - 03 Encourage development in the West downtown to face the waterfront and Bay Street Goal CAP - 04 Provide improved pedestrian circulation within the West Downtown between the waterfront and Prospect Street. Goal CAP - 05 Transform the existing East Downtown from a largely car dominant development pattern to an extension of the existing walkable downtown West Downtown area. Goal CAP - Ob Discourage new development from locating parking between new development and the waterfront. Goal CAP - 07 Encourage the replacement of the existing Bay Street sidewalk marquee. Goal CAP - 08 Encourage new development to be oriented perpendicular to Sinclare Inlet to frame views toward the waterfront. CIRCULATION, ACCESS, AND PARKING POLICIES Policy CAP - 01 Develop a corridor design plan for Bay Street between Port Orchard Blvd and the eastern terminus of the Study area, and for Bethel Ave between Bay Street and SE Mill Hill Dr. The corridor plan shall address elements such as multi -modal circulation, frontage design and improvements, and bike and pedestrian safety improvements. The plan shall accommodate raising the elevation of Bay Street in response to the City's Sea Level Rise Study referenced in the 2021 SMP Update. Work with WSDOT to explore opportunities for potential traffic calming measures. Policy CAP - 02 Where appropriate, encourage urban low impact development stormwater management features in the roadway design, such as bio-swales between the on - street parking lanes and sidewalks. Policy CAP - 03 Phase out all -day commuter parking in the West Downtown to support parking for downtown businesses. Policy CAP - 04 Support Kitsap Transit to study the feasibility and need of adding additional park and ride facilities away from the downtown waterfront to serves ferry riders. Policy CAP - 05 Create a new waterfront street from Harrison Ave to Fredrick Ave that includes parking, sidewalks, and landscape improvements and accommodates ferry transit drop-offs. Policy CAP - Ob Support the reconfiguration of the marina parking lot to increase parking and improve multi -modal circulation from Bay Street to the waterfront. Policy CAP - 07 Include a hill -climb from Bay Street to Prospect Street aligned with either Orchard Ave or Port Street. Policy CAP - 08 Redesign Orchard and Port Street to pedestrian plazas with limited vehicle access. Policy CAP - 09 Convert Fredrick Ave to a two-way street with parallel Final: May 18, 2021 84 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN parking on each side or widen street for angled parking. Policy CAP - 10 Encourage the creation of a loop street or private access drive to break down the scale of the auto -dealership site, provide waterfront access, and provide additional on - street parking. Policy CAP - 11 Extend Mitchell Ave north across Bay Street as a new private access drive to terminate at the waterfront. Policy CAP - 12 Provide new frontage improvements, including parallel parking and sidewalks on both sides of Harrison Ave. At least one of the sidewalks should extend to the waterfront. Policy CAP - 13 Modify residential parking requirements in all zones to be consistent with the current DMU parking requirements of one stall per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. Consider establishing a maximum number of parking stalls allowed and allowing for further reductions when located near transit. Policy CAP - 14 Vacate Harrison Street R.O.W. between Bay Street and Prospect Alley. Policy CAP - 15 The Bay Street corridor plan frontage design standards shall include design standards for the removal of the existing sidewalk marquee. The marquee should be replaced with new overhead protection weather protection that is incorporated with the structure of new development. Policy CAP - 16 Revise the Shoreline Master Program to discourage parking along the waterfront. Policy CAP - 17 Expand POMC 20.124.130(1) to apply to all DMU zones in the in the east and west downtown. Policy CAP - 18 Revise POMC 20.124.130(3) to exempt public civic buildings (such as a community center or library). Policy CAP - 19 Allow for required parking to be met with an off -site shared parking agreement. Policy CAP - 20 Require that any new development or Level III improvements as defined in POMC 20.127.020, shall provide street frontage improvements consistent with City design requirements. a + '�N -Y Y !�I�fAf�il�r �Yi�+� 1 � �T lif � _• { �.� ��..7 Encouraged Low -impact Stormwater management such as street front bioswales. Conceptual Woonerf or shared Street Concept Image Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 85 Fir t,a rimer :dam„'F� ,�_ r• tirc -iyEF ram.- en _� - �#'� ,,. - fIM, w . jI, }fir Nam", y7 pi I'` '. eY kq :. ,'n x�ri: � r SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN Conceptual Street Section Key Plan Street Cross -Section A -A I New Waterfront Street Between Frederick and Sidney Ave (Looking West) Street Cross -Section B-B I New Waterfront Street Between Sidney and Harrison Ave (Looking West) Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 87 SECTION 03 1 SUBAREA PLAN ENVIRONMENT AND OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST Funding No. Project Name Description Agency Cost Source Bay St /Port Orchard Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. O Blvd Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Bay St / Cline Ave Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Fredrick Ave Convert Fredrick Ave to two-way traffic to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Improvements serve the marina and the new waterfront © street. Include frontage improvements and explore street expansion to maintain angled parking. O New Waterfront Street Provide a new waterfront "shared" street t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. between Frederick and Harrison Ave. Sidney Ave. Frontage Provide frontage improvements including t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. © Improvements Street Trees/landscaping, sidewalk expansion, and street furniture from Prospect St to the waterfront. Harrison Ave Frontage Provide frontage improvements including n/a t.b.d. t.b.d. OImprovements Street Trees/landscaping, curb and sidewalks • and street furniture from Bay St to the waterfront. Bay Street and Bethel Develop a corridor plan for Bay Street t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Ave Corridor between Port Orchard Ave and the eastern terminus of the Study area, and for Bethel Ave between Bay Street and SE Mill Hill Dr. The corridor design shall address elements O such as multi -modal circulation, frontage design and improvements, and bike and ped safety improvements. The plan shall accommodate raising the elevation of Bay Street in response to the City's Sea Level Rise Study referenced in the 2021 SMP Update. Bay St / Mitchell Ave Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation Qand safety. Design will incorporate the extension of the Mitchell Street across Bay Street as a new private access drive. St / Guy Wetzel Rd Reconfigure intersection alignment to t.b.d. t.b.d. t.b.d. OBay • Intersection improve visibility and pedestrian circulation and safety. Final: May 18, 2021 88 ♦ ' *} 41141, ,n .F Arl y. • lip All ■—�r-.�'WA Diu • + �� �S Ia ➢t ,,� 7 ■ — — 1 I0 ♦ 1 L��1�■� kiL Sri ' 1'� • � + ■ill ,■�� -� r.-- Ir—I��I � fi2•Fqj I fillet ■ �Ji .,1 F- r- - I ---- -- L _ ,_�I J ��I�LEIIT. �— -' L�� I� r��■ ■FIT—J II.� .� _ 1 �461I _ _ _ _ 1 L ■ i {' 6. r F= f lII'l — ihT�■� i�J._ 1Ji. L i� ��-I -in �INo T �: �ilt ion .fi r �1 rls PO IF F T1 .R� —■y ,� �I �� 'i, _ — JI __ 10 �---0•�� uII — 1 ■ i � 1 11T �i T.� � � � _ III I' all ' i F �� �i •� 11j I-- I I - �I .0 ;r� Y ■ 1 J • �. -� 1 �� �Fl- I- p�:- —11- �. r .� fj - -- - �_ J �� �t� _ 1 ��1 : L�� I• r - - - - --�I _ Ar C 1 3 -: 1 - '��-r -:IIVL I i Environment and open space Proposed Project List (!)N Final: May 18, 2021 Downtown Port Orchard Subarea Plan I Port Orchard, WA 1 04.20.2021 89 ORCHARD Final: � m y N t I N x ° a o a O Z _- a O O N Cc Cc Com m a LL w a c LL c . c O e• w -o o 'y 'y o w w r c c 3 E E E m o h O 2 'N 2 d) �N � 2 E E E E U � Y � N i,y C7 N G a' �w N N N G1 a' a' z m o C7 U U U J U a a c a , u �~ 3Nt oNo Sane,., a AA a aannn 3� ara �,yva 8 w erye„� 3.v, °x°, oouxmro �s " $,saaa .sari sx�+Evaw �" "os""ys � °�aa avw°j� rya for � � ¢ main.a3na �LL oxisrx e3"sa3" € o a - a na""ns rexrc xaw ` s y Ana "a� m hT o seow�> sxrx wxa 3amrx o o s ,ss - 19 1 aaxaa - a�vx+ xosxw a� 5 ox,°ss $�` wsvns a ���3 " �� � � a �Aswes aces xa sw�ama� m 3 dY'nauxc.ox w :an ear w r svxoxu°,.w v aavo a��sa3nx°o x,.,aaxs xws°s°r3„was°. s�sa xosvr _„ mP aoe ` m _ ��^N= pxvwaaxs E 8 a 3� a xvwaa"s F °a"s -n:n- ="Psao xr a N N � M m o 6' IN ,16 d c,e Chapter 2: Land Use Chapter 2. Land Use 2.1 Introduction The Land Use element represents the heart of the Comprehensive Plan, as land use goals, policies, map designations, and decisions connect and relate to all other elements. The purpose of this section is to provide a framework to guide future land use to help the city grow in an orderly, rational, and efficient way and help the community realize its potential during the 20-year planning horizon. The goals and policies contained herein recognize that haphazard and disorderly development can reduce efficiency and increase the cost of utilities, roads, and other services, consume valuable open space, and result in higher taxes and fees for service to fund infrastructure and services. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires plans to contain land use elements that describe the proposed distribution, location, and extent of land uses. Once adopted, land use goals and policies will be functionally implemented in Port Orchard's development regulations. The challenge of this element is to plan for population and employment growth while ensuring development occurs in accordance with the community's aspirations and values and the requirements of the GMA. 2.2 Key Issues and Concepts As a community, Port Orchard is growing due to a healthy birth rate, immigration, and annexation. This plan accommodates Port Orchard's 2036 population and employment growth allocation, as distributed through the Vision 2040 framework and agreed upon in coordination with other Kitsap County municipalities in the Countywide Planning Policies. Port Orchard's land use and zoning designations currently provide sufficient land capacity within city boundaries to accommodate the projected 8,235 additional residents who will make Port Orchard their home (during the 2010-2036 planning period). In conjunction with the findings of the Buildable Lands Report, the Future Land Use Map shows how the 6,235 additional projected and allocated residents in the adjacent Urban Growth Area can be accommodated. Residents have emphasized that it is critical to manage new growth in a way that protects the small town character of the community while allowing for new and innovative development that responds to changing household needs and growth pressures. In 2000, the city's population density was 1,943 residents per square mile. By 2012, taking into account new annexations, density had dropped to 1,213 residents per square mile. This decrease in density is due to the annexation of several areas, including the Bethel Corridor, which had far lower densities than the existing city. Based on population allocations for 2036 and no additional annexations, Port Orchard must plan for a density of 2,068 residents per square mile, an increase in density of 70%. Port Orchard's population appears to be aging, but this trend has likely been skewed by recent annexations. Figure 1 shows the changes in different age groups from 2000 to 2010, with a significant increase --in both proportional and absolute terms --in people aged 40-69, reflecting the aging of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use baby boomer generation. As Port Orchard's population ages, the city needs the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs and desires of this age group and the foresight to plan for those changes as well. 80+ 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0 30-39 20-29 10-19 0-9 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 ■ Male in 2000 ■ Female in 2000 Male Increase in 2010 Female Increase in 2010 Population in hundreds Figure 1 The fundamental goal of the Land Use element, as established by the GMA, is to establish broad, general direction for the City's land use policies. This element provides the City's policy plan for growth over the next twenty years. It also implements many of the goals and objectives in the other plan elements through suggested land use designations and other action recommendations. The Land Use Element specifically considers the general distribution and location of land uses, and the appropriate intensity and density of land uses given development trends and allocated population. The City's development regulations and permitting processes are used to direct growth in a manner consistent with the provisions of this element. To accomplish this, the Land Use element establishes goals and policies that seek to: • Accommodate changes in population and demographics • Encourage development in urban areas, reduce sprawl, and deliver services efficiently • Ensure land use designations reflect need and demand • Minimize traffic congestion and encourage the development of a multimodal transportation system • Protect open spaces and the natural environment • Promote physical activity • Support a range of employment opportunities 2.3 Current Land Use Characteristics Figure 2 shows the percent of land uses and zoning based on the city's total land area as of 2020. Most land in the city is devoted to housing. Commercial areas and the downtown offer a range of goods and Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use services, provide employment for local residents and those living in surrounding rural areas, and provide additional tax revenue to help fund public services and facilities. Industrial lands allow for light manufacturing and warehousing businesses, which also provide job opportunities and support the area's economy. Figure 2-4 shows the amount of developable land in residential land use areas. Zoning By Percentage of Total Land Acreage 9R � 2.3 FF � 4.7 HMU ■ 0.5 LI 2.3 GMu re as AMU p a GMu 6.2 Cl 2 t-H 2.5 CC � 33 BPMU fl.9 R 6 � 5.4 R4 , 2.1 R3 17.9 R2 4 .y R1 q g 4 5 10 15 2il 'S 3u S= 40 Figure 2 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.4 Land Use Designations The City's comprehensive plan land use element identifies 7 different land use designations which are listed in Table 1. These land use designations are implemented through the city's zoning regulations contained in the municipal code. Each land use designation may correspond to one or more zoning designation. As the City develops sub -area plans for its designated centers as described in section 2.7, the city may wish to create new zones and standards consistent with this plan, its goals and policies, and these land use designations. When doing so, the city should ensure that it doesn't significantly alter the land capacity for the city such that the City's population and employment growth allocations adopted in the countywide planning policies can't be accommodated. Likewise, if sub -area plans are likely to accelerate population and employment growth rates, the City should take reasonable measures to ensure that it doesn't surpass its 2036 growth targets. Table I Range of Fostlble Anticipated Residemlai Land Use Designations Usr Uxes Correspundirng7,uning Maximum ReiiderrDal Development Denskv for Densities Buildable Lands purposes. oten en of ceG[ arias, 11atit at management areas, Greenbelt areenbeks and de -signaled open'pace to Alaw low density residential development. Greenbelt (GB} -S dwelling unils per net. acre Low Density Reudemial 5i4iele-:a mlly detached housing Readeilval I [PI) :.;5-9.B 7 Units Per Ave esi entw -. nits Per e Retidenfial i (Rif 9.&Z1.7 10 Unhs Per Ave Medium Density Residential $ingle-fa ml1v detached and atta6ed hpbsl rig, apartmenr k5identrai 3 (R31 9.&26 16 Vults Per Acre banding. ResldenUal6 [R61 9.8.17.4 8 Units Per Ave High Density Residential Single Family Attached Housing, Apartment Buirdings Resid"Vil4 (R4t Residential 5 Xf 9 8-d4 Za Units Per Acre lyl ""d lrukltutJonah Civic and Open Space Government services, ufllities, parks, arwnis and related Parks and Reveation IM) NA NA ppmmpnity Facditiet PY1141C Fatuities (PH NA NA FiesnWit-al MixedUse JRMU1tip Nelghttorhoud Mixed Use (NMUJ 9,&54 16 UnlmW Acre Rust nets Profe siorlal Mixed Use JSPMU) 18,535 8 Units Per Ave Conmerual Mixed Use (CMU( 17-iF 16 Units Per Acre Qlmmerclal Drrwntawn Mixed Use (CMU) 0-04 7R UnRs Per Ave Gateway Mixed Use (GMUJ 0-54 i0 Units Per Acre Cwnierdat Curndef (CC) U-44 4 Units Per Ave Retail, ollke, mixed -use cammercdallre5lduntial, and Commervat Heavy XM NA NA prafesslonai sers4ees IndusVial Flex (IF) 0-4.5 4 UnRs Per Acre Man>daaunq and assemh y, biAkstorageand Light In ustr lal (LI NA NA Urban Industrial Warounq, transfer dad Rucking servkes• I Heavy Industrial (HI) Nq NA i�•sanoRo:ndnp.notu Rrxalnlo arrvnolarn Im lalwr yrurin �n vie X:tw Cmnry k�.iya.c Wmk rna:y�:c Table 1 2.5 Overlay Districts The city's development regulations include land use overlay districts which are applied in parts of the city, as summarized below. • Downtown Height Overlay District (DHOD) • Self Storage Overlay District (SSOD) • Ruby Creek Overlay District (RCOD)View Protection Overlay District (VPOD) Port Orchard's overlay districts accomplish varying objectives including implementing subarea plans, providing regulations for the development in centers, regulating specific uses, and determining building heights. The creation of a new overlay district may be appropriate as the City continues to develop subarea plans under the Centers approach to growth. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.6 Land Use Goals & Policies Goals are not listed in any particular order. Port Orchard strives to: Goal I. Retain Port Orchard's small town commercial and residential character while accommodating allocated growth citywide. Policy LU-1 Ensure that land use and zoning regulations maintain and enhance existing single- family residential neighborhoods, while encouraging that new development provides a mixed range of housing types. Policy LU-2 Limit industrial development to locations accessible from arterials or freeways and discourage industrial access through residential areas. Policy LU-3 Update and establish building and site design standards that support an attractive and functional built environment in all areas of the City. Policy LU-4 Encourage the subdivision of large parcels and, through private subdivisions and public acquisitions, the creation of a continuous street grid similar in scale to the downtown's, especially in designated centers of local importance. Goal 2. Ensure that sufficient land is available for development to accommodate allocated growth in population and employment. Policy LU-S Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of housing units within the city and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted population growth. Ensure land use and development regulations enable a supply of commercial retail and office space within the city and adjacent UGA that will accommodate forecasted employment growth. Policy LU-6 Ensure adequate land is available for light industrial and commercial uses, including high technology, medical, and office uses, in appropriate areas to diversify Port Orchard's economic base and provide for the community's changing needs. Policy LU-7 Monitor the rate of residential, light industrial and commercial growth against the 20- year targets established in VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies, and if growth appears to deviate from a rate that complies with these targets, consider adopting reasonable measures such as reducing/increasing adopted transportation levels of service, reducing/increasing impact fees, or accelerating/delaying projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy LU-8 Provide a variety of housing types and employment opportunities that meet the needs of diverse socioeconomic interests. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy LU-9 Notify adjacent military facilities of relevant local land use decisions. Goal 3. Implement a strategy to develop centers. Policy LU-10 In consultation with stakeholders and the general public, develop a comprehensive strategy to implement centers as a means of directing and prioritizing residential and commercial growth. Policy LU-11 Within centers, set minimum building densities that enable lively and active streets and commercial destinations. Such limits may take the form of: minimum floors or building height, floor -area -ratios, and lot coverage; and maximum street setbacks and parking spaces. Goal4. Ensure that both public services and infrastructure are developed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Policy LU-12 Prioritize capital facilities and transportation investment in those locations targeted for growth and higher land use densities. Policy LU-13 Coordinate with Kitsap County to develop a plan and timeline to annex UGA land adjacent to the city, consistent with the city's capability to provide municipal services and applicable law. Policy LU-14 Identify land in the UGA that is useful for public purposes, such as utility corridors, transportation corridors, parks, schools, and other public uses. Goal S. Protect, enhance, and maintain the values and functions of Port Orchard's natural areas, open spaces, and critical areas. Policy LU-15 Evaluate a range of incentives to encourage compact development to preserve open space throughout the city, possibly to include density credits, incentive zoning, and transfer of development rights. Policy LU-16 Prioritize the development of new parks, open space, and passive and active recreational opportunities in underserved neighborhoods and centers. Policy LU-17 Incentivize infill development to preserve and protect open space, critical areas, and natural resources. Policy LU-18 Identify land in the UGA that is useful for open space corridors, including land for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connections of critical areas. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy LU-19 Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies through zoning designations, development regulations, and the local critical areas ordinance. Goal 6. Reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, promote public health, reduce auto dependency, and increase multimodal transportation opportunities for accessing retail services, health care services, and places of employment. Policy LU-20 Ensure orderly development, concurrency of infrastructure provision, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas through an effective and predictable permitting process. Policy LU-21 Remove barriers to low -impact development in zoning, subdivision, and street regulations. Encourage the minimization of impervious surface areas in development. Policy LU-22 Promote local food security and public health by enabling the establishment of urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers markets, and food production and distribution infrastructure. Policy LU-23 Enable land use patterns that allow all residents to safely and efficiently access commercial services, especially grocery stores and healthcare facilities, without an automobile. Policy LU-24 Encourage the expansion of transit networks that enable both incorporated and unincorporated neighborhoods outside of the city to access job centers within Port Orchard. Goal 7. Encourage the development of active, vibrant, and attractive destinations throughout the community. Policy LU-25 Incorporate the following principles in planning for commercial areas: • Create lively and attractive places at a human scale. • Support a mix of retail, office, and residential uses in multistory structures. • Create transitions between commercial areas and surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Protect residential areas from excessive noise, exterior lighting, glare, visual nuisances, and other conditions that detract from the quality of the living environment. • Encourage multi -modal transportation options, especially during peak traffic periods. • Promote an intensity and density of land uses sufficient to support effective transit and pedestrian activity. • Promote a street pattern that provides through connections, pedestrian and vehicular access. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use • Establish urban and architectural design standards that support an attractive and functional pedestrian environment, such as block size limits and requiring street - facing windows and doors. • Encourage pedestrian travel to and within commercial areas by providing: • Safe and attractive walkways. • Close groupings of land uses. • Parking lot design that provides safe walking routes and pedestrian connections between adjacent properties. • Off-street surface parking to the backs or sides of buildings to maximize pedestrian access from the sidewalk(s). Goal 8. Connect new and existing neighborhoods to each other, to commercial and employment centers, and to public facilities. Policy LU-26 Require adequate transitions between different land uses to mitigate potential negative impacts of noise, light, and air pollution. Policy LU-27 Require new development to provide connections to and through -access for existing and planned trails and roads. Explore strategies to encourage existing development to provide the same as part of a city- and region -wide trail and open space network. Goal9. Encourage the ongoing development of downtown as an active, vibrant community, commercial, social, and civic center while respecting its historic character. Policy LU-28 In conjunction with the Centers strategy, enhance downtown Port Orchard's role as the center of the South Kitsap region, reflecting the following principles in development standards and land use plans: • Encourage land uses that support transit centers and promote pedestrian activity. • Promote a mix of uses, including retail, office, and housing. • Encourage uses that will provide both daytime and evening activities. • Support civic, cultural, and entertainment activities. • Provide sufficient public open space and recreational opportunities. • Enhance, and provide access to, the waterfront. • Develop enhanced design guidelines and design review requirements that promote attractive, pedestrian -scale development and redevelopment within the City's historic downtown area. Policy LU-29 Consider conducting a downtown parking study to assess current and future parking needs and develop solutions and strategies to address identified constraints or oversupply. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy LU-30 Ensure land use designations and development support existing maritime industries, promote creative uses of the waterfront, and facilitate the planning and construction of waterfront parks and gathering places. 2.7 The Centers Strategy 2.7.1 Introduction The post-war 1920s have become synonymous with the beginning of a development pattern known as urban sprawl. Sprawl expands development over large amounts of land, resulting in long distances between homes, jobs, and stores. It also significantly increases dependence on the automobile and traffic on neighborhood streets and highways, as driving is required for nearly every activity. This development pattern also draws economic resources away from existing communities and spreads them thinly and inefficiently, far away from a community's historic core. This increases spending on new roads, new water and sewer lines, and police and fire protection. This ultimately leads to the degradation of the older city, higher taxes, and fewer available resources for already existing communities. In the early 1990s, Washington sought to combat this adverse development style by adopting the GMA. Among other ambitions, the GMA suggested a new development pattern broadly known as Centers. In 2014, the City designated ten "local centers" in its Comprehensive Plan, in accordance with the criteria provided in the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2040, which is a regional strategy for accommodating the expected 2040 population of the Puget Sound region. In subsequent years, VISION 2040's criteria and terminology for centers have been revised, and the City has revised its center terminology and boundaries for consistency. Based on the new criteria, the City now has eight designated "countywide centers" and four designated "local centers". In addition, the City identifies two countywide centers as a Candidate Regional Center. Compact development Power Sewer enables efficiency in capital facilities construction and CD service delivery Roads Water A. Least Dense W, B. Moderately Dense C- Most Dense Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 W, B. Moderately Dense C- Most Dense Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Figure 3 — The advantages of infrastructure and land use concurrency 2.7.2 What are Centers? Traditional neighborhoods often had smaller business districts that served surrounding residential areas. These districts typically had retail shops, markets, and services that were a short walk from the homes in the area. Additionally, these districts created a unique identity that solidified the neighborhood. With the increased cost of fuel and the economic recession, residents of Port Orchard have expressed a preference for the development of smaller, local retailers and service providers in places that knit people and commerce together on a local level. Centers are focused areas of development that have key uses which enable the City to deliver services more cost -efficiently and equitably pursue a development pattern that is environmentally and economically sound, and provide a means of influencing growth and change through collaboration with the community in planning for the future of these areas. This strategy helps to accommodate growth in designated areas while preserving the existing character of the community, thereby retaining more open space and the dominant pattern of existing development. Centers accomplish these objectives by: • Concentrating a thoughtful mix of supporting uses. • Allowing more intense development while maintaining appropriate scale. • Offering a wider variety of housing types that meets the needs of the broader community. • Minimizing the dependence on vehicle trips. The Centers strategy is a comprehensive and long-term approach to planning for a sustainable future that helps preserve those aspects of the community that residents' value. This approach is intended to maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services and promote collaboration with private interests and the community to achieve mutual benefits. Providing opportunities for residents, jobs, stores, services, and open spaces to be located in close proximity can reduce the reliance on cars for shopping and commuting and offer better access to daily wants and needs. Increasing residential and employment densities in key locations makes transit and other public services convenient for more people and therefore makes these services more efficient. • Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use The criteria for the designation Centers are found in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Regional Centers Framework Adopted March 22, 2018 and in Vision 2040, which is a regional strategy for accommodating the expected 2040 population of the Puget Sound region. According to VISION 2040, centers serve important roles as sub -regional hubs and secondary concentrations of development. They provide a dense mix of housing and services, such as stores, medical offices, and libraries. They serve as focal points where people come together for a variety of activities, including business, shopping, living, and recreation. They often have a civic character with community facilities, such as municipal buildings and other public places. Local centers should be served by regular local transit and regional express transit service and should have a complete network of sidewalks and access to bicycle paths and transit facilities. The Regional Centers Framework defines five different types of Centers: 1. Regional Growth Centers 2. Manufacturing Industrial Centers 3. Countywide Centers 4. Local Centers 5. Military Installations Several of the identified center types include subtypes. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use f 7. Figure 5 — Rendering of a concept for a pedestrian -focused town center 2.7.3 Designated Centers (Existing and Planned) The following centers have been designated in the City's comprehensive plan by center type: Regional Centers. The City has no designated regional centers at this time. Downtown Port Orchard was evaluated as part of the Downtown Subarea Planning Process as a candidate for reginal center designation but achieving the PSRC requirement for 45 activity units per acre was determined to be too large of a change to Downtown Port Orchard. As Downtown continues to grow and evolve, its candidacy as a regional center should be revisited in the future. Manufacturing Industrial Centers. The City has no designated Manufacturing Industrial Centers currently. The City's only industrial park is too small to be considered either a Manufacturing Industrial Center or a Countywide Center. Port Orchard is served by the nearby Puget Sound Industrial Center— Bremerton. dEPort Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Countywide Centers. The City has 7 designated Countywide Centers. Not all of these Countywide Centers meet the minimum activity units per acre threshold per the PSRC Regional Centers Criteria for Countywide Centers (8 activity units per acre). The City intends that these Countywide Centers which don't presently meet the activity unit threshold set by PSRC will meet that threshold in the future. These centers may temporarily be recognized as candidate countywide centers or local centers until the activity unit threshold is met. The City's designated Countywide Centers are as follows: 1. Downtown Port Orchard 2. Tremont Center 3. Lower Mile Hill 4. Upper Mile Hill 5. Sedgwick Bethel 6. Bethel Lund 7. Sedgwick Sidney (Ruby Creek Neighborhood) Local Centers. The City has designated the following local centers: 1. Annapolis 2. Old Clifton Industrial Park 3. McCormick Village 4. Bethel South Center (Salmonberry) Military Installations. The City has no military installations within the City Limits. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use CrrY OF PORT ORCHARD 2021 CENTERS Name 1 - Annapolis _ 6eMe1 W nd - U wntrnm F-7 Lar+er IvIIIN HIII _ MCLannlck NboEs n1a DIU, iea rem 5e]gvvlek Be3liel _ .Soulll tle Nei Tmiiinnl ® Upper Mlle 1-1,11 Urban Growth Area Port ormem ❑GA 2.7.4 General Center Goals and Policies The following are a list of general goals and suggested policies that Centers should seek to fulfill. Although Centers have common elements, it should be acknowledged that each Center is unique and have/will have a different set of priorities. Centers goals should be tailored to the specific Center in question. Generally, Centers should seek to: Policy CN-1 Prioritize the City's residential, commercial and light industrial growth and infrastructure investments within designated Centers, in accordance with VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy CN-2 Focus future growth in designated, higher intensity areas in an effort to encourage the preservation of open space and maintain surrounding neighborhood character. Policy CN-3 Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. Policy CN-4 Provide commercial services that serve the population of the Center, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region (dependent on the suitability of the scale of each Center). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Policy CN-5 Support pedestrian and transit uses by promoting compact, mixed -use areas with appropriate infrastructure that provide a variety of activities. Policy CN-6 Balance objectives for accommodating growth, encouraging compatibility, promoting housing affordability, and offering a wide range of housing types. Policy CN-7 Provide access to parks and public pedestrian spaces by creating them within each Center or by creating connections to existing public and open spaces. Policy CN-8 During subarea planning for Centers, develop an implementation plan that addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. Policy CN-9 The City shall direct growth to Centers of all types through focused regulations and directed capital projects. Policy CN-10 The City should support employment growth, the increased use of non -automobile transportation options, and the preservation of the character of existing built-up areas by encouraging residential and mixed -use development at increased densities in designated Centers. Policy CN-11 The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well -served by public transit. (Centers Goals 1,2,3,4,5,6; Housing, Parks, Economic Development, Transportation, and Capital Facilities Elements) Policy CN-12 The City shall create and designate zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. (Centers Goals 2,3,4; Economic Development and Housing Elements) Policy CN-13 The City shall encourage a broad range of housing types and commercial uses within designated Centers, through zoning and development regulations that serve a local, citywide, or regional market. (Centers Goals 3,5; Housing and Economic Development Elements) Policy CN-14 The City shall encourage the creation of public open space, private open space, and parks within and serving designated centers. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5 Specific Center Descriptions and Policies 2.7.5.1 Downtown Port Orchard (Countywide Center) In 2021, the City completed a subarea plan for Downtown Port Orchard which is adopted by reference in appendix D. This plan combined two previous centers, the Downtown Port Orchard and County Campus Centers into one center. The center was evaluated for possible designation as a Regional Urban Growth Center, but there was a lack of support for increasing the level of activity in the center to a planned target of 45 activity units per acre. The boundaries of this center are shown on the map below: I 2.7.5.2 Tremont (Countywide Center) 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Tremont sub -area plan is to ensure that future development in the Tremont Corridor is guided by specific guidelines and land use regulations that have been generated by community wide involvement. This Comprehensive Plan and Tremont Corridor District plan incorporates existing comprehensive or other documents related to properties within the Tremont Corridor Sub Area. This plan will establish certain important Visions, Goals, and Policies as well as standards and guidelines within the Tremont Corridor sub -area. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use LL F � 5 ' z +�t8or 4 ca�sinoo cczeeo G rrm��&e nrna7u+s 'S i- i 2. Vision. The Tremont Corridor is one of three primary entry points into the City of Port Orchard from Highway 16. Presently the area is a mix of single-family residences, commercial, health care facilities and multi -family residences. The expanded Harrison Hospital Urgent Care Campus and Kaiser Permanente facilities are the anchors for businesses along the corridor, particularly from Pottery Avenue west to Highway 16 forming the basis for a Hospital Benefit District. The Tremont Corridor is a through -way for travelers and residents wanting to access shops and services in the core of the city and businesses and homes in outlying areas. The Tremont Corridor also announces to residents and visitors alike that the city has economic vitality and provides services and opportunities to its citizens and residents in the south Kitsap area. Tremont Corridor residents and Port Orchard citizens have determined that they would like to see the corridor developed in way that encourage professional businesses that support the health care facilities already in place and businesses that allow the continuing free flow of traffic from Highway 16 into the downtown areas. Focus should be placed upon pedestrian connections within the district as well as providing a regional connection to the South Kitsap areas served by the hospitals and emergency service providers within the district. Tremont Avenue will be improved and widened with sidewalks, street trees and a landscaped island that will create a boulevard style of roadway. The Tremont corridor is promoted to include design standards that will necessitate new development to provide a consistent, attractive landscape edge while maintaining a human scale to new and redevelopment projects. A system of trails that are pedestrian and bike friendly connecting the Tremont Corridor to the Port Orchard marine walkway with trails through natural areas are key to the success of the Tremont district. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use The Tremont district is envisioned with some multi -family residences to accommodate the combination of residential and employment land uses within walking distances of the major health care facilities. Some cafes and neighborhood services are also envisioned to support those living, working or visiting the health care facilities. Regulations and design guidelines should help to ensure that parking is provided in a manner that is beneficial to the neighborhood and enhances the flow of transportation through the district. In addition, Tremont Corridor stakeholders envision monument signage that are tastefully designed and constructed of natural materials. The corridor from Pottery Avenue east to Sidney Road consists primarily of single-family residences and small clinics. Single family uses are encouraged as a desired mix of services and residential uses within this district. 3. Housing and Employment. As of 2018, the Tremont Countywide Center measured 215 acres containing 1,092 residents and 702 jobs. This equates to 8 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. 4. Tremont Center Goals Goal 10. Encourage development within the area that supports the major hospital and medical installations (Harrison Hospital and Kaiser Permanente) and assists the emergency response agencies in the corridor (South Kitsap Fire District). Policy CN-26 Encourage regulations that enhance existing businesses while providing incentives that promote economic growth in the corridor while maintaining sensitivity to residents in the area. Policy CN-27 Encourage professional and office uses that support the medical industry and create pedestrian oriented health care focus. Policy CN-28 Promote the creation of a hospital benefit district that will create opportunities for additional community and economic development funding. Goal 1 1. Encourage residential units in walking distance to employment, services, and health care facilities. Policy CN-29 Require sidewalks or interconnected pedestrian paths or a system of trails for non - motorized transportation with all new development. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use Goal 12. Encourage development of an efficient multimodal transportation system and develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet its needs. Policy CN-30 Encourage all new developments to limit direct access to Tremont Street. Policy CN-31 All future City paving projects on streets within the Tremont Corridor should include continuous 6-foot paved walkways for pedestrian use. Policy CN-32 Developments abutting public rights -of -way within the Tremont Corridor should include sidewalks and bicycle lanes Policy CN-33 The City shall help to facilitate the development of trail systems that connect the Tremont Corridor with transportation facilities in the surrounding areas. Policy CN-34 Encourage the expansion of Kitsap Transit's service to increase trip frequency within the Tremont Corridor. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.3 Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center The Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center consists of the lower sections of the Mile Hill Road commercial corridor and adjacent multi family development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Lower Mile Hill Countywide Center measured 70 acres containing 174 residents and 288 jobs. This equates to 7 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.4 Upper Mile Hill Countywide Center The Upper Mile Hill Countywide Center consists of the upper sections of the Mile Hill Road commercial corridor and contains a mix of multi family and single family development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Upper Mile Hill Countywide Center measured 65 acres containing 287 residents and 373 jobs. This equates to 10 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. i Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.5 Sed!ZW /Bethel Countywide Center The Sedgwick/Bethel Countywide Center consist of the Sedgwick Rd corridor from Geiger to the West to the city boundary to the East including the Bethel and Sedgwick intersection. In addition to commercial development and commercially zoned vacant land, this area includes a future park site and land zoned for multifamily development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2020, the Sedgwick/Bethel Countywide Center measures 161 acres containing 58 residents and 505 jobs. This equates to 4 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. s'f - -a � a � F Fps _S€-MELINE. RD d'h, C �m 0 fr � E—I - SE SYLVIS LN — - YI. � DWI -7L -� SEQ W IK Rn � i Jr LN SE - - Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.6 Bethel Lund Countywide Center The Bethel/Lund Countywide Center consists of the Bethel commercial corridor near the intersection of Lund Avenue including nearby residential areas. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Bethel/Lund Countywide Center measured 114 acres containing 267 residents and 1,195 jobs. This equates to 13 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.8 SedgwicWSidney (Ruby Creek Neighborhood) Countywide Center The Sedgwick/Sidney Countywide Center is a rapidly developing area of the city at the intersection of Sidney Road SW and Sedgwick Ave that has seen more than 220 units of multifamily housing develop since 2010 along with significant new commercial development. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. As of 2018, the Sidney/Sedgwick Countywide Center measured 148 acres containing 450 residents and 252 jobs. This equates to 5 activity units per acre under the PSRC regional centers framework. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.8 Old Clifton Industrial Park Local Center The Old Clifton Industrial Employment Local Center is located at the site of reclaimed sand and gravel mine. Its close proximity to transportation facilities and its isolation as a result of past mining activities make it an ideal site for industrial and employment uses. The site is served by Kitsap Transit and is located along Old Clifton Road near SR-16. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.9 McCormick Woods Local Center The McCormick Woods/Old Clifton Mixed Use Center includes a portion of the McCormick Woods master planned community, the recently developed city park McCormick Village Park, the site a future South Kitsap High School (an additional high school), recreational facilities including trails and a golf course, and areas zoned for multifamily and commercial development. The area is not presently served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.10 Annapolis Local Center The Annapolis Local Center is located on the Sinclair Inlet shoreline east of the city's Downtown Countywide Center. This center includes Mitchell Point and the Annapolis Pier, from which Kitsap Transit operates a foot ferry service to Bremerton during the work week. Commuter parking is located east of the pier. The area also includes a number of historic buildings, commercial services, and residences, as well as a public dock and kayak launch point. The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway will end at the foot ferry facility. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.5.11 Bethel South (Salmon berry) Local Center The Bethel South Local Center consists of the underdeveloped intersection of Salmonberry and Bethel and the nearby residential areas. The area is served by Kitsap Transit. The City should work to develop a sub area plan for this area prior to the next periodic comprehensive plan update. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 Chapter 2: Land Use 2.7.6 Road Map to Implementation Further planning for each identified local center is required in order to implement the City's vision for the overall centers strategy. The city is committed to undertaking a sub area planning process for each center, to better identify center boundaries, develop a vision, goals, and policies for each center. This planning process will also provide recommendations for amending the development regulations, zoning designations, design guidelines and capital facility plans to reflect and implement the sub area plans. Sub -area plans for the centers will be adopted into the City's comprehensive plan. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Adopted: June 2016 Revised: Nov 2019, July 2020, June 2021 V C ro C Q) E E O V 75 C N Ln (U I O C U) N O V Ln av 4-1 v U) bA r� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w rm m m m m m m m m m v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL a m a u x J LL d d d d V d m d a a a a a a a U U U a a Z a a a a a a a a U U U a a m a a a a a Ln a a a a U U U a a a a a a U U U a M a a a a a a a a1 U U a a a a a a a u �2 V) ro Z3 c ro Q E ap L u ° C 'Ul) 'E 4J 4J bip 0) a) C Q C E -O 7 7 N ) -° ° ° ?� i �O E C N 7 v Z3 C i i N 'J O N V1 u -O 70 O in LI Ln r6 LA w v u Q v 4J 4J 4J ° O u 00 'y bA C E E E u u u E w O N y Q H u rB x ° ro ro roQ i i i bA of v0i j ro ro O O Oro v Ln O A 0 E a) v o m `� v U, 0 �, �' E ° > > >, v 0 v > > >, v Ln M U m Q E E E Sao a o c v m ro v c rEo V ° 4J 7— ° v v v +� 3 L biD b 0 a b�.0 ado 0 � Qc ro ) Z E � � � m U JO U� Q r� c Ln Ln C m o y+ o N N N N N N N N N N t zt N r- O O O O O O O O Cn O O O m m 0� m m m m m m m m m cn cn cn cn cn m m a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL a V a a V a a a a d V aa a a tJ V a a a V V a a V = a V a a a V J a V a V a V a a V LL_ d V d V d d V = lJ d V d V d d V Ua a V a a a a a a V V m p V d d V d Z V a V � d V m m v an V V V M V V V N V V V V V V V O Q) N 4J v L L O O _0 v -0 v -0 v al ro rLo v LA U-) v +, LJ i Ln L N u (A v v L O v , L v LA V, �Vt _O I C O O 4J ro OL_ O wV9 LbA N a) 00 CNU 0' ' -OO O V1 to b b-0 � .L -p cpa)u CL to rn�o _ 0) = c O � O 6N � N + > u bA VI N CD�, L b.0 L N C Y m m r6 �, 0 7 Y OL L al � Q v ut = u c 00 c v� v Q L v V -FoV ' O O u O O L O n n n p v L Y 76 bL0 V 7 V 0 E O E O Vim, u C C C E � L VI _ O v 7 = O u O 7 u — — N O M C p Q Ln Ln a Q V v, V v lJ a a Q V l7 a Q L r� c Ln Ln Ln Ln o Q o Ln Ln Ln o o Ln o 0 o r_ o 0 CD m cn y+ N N N Ln L-n Ln Ln L-n Lh Ln ill a) M rs cy� cy� LT 6� Gl G� 6� 6� Gl 6l rl cn Ln cn cn cn cn cn cn cn m cn m a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 p N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL a a a a V V V V V V � a a a V V V V V tJ a a a V V = a a a V V V a a a V V V V a a a a V V a t=J a a a V a a V a a Ua a V a a a V a a a 00 a a V a a V V a p a a V V V a V U Z a a V a V V V a a a V V V m a a a a V a a V a V Ln a a V a a V M a a a V a V fV a a a V a V a a a a V a V Ln . 0 ° Q) V w aj i ro U (6 o m Q) Q U) O Q) u �j of U U Ln Y O L LA ro ,--/ ro 0 E ° ro Q 0- E G1 E ° x a, p ro O ro a) E uO =ro_0 N u u - uV j L 'E O .� �-+ Q) m v v E a) Ln E Ln Q�) m o E ° �o Q- E Q O N E a Ln v Ln O ° a) Ou v c c v >+ V, r0 V, V) QJ QJ ro V U v QJ C M^ .� .QJ > Q� QiV L i1 i1 Q) U a) m L r6 i Q� L O ° vN - Ln — Q) LnLn L GJ r� u c� -O o -O a) L O biD > Q) i - C O O E o ru a+ U Ln = Q) U i1 Q ro -0 .� r6 O E Q) V) U O O N �p N E E O u O O -u E } O Q E � lA c �j >� �� — > o O v Q Q Q Ln U U Q Ll Q Ln V Q Q V .� _ L r� c Ln Ln o n Ln Ln Ln Ln o Ln o o Ln Ln o Ln o 0 o m I� m m cn cn N N Ln Ln * * Ln Ln r- ;� Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln cn Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln cn d, d, m 6l � O1 6l O1 Ol � N O1 � O1 d, Ol d, m m nn m M nn m cn rn cn m m m m m m a o 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N LL a V V 0L U V V a V a U a tJ U a a a U U = V a a J V a a a V v UV a a a V a a a a a a a a a V a V d 00 a a a V a V a V a a a a V V CL CL CL CL V 0L U a- a- a- a- CL U p U a a U a U U U a U a U a a V a V V V a a a a a Z a a V a V V a CL V a- U V � CL V CL Ln a a � a a N CL V CL L Y p Q O O O U a) O Ln bA O c6 E O N C O in V) L O v L U a) Q VI — V) V) (A V _ m f6 1 � txo C x w bA C Ln ro N bA Qj N V v O in O m C v 41 � � Q Ln CL h v ro O p O_ v u Q bb 0 u cCo u b-0 C ,".� L (lj 4J v v v Q U In C i V L C co f6 L �6 U E -O O x Y c _ = — E E E Q O — u � a v w bA i 0 00 S _ Q i j 0 0 N C N L N m C O c0 u 0- i rro L 00 in v v �_ O O L O > > > > E O i in E U Q O in C H L ro — v 0 v v v — O — ro 7 ro O N — 7 L 7 O V1 2 Q J J J J Q S Q m V1 U W Q L.L V 0 m u tA tA Ln� Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln cD Ln Ln Ln 0 -o "0 la 'o C� U� Ln Ln Ln Ln mUn Un a; G% m CF) m CF) a; a) m m mM M m m m M mm a CD 06 ci 6 6 6 C; C; 0 . (Ili N . N LL 0- u o u u V u Ln N O q-- I U) 0 0 0 0 0 L/) U) a) V) 0 o:3 u W 0 V) V) V) _0 0L u -0 _0 LA 0 bjD 0 0 0- 4- Ln -2 CD 0 CD 0 Ln E ro Ln C7 LA 0 in 0) -0 o C5 0 CD E C: c 0 u -- Ul _0 CD Cl Ln Ln CL m E 0 u 0 ro 0 i-n CD Ln u Ln u 0 o w Lno 0 — CD 0 CD ru ro D CO= § 0 Ln 0- Lr� aJ > _0 - U) Z3 0 0 LA 0 0 0) V Z3 Ln 0 0 L/) ro u u ro t10 C: Q) V) 0 u (3) ro u 7ro 16 U W �:� 4) u x u 0 (V ro ro CL Ln ro E E E E 0• 0 0 U > 0 V) 0 V) u (A V) aJ E Ln Ln = a) -70 a) 5; Vi 0) . Ln Ln Ln Ln CD W W > 0 V, C w 0 V) (Ii 0 ro -0 -0 -0 -0 V) u u C (Ii m -0 4� u 4� V) :3 u ru ro ro ro Lri 0 1: CU C: (1) 0 0 u aj m !E (2) 41 m Z3 aJ L/) a) L/) a) Ln Q) -0 0 -�:j c E > E Ln u U) a) "Fu 0 m a) a) > > V) 0 E > >1 0 > ro 0 Fa ro m ro ru (3) ro u C: 0 — > m D > 0 a) (]) aj 'u 0 Z3 = < LL < cr� = ro = ro L US u LL 3: < < m —j w 2 w < U Ln Ln ro- cD Ln Ln L ::D c:, a) a) CY) CY) a) CY) C) C) CF) cr) 4) C:) C:) Q CD CD Q CD Q Q Q CD Q 0 N . N . N LL u u Ln 76 O a) (1) a) (1) 76 -a C) ro u (1) c6 Q) Z3 LT bio c 0 u bio bA u 0 ro :3 ro V) C:) _0 E bjD 0 ru E Ul) bz CT :3 0- -0 0 0 CD S: .2 aj a) 0) 0 s: 0 Fu E ro C: c Ln C) CD 0 V) tb ,� tz u _0 u 1: 0 . E E 0 C) m CD CD 0 S� c c _0 t:xb aj Ln u u ai CD CD V) ro 7, 0 0) c -0 0 x u L6 Ln a) Ln a) E E U V) u a v u v bA > u -0 a) 0 V) 0 m 0 -Ej x _r_ cm c 0 > ro > 0) 'E tw _0 _0 76 :3 vi 0 0bA E CL tA ro u c :3 0) a) 0) ro 7) Ln ro m _0 u Fn C: — 0) u 0) u C) u Ln D "T a) 0) > u a) > E 00) Ln a) > Ln Ln NLn a) 0 a) ro U X o i>C ro 0 tko _0 0 L a) Q E -0 Ln 0) 4-J V) V) Ln L i ai tw ->, L� - = 0 C: (o m -22) ro c E .— 0) Q) 0) Ln ro ro a) 0 u u a) 0 a) E ro (11 (3) a) ro 0 0 u Ln E > u > > > < 0 _q? u - " co I CO , U , Ln Li- Z3 o I Li- ai of = < ai af i::: 0) _0 ro Ln 2 E Ln (A 00 tA L" Lr) CD CD CD CD CD C:) Q O Ln Ln r� �D C) 0 C) C:) (D CD I-P I-P ll� ll� Ur U1 Uf U� O ism G) CF) C) CY) a) a) a) cr) CY) a CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 N� I N I N T N I N N I I I NI N I I N N N LL a_ 0- LL 0- U a_ u u m lJ u u U Ln ro V) ro ro -4� 0 a) :0 bLo 0 ro E ro 0 4-1 ro 3: (M E 0 D ao V, -, -T Ln— 72 C .�2 V) NLn Ln 0 ro v-0 ro u 14 m u 0 V) 4� a) 4-1 x V) N0 m u m by ro ro m w E c u E m E (UU m 4� u > -0 ro•V) _0 c O 42 ro a) a) V� V) = V) V) CL a) w ro Ln A) 0 V) a) u 0 = c E 0) tA a) c m V) q ro R aj m E V) m 0 m tA 4-1 = ru 211 E Ln " 0 Ln _0 Z -2 - —ti w a) LA ro a- bA 0 M 4+ n V) a) aj 42 Fu -70 4� _0 m 0 u 0 = _0 u d, c 'E _0 o 41 E E w Ln a) a) w Ln E V) .0 ro F/i 0 0 V) o Ln ro u u 2- ro 0 V) m ro u u u E Ln aj Ln aj Ln a) 41 aj 0 0 ro u ro 0 E U 4.1 u u u > lo) w a) a) a) tko 0 u u a) u u ro Lln LS Ul) Ln u cr� < < 0- u 4 < -0 < < CO Ln Ln Ln o S) CD Ln Ln cD Ln 0 rn rn rn I-q Iq a) a) a) a) cr) a) a) CY) cl� ll� ll� ll� O� O� ll� n� 4) C:) CD Q Q CD Q Q CD CD 0 N N N N N N N Nq N LL 0- Ln a) ro a) E 0 > _0 ra 0 0 V) a) u 72 a) ro U) aJ 0 0- 0 0 V) a) Ln k 4) Ln ro u _0 -j ro CL 0 c >, u m C: ro (A --- Ln Ln ro b-0 ro Ln 0 V) >4 ro ro u V) V) 0 :3 a) Ln 0 — u u u ro tko u F i j -6 Ln bA u E 4, u O Vro 0 0 0 aJ a) 0 0 0 E Qj ro ro u u E E V) a _0 7 a) 0 0 > C C0 Ln w 2 2 I i:i 0 0 -1 1 Ln -0 > a 0 z a) LA D a) 76 c 0 0 u E EXHIBIT 5 20.127.130 Community design framework maps. (1) Figure 20.127.130 below is an overview map of the applicable planning areas within Port Orchard. Examine the map to determine which map or figure relates to individual properties. (2) Figures 20.127.130(1) through (16) include community design framework maps for applicable mixed use and nonresidential zones throughout Port Orchard. Figure 20.127.130 Port Orchard Community Design Framework Maps Index . I' IX M1IX 2;_ F. MAR. J .y V MAeP ��� MAP 4 J IN f _ ..,.. T1'A.6 .. �M4IZ, � A MAP � --A .� = Legend MAP 13 M-AP �'" `r-wi1-�Jdl Lbban Growd�Area •'I Port Orchard CemerI, _ .. MAPT4 M ppate! t 2— i�.`� x "'{• _ R� I_1 I Le Mlle H.: J i MAP IS, MAP I a �._..,-. }� M Corm 4 Nuads . i --._...�..._-. i•-._ A : O'd CIO—lI,&—W Pero % • I... M Trcrnone H.,N.1 Generic 6 wtu `' ^V j wwrd �,'. Uapar Mllu Hill r r : j a os 1o,� a �k r:r►wo 0" M.Ip a�i EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(1) Map #1 - Downtown West EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(2) Map #2 - Downtown East fill ��•/ �%1���7 JI jam\ ]��f�� %/ �j wand _ _ - — L k No rtgimrwn � C9 bowi9rl •-'� — mre¢wONiNMerigi[.[c pbmx[ / /`' /� d HE[wlMiM cue,aaixn r;G— � _..i lnncnuk mirac pLn aFmw%+I o saa i.cc-0 EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(3) Map #3 - County Campus El ID ZJILT Q -7 Y-�LL- -; F LJ 21 HIF / Legend ��--jfILJ� ! v+rea ! rafe»u �J � N�reRYwrae � GYOov9vY Y note OeYtAdw emma pbwa r.*N flYvew �6.+d1 H�ti(.y.lq N,m Wr'SH ITT- fI 7;1 F�f� ,� frama+�nrk ma�rx pL .{prwil I.0�0 Fcec OngirullY eapor�ed sole, I�],OOp Figure 20.127.130(4) Map #4 - Lower Mile Hill EXHIBIT 5 — Lea"d _ L _ xoc Hume --I __•� Snc,�•�,cs,o w�cmlmm.u:ry dnp. Vi r f I I PI it-1 -_I nun�q��nnunr= _ I ;'. r V 0 5L0 Ip[-0 e Fen O�'p�2�lly vsporee�tl=ck-. :;,�qp EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(5) Map #5 - Upper Mile Hill 7 l; � s ift NDRERG AID 'A f a � LVHGBERG RA , � tI ro4;'P - �� - - •� - ILi * 1 it G'1�77 EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(8) Map #8 - Bethel South EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(9) Map #9 - Sedgwick Bethel SR16 r l egmd _ korefraM � M nee —dd r„a Nbre va:e s� meroFaya,rce Jr�s d vows no.odonc oo �ayv,r� Ngn .iJwya... earners -I do ____ fia & mane. pb. rp 1 D 500 1.0m Feet 06gJwly eapw dscale. 1:2.000 EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(10) Map #10 - Bethel Cedar EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(11) Map #11 - Bethel Lider EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(12) Map #12 - Tremont EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(13) Map #13 - Cedar Heights EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(14) Map #14 - Sidney Glen EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(15) Map #15 - Sidney Sedgwick EXHIBIT 5 Figure 20.127.130(16) Map #16 - McCormick Woods CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WA McCORMICK VILLAGE SUBAREA PLAN DECEMBER 10, 2021 Acknowledgements Mayor Robert Putaansuu City Council Members Bek Ashby John Clauson Fred Chang Cindy Lucarelli Scott Diener Jay Rosapepe Shawn Cucciardi Planning Commissioners Trish Tierney Stephanie Bailey Annette Stewart Mark Trenary David Bernstein Phil King Joe Morrison City Staff Nicholas Bond, AICP, Director Keri Sallee, AICP, Long Range Planner Jim Fisk, AICP, Associate Planner Stephanie Andrews, Associate Planner Josie Rademacher, Assistant Planner Consultants Swift Design Group Dahlin Design Group (Graphics and renderings) Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Overview. In 2016, the City of Port Orchard completed its periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan included for the first time, a "centers" approach to planning (See section 2.7 of the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan). The centers approach to planning is provided in Vision 2050, the regional plan completed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and in the Countywide Planning Policies adopted by all jurisdictions in Kitsap County. In 2016, Port Orchard identified center locations, but did not have the resources to complete subarea plans for each center at that time, and instead identified goals for subarea planning to be completed in the future. This subarea plan is the result of that goal and aims to create a cohesive plan for the subarea plan boundary as depicted in Figure 1. The greater McCormick area of Port Orchard was based on a master plan that dates to the early 1980s. A series of approvals and plans have been adopted and implemented since that time and numerous project phases have been constructed. In 2003 and prior to annexation into the City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County approved a subarea plan for the McCormick area (ULID6 Subarea Plan) that included a McCormick Village commercial core. In 2009, the City of Port Orchard annexed this area into the City and became responsible for implementing previous plans and approvals, but was not bound by the ULID6 Subarea Plan. The City provided commercial zoning consistent with the County's 2003 plan but did not prepare any sort of coordinated master plan at that time. In 2015, the land and development approvals in the McCormick area were sold to new owners and those owners resumed development activity after several years of inactivity related to the great recession. The resumed development activity initially focused on single family residential areas. As of the end of 2020, more than 1,000 lots had been created and developed within and in the vicinity of the subarea. Up to this point, the commercial village portion of the project has not been realized. This plan is intended to facilitate the permitting and build -out of the McCormick Village Neighborhood Core, including the commercial village as shown on Figure 2. The plan recognizes and refers to other previous but not yet constructed subdivisions (McCormick Woods, McCormick West, McCormick North); however, due to previous agreements and the vesting associated with those agreements, the plan is not intended to influence new development in those areas. Some previously entitled single family lots are shown in Figure 2. The creation of this plan was a joint effort between McCormick Communities, LLC (the Developer) and the City of Port Orchard. McCormick Communities hired a consultant to develop conceptual plans for the subarea. After several iterations of this concept plan, the City agreed to consider the creation and adoption of a subarea plan to guide future development in the subarea. Early concepts fell short of the mark in terms of meeting the intent of existing City codes and policies. The preferred alternative met the intent of the City's plans and policies and was sufficiently innovative to warrant consideration as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. McCormick Village Subarea Legend s.e.- BOU d.q P—d Lo-s McC--h VII.g-Perk Proposed Ne Entrance•. 'h'.rfindrng Lx..o.s MaC—k VN.q- Nei,6orhood Core Figure 1 (above): The McCormick Village Subarea. The area outlined in red is the boundary of the subarea plan and the McCormick Village Center. The area shown in purple is the McCormick Village Neighborhood Core. Previously entitled but not yet recorded single family lots are shown in areas of McCormick Trails (McCormick West) and in McCormick Village (McCormick North) in gray outline. Figure 2 (above). The Neighborhood Core Concept Plan. The preferred concept includes a neighborhood commercial core as was sought by the City's elected officials consistent with the original concept plans. Neighborhood connectivity and walkability were priorities for the concept as was providing a variety of housing types, especially missing middle housing types, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 1.2 Local Center. This plan is intended to show how the center will comply with the PSRC requirements for a local center. The center includes some existing development and entitlements in addition to the smaller neighborhood core which is unentitled. The neighborhood core (boundary shown on Figure 1 in purple) is a smaller portion of the center and is what is being "planned," meaning that aside from a few existing development agreements, this area must go through a land use (subdivision) entitlement process. The areas outside of the subarea but within the center are within walking distance (approximately .25-.75 miles) of the commercial core and support the viability of the commercial core. These areas are not being "planned" at this time as the areas are not intended to change because of previously approved entitlements. 1.3 Public Outreach. In May 2021, the City of Port Orchard collaborated with the Developer to conduct public outreach. Initial outreach consisted of an online (Zoom) meeting with the Developer and the McCormick Woods HOA that was attended by more than 50 neighborhood residents. A similar meeting was held with the Planning Commission on June 1, 2021. At the same time, the City conducted a survey of residents in the McCormick Woods communities that had very high levels of participation. In the community survey, the area residents provided very clear direction (see Appendix A). This feedback has been synthesized into a list of goals for the subarea plan as follows: 3 1. Provide opportunities to shop, dine, meet, and gather. 2. Support the development of an assortment of businesses with an emphasis on restaurants and bars, coffee shops, retail, and grocery uses. 3. Ensure that the commercial village is small scale, containing approximately 10-20 storefronts and 20,000+/- square feet of commercial space. 4. Connect the commercial village to surrounding neighborhoods with trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes. 5. Ensure that the commercial village is designed and landscaped to fit into its natural surroundings. 6. Utilize green building techniques and materials in the commercial village. 7. Provide small plazas, outdoor gathering spaces, and opportunities for outdoor dining in the commercial village. 8. Ensure that the urban village is pedestrian oriented with streetscape amenities such as pedestrian scale lighting, benches, landscaping, and street trees, and ensure that sidewalk and trail connections are provided to adjacent existing and future neighborhoods. 9. Protect streams and wetlands and their buffers. 10. Preserve existing trees where possible and ensure the establishment of long-term tree canopy throughout the subarea. 11. Provide pocket parks to supplement the amenities provided at McCormick Village Park. 12. Design the commercial village to complement the future western entrance to McCormick Village Park as envisioned in the McCormick Village Park Master Plan. 13. Ensure that Old Clifton Road is improved as a multi -modal corridor, providing connections to McCormick Woods, the Ridge, McCormick Meadows, and McCormick West, accommodating non -motorized users, and improving safety and accessibility. 14. Work with Kitsap Transit to provide transit service to this area. 15. Ensure that adequate parking is provided to serve the commercial core. 16. Continue to support and partner with the South Kitsap School District to develop the schools at the site to the northwest of Feigley Road and Old Clifton Road. Chapter 2. Vision and Preferred Alternative. 2.1 Vision. The McCormick Village subarea is a thriving and attractive walkable neighborhood providing an assortment of goods and services, a variety of housing types, and convenient access to employment via Kitsap Transit and its proximity to SR-16 and SR-160. Residents within the subarea and surrounding neighborhoods can reach a new commercial district containing shops, restaurants, and other businesses, as well the future school sites to the northwest of the intersection of Old Clifton Road and Feigley Road, using a robust network of sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes that connect throughout the subarea and to adjacent neighborhoods. 4 The McCormick Village Subarea commercial core consists of walkable shopfronts along a new woonerf street, which is a street designed for low vehicle speeds where vehicles and pedestrians share the travel way. The commercial core is located adjacent to a new western entrance to McCormick Village Park which serves as an anchor to the commercial district. Natural environmental features are protected, and parks and recreation amenities are provided in and around the subarea. The landscaping installed within the subarea is extensive and has been designed to be an extension of the surrounding forests and to make extensive use of native trees and plants. This landscape is complemented by a mix of classic and modern Northwest architecture, defined by an extensive use of natural materials and finishes. Figure 3. An example of a proposed woonerf street. 6. The residential portion of the subarea is compact and walkable. Primary residential access streets have sidewalks separated by landscape strips while secondary local access streets are shared residential woonerfs. Vehicle access to housing units is via alleys to the maximum extent possible, to ensure continuous uninterrupted on -street parking and attractive facades dominated by windows and front porches. 2.2 Preferred Alternative. The preferred alternative (see Figure 2) visually depicts development that is consistent with the vision described in Section 2.1. Figure 4. The following graphic is a rendering of the east portions of the neighborhood core viewed from the north. The commercial areas are located on the left side of the rendering. 5 2.3 Center Designation: Local Center. The McCormick Village Center is currently designated as a local center as described in the PSRC Regional Centers Framework. As a designated local center, the McCormick Village Center is an active crossroads in Port Orchard that is a gathering place, community hub, and focal point for services. It is likely that this local center will grow to become a countywide center under the Framework. However, the center currently does not have the requirements of an existing activity unit density of 10 units per acre and a minimum mix of uses including at least 20% housing and 20% employment. As planned, the subarea: 1. Will include an estimated 1,646 activity units (jobs plus housing units) at roughly 5 activity units per acre; and 2. Will provide a mix of residential and employment uses. The center is planned to consist of 77% residential and 23% commercial at full buildout; and 3. Has capacity for additional growth. The center has capacity for an estimated 3,200 additional persons and 361 additional permanent jobs at full buildout; and 4. The center is supported by multimodal transportation (including pedestrian, bicycle, transit (planned), and automobile). Chapter 3. Land Use 3.1 Introduction. The McCormick Village subarea measures 378 acres in land area. This area includes the 40- acre McCormick Village Park, the 57-acre future South Kitsap School District school site, and a 5-acre church property. The remaining 276 areas are public right of way (ROW), and land controlled by McCormick Communities which has previously been approved for development or is intended for development. Additionally, there are several areas of wetlands and the headwaters of Anderson Creek, all of which are protected critical areas and are off limits to development. To facilitate development of the Neighborhood Core as shown in Figure 2, amendments to the City's land use map and development regulations are required. These amendments include: 1. Amending the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Amending the official City zoning map. 3. Creating an overlay district to allow for deviations from the City's development regulations and public works road standards. The Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan is being amended to refine the commercial area locations within the subarea to correspond to the development concept shown in Figure 2. The existing and proposed land use map designations are shown in Figure 5 below: PROPOSED EXISTING Figure 5. Land use designations before and after subarea plan adoption. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD McCormick Village Overlay District Comprehensive Plan Designation OMVOD Boundary Comprehensive Plan Designation _ COMMERCIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The Zoning Map as adopted in POMC 20.31 is being amended to refine the commercial area locations within the subarea to correspond to the development concept shown in figure 2. The existing and proposed zoning designations are shown in figure 6 below: PROPOSED EXISTING Figure 6. Zoning before and after subarea plan adoption. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD McCormick Village Overlay District Zoning Designation O MVO[) Boundary Zoning Designation CMU NMU R3 A McCormick Village Overlay District is proposed for adoption in conjunction with this subarea plan. This overlay district seeks to allow several deviations to the City's current standards and includes the following: 1. Land Uses 2. Building Types 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards 4. Building Elements 5. Lot and Road Layout 6. Road Standards. 7. Off-street Parking Standards. F 8. Significant Tree/Tree Canopy Standard. 3.2 Population and Employment. As of the end of 2020, the McCormick Urban Village Center contained a regional park and a church, no homes, and only a few jobs. Development of the first housing units in the subarea began in 2021 and is accelerating rapidly. McCormick Communities desires to begin development of the Neighborhood Core in 2022. Based on existing entitlements and the plans shown in Figure 2, when developed the subarea is expected to contain 1,271 housing units and 375 jobs. Planned jobs and housing are shown in Table 1 below. The actual amount of development may vary from the estimate below. Housing Planning Area Jobs Units McCormick Village Commercial Core 67 0 McCormick Village Core 0 388 McCormick Village SF Areas (north of SW Yarrow Street) 0 322 McCormick Trails SF Areas 0 361 McCormick Trails MF 3 200 Future School Site 275 0 Fire Station 10 0 Church 20 0 Total 375 1271 Percent Job/Housing 23% 77% 3.3 Land Use Goals for the Urban Village Subarea (these goals are in addition to existing goals found in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan): Goal MVLU-1: Implement the McCormick Urban Village Subarea Concept Plan as shown in Figure 2. Policy MVLU-1: Allow uses, building types, and site design generally consistent with Figure 2 in the McCormick Urban Village Subarea Overlay District. Goal MVLU-2: Encourage the development of a McCormick Urban Village Central Business District along a new woonerf street accessed via Campus Parkway. Policy MVLU-2: Provide storefront uses on the ground floor in the form of a "Main Street" along a woonerf street as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Regulations for the McCormick Urban Village Overlay District shall ensure that buildings line the new woonerf street without landscape setbacks and with pedestrian entrances oriented towards the street. I• Figure 7: Block Frontage Map for McCormick Urban Village. N *] Policy MVLU-3: Require a build -to -zone along the storefront area shown in Figure 7 in accordance with the CMU zoning designations, as shown on the Zoning Map (Figure 5) but provide exceptions for public plazas and significant street corners. Goal MVLU-4: Ensure that development in the McCormick Urban Village is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. Policy MVLU-4: Designate high visibility street corners, as defined in the City's design guidelines (POMC 20.127.250) in strategic locations along the new woonerf street and establish requirements in 10 these locations to accentuate building or plaza design with special design features. Policy MVLU-5: Require facade articulation when any proposed building exceeds 120 feet in length. Policy MVLU-6: Ensure that there is at least 60% facade transparency on the ground floor of single - story shopfront and mixed -use shopfront buildings with a facade facing a woonerf street. Chapter 4. Housing. 4.1 Introduction. Home construction within the subarea plan boundary commenced in 2021 for areas previously entitled. As indicated in the Land Use chapter, the subarea is planned to include 1,271 housing units at full buildout. According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, multifamily projects containing 5 or more units in Port Orchard contain on average 2.09 persons per household, whereas detached houses contain 2.68 persons per household. Based on these persons per household estimates, the center should house about 3,200 residents at full buildout. 4.2 Goals and Policies. (Additional goals and policies beyond those already in the Comprehensive Plan) Goal MVH-1: Provide for a mix of housing types, including but not limited to detached houses, backyard cottages, carriage houses, paseo houses, duplexes, attached houses, townhomes, apartments, forecourt apartments, and live -work units. Policy MVH-1: Ensure that the development regulations allow the development of the building types described in Goal MVH-1, pursuant to the Zoning Map in Figure 6. Goal MVH-2: Provide owner -occupied and/or rental housing serving a mix of income levels. Policy MVH-2: Offer 12-year multifamily tax exemptions throughout the subarea in support of affordable housing. Chapter 5 Economic Development. 5.1 Introduction. The McCormick Urban Village subarea is currently mostly undeveloped. Employment opportunities within the subarea will include the existing city park, the McCormick Woods HOA, the existing church, a future fire station, the future school sites, home businesses, and temporary construction jobs related to the buildout of the subarea. The employment assumption for new commercial square footage in the center is one job per 300 square feet, as the expected uses would be retail, restaurant, and bars, which have a higher number of jobs per square foot of space compared other commercial uses. Approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial space is planned within the neighborhood core. It is expected that future schools and a new fire station located in the center would employ approximately 285 people. The total expected employment for the center at buildout is 375 jobs, excluding home businesses. The McCormick Village Plan envisions the establishment of a new central business district adjacent to Campus Parkway along a new woonerf street. This new central business district is intended to take the form of a "Main Street" with shopfronts on the ground floor abutting this new woonerf, featuring wide sidewalks and a shared street. Parking is to be provided on -street along the woonerf, with supplemental parking behind or below these shopfronts, or as on -street parking in the planned neighborhood. It is critical to the success of a new business district to ensure that there are enough dwellings within walking distance to support these 11 businesses. This will lower parking demands and increase activity in the area. Ultimately, this commercial district will be supported by a full center buildout of 1,271 housing units containing approximately 3,200 residents. Other residential areas just beyond the center boundary, along with nonmotorized improvements, transit, on- and off-street parking, gathering spaces, McCormick Village Park, and an active streetscape will all contribute to a vibrant business district. 5.2 Goals and Policies. Goal MVED-1: Provide zoning for ground floor shopfront development and retail, service, restaurant, and other compatible uses along a new woonerf street. Policy MVED-1. Require ground floor shopfront development along a new woonerf street running perpendicular to Campus Parkway, through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. Policy MVED-2. Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. Policy MVED-3. Allow urban plazas in areas where shopfront development is required. Goal MVED-2: Ensure that uses which are not compatible with building a walkable neighborhood center are prohibited. Policy MVED-4. Prohibit drive through businesses, gas stations, storage facilities, and other commercial uses that are unlikely to contribute to a walkable neighborhood center. Chapter 6 Parks. 6.1 Introduction. It is critical to consider the availability of parks and recreational amenities when planning centers. Parks provide a gathering place for neighborhood residents, and recreational facilities contribute to public health and provide connections within the neighborhood. In 2016, the City completed construction on phase 2 of the McCormick Village Park, a regional park adjacent to the neighborhood core. This park, including phase 3 construction as identified in the McCormick Village Park Master Plan, will continue to function as a centerpiece for the neighborhood and will be complemented by the new neighborhood core. The preferred alternative includes multiple pocket parks to be constructed within the subarea. These pocket parks and plazas are consistent with existing City code requirements for usable open space associated with multifamily development. Goal MVP-1: Encourage the development of new pocket parks throughout the neighborhood. Policy MVP-1: Allow public pocket parks to satisfy the requirements of POMC 20.127.350 for all development in the subarea. Goal MVP-2: Encourage the development of public plazas and other gathering spaces in the commercial neighborhood core. Policy MVP-2: Designate significant street corners on the block frontage standard maps as shown in Figure 7, to encourage the development of public gathering spaces in the central business district. 12 Goal MVP-3: Provide public and private sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes within the center. Policy MVP-3: Provide bicycle lanes on Old Clifton Road through the center. Policy MVP-4: Ensure that sidewalks are constructed along all public and private roads within the center. 13 Chapter 7 Utilities. 7.1 Introduction. The McCormick Woods subarea and center is served by City of Port Orchard water, City of Bremerton water, City of Port Orchard sanitary sewer and stormwater, Puget Sound Energy (electric and gas), Xfinity, Wave, Century Link, and KPUD (cable, phone, and/or internet). In terms of the utility services provided by the City of Port Orchard, some upgrades to the City of Port Orchard and City of Bremerton water systems are needed in support of subarea development. The Developer should coordinate with the City of Bremerton for water system requirements. In the City of Port Orchard, additional water storage (the 660 reservoir) and wells 11 and 12 are needed to support the buildout of the subarea and center. Goal MVU-1: Ensure that adequate fire flow is available to support development in the McCormick Urban Village subarea. Policy MVU-1: Provide employment and population assumptions for the subarea to the City of Bremerton for inclusion in the next Bremerton water system plan update. Goal MVU-2: Ensure that adequate stormwater facilities exist to serve the public streets and sidewalks in the McCormick Village Center. Policy MVU-2: Build low impact development (LID) stormwater facilities within the center where practical, to manage stormwater created by new public and private streets. Figure 8: Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Techniques Incorporated into Street Design. This sort of design is encouraged in the McCormick Village Subarea. Goal MVU-3: Ensure that telecommunication facilities are adequate to support 215t century users. Policy MVU-3: Ensure that KPUD has access to trenches as roads and utilities are installed. Policy MVU-4: Provide for integration of 5G wireless facilities in the streetscape in the subarea. Chapter 8 Transportation. 8.1 Introduction. The McCormick Village Subarea is established along the Old Clifton Road corridor between 14 Campus Parkway and Feigley Road. The Old Clifton corridor provides an important link between SR-16 and SR- 3 and allows some motorists to bypass congestion in Gorst. At the present time, Kitsap Transit does not provide bus service in the area, but with future development this could change. Kitsap Transit plans for future transit service once an area has grown enough to justify deployment of that service. Old Clifton Road is identified as a Collector A street according to the City's street classifications. Pursuant to the City's Public Works and Engineering Standards, Old Clifton Road is planned to be improved as a complete street through the center, although pedestrian connectivity could be rerouted to parallel road networks through some sections, including through the subarea. To achieve countywide center requirements, several conceptual road sections specific to the subarea have been created to improve walkability. While conceptually approved, the roads are still subject to a road deviation approval process to deviate from the city's standard road sections. The proposed conceptual sections proposed in the center provide widened sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and low impact development landscape treatments. The woonerf section "Village Lane" in the core of the center is designed to slow traffic, facilitating a safe walking and shopping environment as well as on -street parking. Finally, nearly all residential development in the subarea is served by alleys to ensure an attractive streetscape that encourages walking. The proposed conceptual subarea road section drawings are shown in Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12. Figure 9: Main Collector. K.:6. u 51' RIGHTOF-WAY Ft 1�1.5'CURBB I.5'CURSN I- GtlffER GIITTE0. T 9' 9 DA M. Mw, UNE TRAVEL., RM,NG VDEWI- 4'RVJiIER �. 71/JIiER 5'SMEWAIX A MAIN COLLECTOR NOT TO SCALE 15 Figure 10: Village Lane. x 33' RIGHT-OF-WAY 1.0' RIBBON 1.0' RIBBON CURB CURB 10' - 13' 10' - 13' SIDEWALK 14' 19` SIDEWALK W/TREE WELLS TRAVEL LANE ANGLED PARKING W/TREE WELLS Figure 11: Woonerf (residential). B VILLAGE LANE (ONE-WAY) NOT TO SCALE PRIVATE C WOONERF (ONE-WAY) NOT TO SCALE 16 Figure 12: Alley OALLEY (NO PARKING) NOT TO SCALE Figure 13: Proposed Location of Road Sections OL The development of the McCormick properties is subject to a development agreement for transportation, approved on February 9, 2021. This agreement has provided concurrency approval and limits the extent of any offsite transportation improvements that might be required. However, since some portions of the subarea remain unentitled, the contents of this plan related to onsite transportation improvements would apply to future development. Goal MVT-1: Develop local access roads in the subarea in accordance with Figures 9-12 above. Serve the central neighborhood core with a woonerf street. Provide vehicular parking for most residential units via alleys. Policy MVT-1: Provide pedestrian crossings at regular intervals on local access streets through the 17 subarea. Policy MVT-2: Provide on street parking on most local access streets within the subarea. Policy MVT-3: Design roads in the subarea to encourage reduced vehicle speed and increased pedestrian safety. Policy MVT-4: Integrate urban low impact development stormwater management features in roadway designs, including landscaped infiltration galleries between on -street parking lanes and sidewalks. Ensure that infiltration galleries allow ample opportunities for access between parking areas and sidewalks. (See Figure 8.) Goal MVT-2: Provide connectivity between the subarea and McCormick West, McCormick Woods, McCormick North, McCormick Village Park, the future school sites on Feigley, and other destinations within the western portions of Port Orchard. Policy MVT-5: The City should develop a corridor plan for Old Clifton Road from Anderson Hill Road to the western City limits (west of Feigley). Goal MVT-3: Provide for flexibility in parking quantity standards. Policy MVT-6: Include alternative parking ratios in the overlay district as it applies to the commercial core to recognize the peak parking demands of all uses, and the ability for on -street parking to be shared between residential and non-residential uses. Policy MVT-7: Expand the McCormick Woods Golf Cart zone in areas south of Old Clifton Road. Goal MVT-4: Encourage the development of storefronts along a new woonerf street as shown in Figure 10. Policy MVT-8: Designate a new woonerf street as "storefront block frontage" in the city's design standards (POMC 20.127) and require a build -to -zone along this frontage. Policy MVT-9: Remove block frontage standards in other areas of the subarea. Goal MVT-5: Support the establishment of transit service in the subarea and center. Policy MVT-10: Require the installation of transit pads during permitting and construction in consultation with Kitsap Transit. Goal MVT-6: Support bicycle infrastructure and provide bicycle amenities in the subarea. Policy MVT-11: Provide bike lanes or grade separated pathways running east/west and north/south through the subarea. Policy MVT-12: Ensure that bicycle parking is provided in the subarea consistent with POMC 20.124. Goal MVT-7: Provide pedestrian infrastructure throughout the subarea. Policy MVT-13: Ensure that existing and proposed streets in the subarea are constructed with sidewalks on both sides of the street except for woonerfs and alleys and include landscape strips to provide pedestrian vehicle separation. 18 Policy MVT-14: Provide pedestrian connectivity though -out the subarea. Goal MVT-8: Provide safe multimodal access to the future school site on Feigley Road. Policy MVT-15: Ensure that sidewalks are provided between the subarea and the future school site on Feigley. Consider adding pedestrian crossings at SW Yarrow Street and Feigley Road when the school develops. Goal MVT-9: Ensure that new electrical service is installed underground within the subarea. Policy MVT-16: Undergrounding of powerline distribution and service should be required through the subarea. 19 SF.i'�'t� s.. r AI Iw ,. r E Y s F �u 'f c IA � Bethel Lund Subarea Plan December 2024 Acknowledgements The Sedgwick-Bethel Plan would not be possible without the enthusiasm and support of community stakeholders, including the businesses neighbors, and agency partners in and around the Sedgwick-Bethel area. A special thanks to everyone who contributed their time and effort to the development of this plan. Mayor Rob Putaansuu City Council Members: Mark Trenary Jay Rosapepe Scott Diener Eric Worden Heidi Fenton Fred Chang John Morrissey Planning Commission: Annette Stewart Stephanie Bailey Tyler McKlosky Wayne Wright Louis Ta Paul Fontenot Joe Morrison City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Community Development Director Jim Fisk AICP, Principal Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Shaun Raja, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist, Assistant Planner Consultant Team: MAKERS AHBL Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan December 2024 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Plan Background and Context................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Area................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework..........................................................................................3 2. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Transportation............................................................................................................................17 Previous Transportation Planning Efforts.........................................................................................17 Vehicular Circulation and Access..................................................................................................20 Pedestrian Circulation and Access................................................................................................ 23 BicycleFacilities................................................................................................................................24 Transit.................................................................................................................................................. 25 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.................................................................................27 Parksand Open Space....................................................................................................................27 CriticalAreas..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment................................................................................................29 EconomicProfile............................................................................................................................... 29 DevelopmentPipeline......................................................................................................................32 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity................................................................................................33 3. Goals and Vision..........................................................................................................................34 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges..................................................................................34 3.2 Alternatives...............................................................................................................................36 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework...........................................................................37 Values................................................................................................................................................. 37 PlanConcept....................................................................................................................................38 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies.........................................................................................................41 LandUse............................................................................................................................................41 Transportation.................................................................................................................................... 43 CommunityDesign...........................................................................................................................45 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.........................................................................................47 4. Action Plan...................................................................................................................................48 5. Notes.............................................................................................................................................51 Note 1: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Centers Goals and Policies....................................52 Note 2: Bethel Subareas Plans Engagement Summary.................................................................. 54 Note 3: Bethel -Lund Land Use Alternatives.......................................................................................64 20mrol as :1MiTaewfirWMION -. • rr December 2024 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1-1 Bethel -Lund Study Area..................................................................................................2 EXHIBIT 2-1 Bethel Junction................................................................................................................ 6 EXHIBIT 2-2 Existing Land Use............................................................................................................. 7 EXHIBIT 2-3 Existing Zoning.................................................................................................................9 EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #7 and Map #8........................................................................ 14 EXHIBIT 2-5 Looking west from Lund Avenue................................................................................. 16 EXHIBIT 2-6 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual Rendering..........................................17 EXHIBIT 2-7 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan.................................................................................... 18 EXHIBIT 2-8 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections................................................................... 19 EXHIBIT 2-9 Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map..............................22 EXHIBIT 2-10 Planned Non -Motorized Routes..................................................................................25 EXHIBIT 2-1 1 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities..............................................................26 EXHIBIT 2-12 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas......................................................................28 EXHIBIT 2-13 Age in Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023..............................................29 EXHIBIT 2-14 Household Incomes in the Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023............30 EXHIBIT 2-15 Top Job Sectors in Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2012 and 2021........................................31 EXHIBIT 2-16 Commuting Patterns in the Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2021..........................................31 EXHIBIT 2-17 Existing and Pipeline Units and Commercial Development in the Bethel -Lund Subarea.......................................................................................................................... 32 EXHIBIT 2-18 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Bethel -Lund Subarea................................33 EXHIBIT 3-1 Bethel -Lund Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges.................................................35 EXHIBIT 3-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Framework Map......................................................................39 EXHIBIT 3-3 Bethel -Lund Height Overlay Districts...........................................................................40 EXHIBIT 3-4 Bethel -Lund Concept..................................................................................................46 Table TABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers...................................................3 TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary.......................................................................5 TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types.................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses......................................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2-3 Port Orchard 6/20-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2025-2030/2030- 2043)................................................................................................................................... 21 TABLE 2-4 Kitsap County 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024-2029) ................23 TABLE 2-5 Planned Nonmotorized Routes.......................................................................................24 TABLE 4-1 Bethel -Lund Action Plan...................................................................................................49 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan December 2024 1. Introduction 1.1 Plan Background and Context The centers approach to planning was first introduced in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. This approach fosters a sustainable future by accommodating growth through concentrated development patterns and preserves the community's valued traits through collaborative planning efforts. This centers approach is also reflected in Vision 2050, the regional plan adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and in the Countywide Planning Policies managed by Kitsap County. According to Vision 2050, centers are hubs that serve as important focal points for jobs, housing, shopping, and recreation, and are supported by multimodal transportation including transit. Centers create spaces where people can gather, live, and thrive. In alignment with PSRC's criteria outlined in Vision 2050, the 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan designates six "countywide centers" and three "local centers." Bethel -Lund is a countywide center. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan Introduction • December 2024 The City of Port Orchard gathered community input to inform this Subarea plan. Input was collected through a an in -person workshop and an online survey to evaluate alternative concepts. This feedback informed the locally preferred land use and urban design vision in the plan. The plan presents a vision for Bethel -Lund to be a walkable, mixed -use urban neighborhood by updating development regulations, encouraging transit -oriented development and redevelopment, and increasing open space and recreational opportunities in the area. 1.2 Study Area The Bethel -Lund Subarea is centrally located at the intersection of Bethel Road and Lund Avenue. It is bounded on the west by Blackjack Creek and on the east by Port Orchard's unincorporated area. The Subarea covers a total of 211.2 acres. Following a thorough evaluation, the Bethel -Lund Subarea is larger than initially mapped in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. The larger area includes more areas of potential development along Bethel Road and recently constructed residential subdivisions. This updated boundary better aligns with PSRC guidance for countywide growth centers. EXHIBIT 1-1 Bethel -Lund Study Area Proposed New Subarea Boundary 6tisiing Subarea Boundory QPort Orchard Pod Orchard UGA I Maier FaaM Star Geograrh- a d Ote GI51Iser Community SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 2 Introduction - December 2024 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework PSRC 2018 Regional Centers Framework establishes eligibility requirements for Countywide Growth Centers, for which designation criteria is listed below: (ABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers Identified as a countywide center in the countywide The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies planning policies Appedix D: List of Centers identifies Sedgwick/Bethel Center as a countywide center candidiate. Located within a city or unincorporated urban area Bethel -Lund is located within the Port Orchard city limits. Demonstration that the center is a local planning and investment priority: ■ Identified as a countywide center in a local comprehensive plan; subarea plan recommended ■ Clear evidence that the area is a local priority for investment, such as planning efforts or infrastructure The center is a location for compact, mixed -use development; including: ■ A minimum existing activity unit density of 10 activity units per acre ■ Planning and zoning for a minimum mix of uses of 20 percent residential and 20 percent employment unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. ■ Capacity and planning for additional growth This area is identified as a countywide center in the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Centers Strategy as found in the Land Use Element Section 2.8. In addition to the development of this plan, various transportation investments are planned within Bethel -Lund, detailed in Section 2.2. These include: ■ Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan ■ Kitsap Transit Loncl-Rance Transit Plan 2022-2042 ■ Port Orchard 2025-2030/2031-2044 - 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Program ■ 2024-2029 Kitsap Couny Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary indicates that Bethel -Lund meets the minimim existing activity unit density, and has capacity to accommodate 13.6 activity units per acre. Existing mix of residential (53%) and employment (47%) use surpass the minimum mix requirement. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 3 Introduction • December 2024 The center supports multi -modal transportation, including: Transit service Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities Street pattern that supports walkability Bicycle infrastructure and amenities There is existing transit service in the Subarea and some limited pedestrian infrastructure. The Subarea plan identifies multi -modal transportation investments that are in various stages of planning and design (see the 'priority' checklist item above), including projects for enhanced bus service, new sidewalks and crossings, potential off-street trails, and bike facilities. The Subarea plan also identifies conceptual locations for multiple new streets to create a more compact street pattern. Development regulations will incrementally result in higher -quality private develoment with walkable frontages and pedestrian - oriented site and building design. Compact, walkable size of one -quarter mile squared The Bethel -Lund Subarea is 211.2 acres. (160 acres), up to half -mile transit walkshed (500 acres) Capacity In addition to the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers framework above, Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies establish that Countywide Centers must show a minimum of 10 activity units per acre. An activity unit is one person or one job. TABLE 1-2 below summarizes the existing, pipeline, and additional land capacity for housing and jobs in the Subarea. The additional land capacity is based on the development pattern outlined in this plan (see Planning Framework). As shown, the Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 13.1 activity units per acre. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 4 Introduction - December 2024 TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary Bethel -Lund Existing Pipeline (as of Sept. 2024) Acres Vacant/Redevelopable Residential Acres Existing + Pipeline 211.2 Additional Land Capacity 16.9 Total 211.2 Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Acres 0.1 Housing Units 259 213 472 301 773 Single Family 174 39 213 34 247 Condo 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 85 174 259 267 526 People per Household Single Family 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Condo 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Multifamily 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Population 665 460 1,124 632 1,756 Jobs 988 0 988 21 1,009 Activity Units 1,653 460 2,112 653 2,765 AUs / Acre 10.0 13.1 Requirements Required Acres 160-500 160-500 Actual Acres 211.2 211.2 Surplus /Shortfall 51.2 51.2 Required Use Mix 20% Res. / Emp. 20% Res. / Emp. Actual Res. Mix 53% 64% Actual Emp. Mix 47% 36% Required AUs/Acre 10 10 Actual AUs/Acre 10.0 13.1 Surplus /Shortfall 0.0 SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 5 Existing Conditions - December 2024 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Bethel -Lund is a commercial hub that is EXHIBIT 2-1 Bethel Junction surrounded by residential neighborhoods. It contains a mix of land uses including detached single-family homes, now" mobile/manufactured homes, grocery stores, restaurants, and a variety of retail and service businesses (see EXHIBIT 2-2). At the �t.ID n heart of Bethel -Lund lies a commercial cluster that includes big box store shopping centers with anchors like Safeway and Walmart, alongside smaller retail and restaurant establishments. SOURCE: Google Earth, 2024 Additionally, civic uses and religious institutions, such as East Port Orchard Elementary School and Christian Life Center, are located just beyond the Subarea extent to the north. I Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 6 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Clusters of residential uses are located to the east and west, including Orchard Bluff Mobile Home Park, an 88-lot low-income affordable senior living community owned and managed by Housing Kitsap, and two multifamily residential complexes, Lund Pointe and Lund Village. Along Harold Drive, pockets of detached -single family homes are expected to expand with new subdivision development. Several multifamily projects are in the pipeline (see 2.4 Development Pipeline). EXHIBIT 2-2 Existing Land Use Lundberg Park SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 East Port Orchard Elementary School :hristion Life Center ns ' LLLG SaIF Retail HEL Fuel Lund TION Polnie � Community Shopping Center / Grocery/Market �y lL) Restaurant/Eateries / Urffage/ Bank Auto Service/Convenience Store Office Church j Walmart � school / _-/ Veterinary Hospital Storage Warehouse Single Family Housing j � Duplex,Townhouse / IL Multifamily Housing (5+ Units) Manufactured home Greenbelt Parks and Recreation j Undesigund j j �� 1 Bethel Lund j r.� 0 Port Orchard / Port Orchard UGA SESACN 1 0 400 800 Feet IN Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan Existing Conditions • December 2024 The Subarea is currently zoned Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Commercial Heavy (CH), Commercial Corridor (CC), and Residential 1 (RI), Residential 2 (R2), and Residential 3 (R3). (EXHIBIT 2-3). TABLE 2-1 and TABLE 2-2 list the building types and land uses permitted in these zoning districts. Generally, the maximum building height allowed within Sedgwick-Bethel is three stories or 35 feet. Port Orchard's subarea policies (established in the Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan) describe a need to support focused growth with compact development forms. Low height limits can be a barrier to achieving the added dwelling units and vertical mixed -use buildings necessary to concentrate growth in the Subarea, as envisioned by the City's land use and centers policies. The increased cost and risk of developing mixed -use structures and leasing ground -floor commercial space (compared to a single -use, low-rise apartment building) can be offset by a higher amount of residential floor area. This is because allowing additional dwelling units which can help spread out of the cost of construction across more units. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, developers are indicating increased risk associated with commercial development due to continued uncertainty about retail and office markets (this is a nationwide trend but was also confirmed in local stakeholder interviews for the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan). 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 are complex and require savvy and willing participants. To date, no project has 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. Increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be mitigated by a broad set of multifamily and commercial design standards that Port Orchard already has in place (Chapter 20.127 POMC). These include but are not limited to standards for building massing, light and air access, useable open space, building materials, and windows and entries. According to the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP), the economic benefits of light wood frame construction are maximized with height limits in the 65-85 feet range. The HAP makes specific recommendations for height limits in several zones that exist in the Subarea. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 8 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-3 Existing Zoning �P and iry > � Q Q n Port Orchard y W O 0 O O % BASIL Cr x Zoning - Greenbelt (GB) Residential I (RI) Residential 2 (R2) Residential 3 (R31 commercial Corridor{CC) - Commercial Heavy (CH) Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU} S I� Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) !N _ Civic and Institutional (CI) Public Facilities IPF1 Parks and Recreation (PR) Bethel Lund Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Sr 0 400 800Fee1 Kar, Earthstar Geographics, and the &S User Community SOURCE: City of Port Orchard 2023 Zoning TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types Building Type Townhouse Residential Zones R1 ** R2** -- P* R3 P Commercial Zones CMU CC CH P -- -- Fourplex (and Triplex) -- -- P -- -- -- Apartment -- -- P P -- -- Mixed Use Shopfront -- -- -- P P -- Single-Story Shopfront -- -- -- P P P Detached House P P P -- -- -- Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 9 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Building Type Backyard Cottage Cottage Court Duplex: Side -by -Side Duplex: Back -to -Back Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 CMU CC CH Attached House -- P P -- -- -- Live-Work -- -- -- P P -- General Building -- -- -- P P P Shopfront House -- -- -- P P -- Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.32.015 Building type zoning matrix *Note: In the R2 zone townhouses are limited to three or four units (POMC 20.32.090.2) **Note: Permitted building types in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses Land Uses Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 CMU CC CH Residential Single-family detached P P P -- -- -- Two-family -- P P -- -- -- Single-family attached -- (2 units) P P -- -- -- Single-family attached -- (3-4 units) P P P P -- Single-family attached -- (5-6 units) Multifamily (3 or more units) -- -- -- P P P P P P -- -- Permanent supportive C housing C C C C C Commercial Group day care (7 to 12) C C C P P -- Day care center (13 or more) -- -- -- C P P Indoor recreation* -- -- -- P P P Outdoor recreation* -- -- -- C P P Hotel -- -- -- P P P Medical* -- -- -- C P P Office* -- -- -- P P P Personal service* -- -- -- P P P Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 10 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Land Uses Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 CMU CC CH Restaurants -- -- -- P P P Retail sales: Up to 5,000 SF GFA -- -- -- P P P 5,001 - 15,000 SF GFA -- -- -- P P P 15,001 - 50,000 SF GFA -- -- Over 50,000 SF GFA -- -- Convenience store w/ fuel -- -- -- -- P -- -- C -- -- -- P P C Convenience store w/o fuel -- -- -- C P P Drive -through facilities -- -- -- C P P Industrial Light manufacturing -- -- -- -- -- -- Brewery, distillery: Up 5,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- P 5,001 - 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- C P Over 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- -- Food processing, boutique -- -- -- P P P Self-service storage -- -- -- C C C Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.30.040 Use Table *Note: Some specific types of uses within these categories have further restrictions per POMC 20.39.040 **Note: Permitted land uses in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. Commercial zoning represents a large share of the Subarea. The CMU zone offers the most flexibility for residential uses because it allows single -purpose apartment buildings, townhouses, and mixed -use buildings. The CC zone allows apartments only in mixed -use buildings and residential use is mostly prohibited in the CH zone. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 1 1 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Middle Housing The City is taking proactive measures to ensure compliance with Washington State's new middle housing bills, HB 1 110 and HB 2321, adopted during the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions respectively. HB 1 1 10 mandates cities of specific sizes and locations to permit multiple dwelling units per lot in areas that are traditionally exclusive to single- family detached homes. HB 2321 modified the requirements created under HB 1 110. The law is codified primarily under RCW 36.70A.635. What is Middle Housing? "Middle housing" includes duplexes, townhouses, cottages, courtyard apartments, and other building types that fall between the scale of single-family detached houses and larger apartment buildings. Middle housing units tend to be more affordable to build than single-family homes and offer greater varieties of layout and sizes that are suited for a wider range of households. Expanding the areas where middle housing is allowed offer greater opportunities for "starter homes", or homeownership, to all residents of a community. Townhouses Courtyard apartments Small apartments (5-10 units) Source: MAKERS, 2023 Currently, Port Orchard is a Tier 3 city as described by the Department of Commerce Middle Housing Model Ordinance User Guide. Tier 3 cities must allow at least two units per lot. Port Orchard is anticipated to cross the 25,000-person population threshold and become a Tier 2 city. Tier 2 cities are required to allow at least two units per lot and also at least four units per lot when a lot provides one affordable housing unit or a lot is near a major transit stop. Should Kitsap Transit implement bus rapid transit in the Bethel corridor, stops for that service will be considered major transit stops. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 12 Existing Conditions • December 2024 To implement middle housing effectively, Port Orchard proposes the redesignation of properties currently within the R 1 zone to R2, effectively repealing existing R 1 zoning standards and implementing middle housing building types mandated by HB 1 110 in the R2 zoning district. The Port Orchard HAP provides guidance to promote middle housing while the middle housing compliance strategy is part of the broader update and adoption of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan. Block Frontage Standards Chapter 20.127 POMC provides citywide multifamily and commercial design standards. Article II provides block frontage design standards that emphasize compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment. Many of Port Orchard's streets are designated on block frontage maps for which specific standards apply to different frontage designations. In this Subarea, Bethel Road and Lund Avenue are both designated as "varied" in the community design framework maps (POMC 20.127.130) meaning developments fronting these streets are subject to either "storefront" or "landscaped" block frontage standards. Storefront frontages feature traditional ground -floor commercial spaces at the edge of the public sidewalk. Landscape frontages feature landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and building. In some cases, parking is restricted from being located and visible adjacent to public sidewalks. The large commercial site hosting Safeway and other stores on the southeast corner of the Bethel Road and Lund Avenue intersection is designated as subject to "optional community design framework master plan approval." This designation allows such recently rezoned sites the option to propose alternative and/or additional block frontages. It is intended to promote the arrangement of streets, buildings, open space, parking, and service areas that enhance the pedestrian experience and reinforce Port Orchard's community character. In addition to the existing streets, EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #7 and Map #8 use black dashed lines to indicate planned locations for new streets. Such streets can be created through a public capital project or as a condition of approval for private development occurring on applicable lots. Planned streets are subject to the "other block frontage standards" under POMC 20.127.210. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 13 Existing Conditions • December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #7 and Map #8 SOURCE: POMC 20.127.130 Community design framework maps Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 14 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Existing Aesthetics and Design Standards The Subarea aesthetic is typical of low -density, auto -oriented commercial and residential development in the Puget Sound region. Most commercial properties contain one-story buildings set back from the street by expansive parking lots. There are multiple drive -through businesses. Commercial signage is typical for the region and mostly consists of monument and wall -mounted signs. Larger commercial buildings typically have service access in rear -facing areas, while smaller commercial buildings have screened trash collection located in in parking areas. Travel in the area is primarily by automobile and likely related to the long distances between residential and commercial land uses and the incomplete nature of the sidewalk and bicycling infrastructure network. See more information in 2.2 Transportation. Residential development mostly consists of detached single-family homes. Older subdivisions are typically isolated on dead-end side streets while newer subdivisions in the northwest portion of the Subarea include street networks that provide multiple external connections. There are a few single-family properties on larger lots fronting Bethel Road and Lund Avenue. Orchard Bluff Mobile Home Park, owned by Housing Kitsap, is located behind a wide landscape buffer along Lund Avenue. Multifamily residences include three small apartment complexes located on the eastern and southern fringes of the Subarea, all of which consist of two-story buildings. Landscaping is inconsistent across the Subarea. Some properties have landscaped perimeters and parking lots, while other developed areas, including segments of Bethel Road and Lund Avenue, are void of any plantings. Several vacant and/or undeveloped properties are densely vegetated and contain stands of mature trees, particularly to the west. The Subarea is mostly flat with the exception of the Blackjack Creek ravine. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 15 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-5 Looking west from Lund Avenue Subarea aesthetic and pedestrian experience are expected to improve with the implementation of the Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan, which calls for continuous sidewalks and landscape strips along the length of Bethel Road. Aesthetics will also improve over time through redevelopment and required compliance with the Port Orchard multifamily and commercial design standards under Chapter 20.127 POMC, which ensure that new development is high quality and positively contributes to Port Orchard's community character These design standards consist of: • Article II - Block Frontage Standards (described above). Most importantly, new buildings must be located adjacent to Bethel Road and Lund Avenue rather than set back behind parking. • Article III -Site Planning Standards o Standards for light and air access to residential dwelling units o Nonmotorized circulation standards, including minimum connectivity o Vehicular circulation standards for internal roadways o Open space standards o Standards for the design of service areas and mechanical equipment • Article IV - Building Design Standards o Prohibition on corporate architecture o Building massing and articulation standards that reduce the perceived scale of large buildings o Building detail requirements for commercial ground floors o Exterior material standards o Requirements for treating blank walls Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 16 Existing Conditions • December 2024 2.2 Transportation Previous Transportation Planning Efforts Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive plan and conceptual design for two major corridors in Port Orchard: Sedgwick Road (State Route 160) and Bethel Road. These are major arterials that serve the Bethel -Lund Subarea and provide connections to State Route 16, Downtown Port Orchard, and the Southworth Ferry Terminal. Elements of the study were centered on: Ensuring safe mobility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders Supporting existing businesses and future commercial growth in the area Guiding future development of the corridors through design considerations and funding tools The proposed conceptual design introduces roundabouts on key segments of both roadways. Additionally, the study recommends enhancing sidewalk connectivity, bicycle facilities, and implementing green stormwater infrastructure. The multi -phase reconstruction of Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road offers a unique opportunity to transform these corridors into attractive, pedestrian -friendly streets, while strengthening connections among the area neighborhoods. Phase I of the Bethel Road corridor improvements includes roundabouts at the intersections of Bethel Road with Blueberry Road and Salmonberry Road. EXHIBIT 2-6 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual Rendering - IL -� jh. A' .AMIN SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 17 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-7 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan LEGEND Betties Road— Typical Sect!cm A Be; het Road — Typical Section B — Sedgwick Road — Typioal Section E3�saireg Sirr&Aiine Roundshout Proposed -Sin l6e4ane RDundabout Praprsed Mulli-lane RDundabnul Tremwt AwenmQ i L4. r Mile Hill drive SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 18 Existing Conditions • December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-8 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections Bethel Road - Typical Section A _q _ri .. - 12' 11 6' B' -'r- 1*elane _ .-..... Sidewalk Bethel Road - Typical Section B 4 • # f�' 6 12' 8 8' Sde,a''k k;losKa.c Bike lane 'dehicle la^e M dian Vehicle lane Bike lane Bicswale Sidewalk Sedgwick Road - Typical Section SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan IN Existing Conditions • December 2024 Vehicular Circulation and Access Bethel Road and Lund Avenue are crucial streets providing access and mobility through Bethel -Lund. Salmonberry Road is a residential street that connects the outlying neighborhood within the Port Orchard Urban Growth Area to the Bethel Road commercial corridor. Bethel Road is a key north -south connection that provides access to transit centers, ferry terminals, and other major commercial centers, such as Downtown Port Orchard. Bethel Road also links State Route 160 and State Route 166, connecting the City to other parts of the County. Bethel Road is generally a three -lane street with a center turn lane, and carries 11,500 to 16,900 Average Weekly Daily Traffic (AWDT), depending on the segment. The Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan analyzed the crash frequency along the study segments from 2013-2017. Intersections with the most crashes were at Lund Avenue, Salmonberry Road, and Mitchell Road. Crashes related to turning movements s were more common on Bethel Road than Sedgwick Road, due to Bethel Road having more driveways and intersections which increases the likelihood of crashes occurring. The study recommends access management strategies along Bethel Road to address these issues and preserve safety, function, and capacity of the corridor. Lund Avenue is a minor arterial street connecting neighborhoods between Tremont Center and East Port Orchard. Lund Avenue is primarily a three -lane street with a center turn lane and serves 16,000 AWDT. West of Bethel Road, Lund Avenue transitions to a four -lane street and changes names to Tremont Street. Salmonberry Road is a two-lane east -west connector that runs through unincorporated residential neighborhoods in the urban growth area connecting Jackson Avenue to Bethel Road, serving an estimated 2,300 AWDT. The subarea does not have a conventional grid system. Vehicular traffic is limited to a few streets, leading to increased congestion, safety concerns, and road deterioration associated with those streets. Side streets primarily function as low -volume, local residential streets and connectors to East Port Orchard Elementary School. This plan envisions a few new streets, particularly between Walmart and Salmonberry Road, to allow greater options for vehicular access and circulation. See EXHIBIT 2-9. The City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) identifies planned transportation projects and enhancements including intersection improvements, street extensions, pedestrian and bicycle facilities upgrades, and installation of stormwater infrastructure. TABLE 2-3 lists the planned transportation projects related to Bethel -Lund, and EXHIBIT 2-9 illustrate these projects. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 20 Existing Conditions - December 2024 TABLE 2-3 Planned Transportation Improvements in Bethel -Lund I Bethel/Lincoln Bethel/Lincoln/ Safety and capacity improvements to intersection 2021 roundabout Lunberg/Mitchel 2 Lund roundabout New intersection New roundabout at Bethel and Lund intersection 2027 Vallair Ct Bethel Road / Road extension and intersection improvements 3 Connector Walmart Drive previously included in the Bethel Road Corridor 2027 Intersection right-of-way & construction project Salmonberry Bethel Road: Phase 1 b. Bethel/ Salmonberry RAB Round and 4 roundabout Salmonberry roadway segment design from Blueberry to 2023 intersection Salmonberry Right-of-way and Bethel Road: Lund to Design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of 5 construction Salmonberry the fourth phase of the street improvements per the 2034 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Right-of-way and Bethel Road: Mile Hill Design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of 6 construction Drive to Lund the fifth phase of the street improvements per the 2036 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Salmonberry Road Ramsey Road to Widen road to two travel lanes with bike lanes, 2028 Widening Bethel Road sidewalks and stormwater system improvements Walmart to 8 Salmonberry Salmonberry Complete roadway connector 2040 Connector SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2025-2030 and Tier 2 2031-2044. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 21 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-9 Planned Transportation Improvements in Bethel -Lund Map Q Lundberg �S Park i East U Port Orchard GO�� Elementary J� �AAv OL School SE.LUNDBER �RD '1iUU(V MCKINLEY PL SE C) Daffodil Christian' "P G w Storage - Life a 6 Center o Monstar Car Q m d Wash L o 1 a � N r = Kitsap Veterinary w > > Q 7 - Hospital) ¢ o 1 � � w O -0rchard Bluff 9AP -d -M-� V O w Mobile Home Puerto O Vallarta Walgreens z SE BASIL C 2�` qs Safeway / Rite Fuel BETHEL Lund `o-Aid 1 ■Kitsa JUNCTION w Point Transportation p Improvements Program (TIP) L-+-r------- ■ Bank Safeway Lund ju 5 *.I PA Planned intersection SE VAILAIR CT' villa a �i improvement 1 ■ j j ■` ®_ ■ Planned street ■ - improvement -Wendy's ■ 1 ■ — - ■ Walmart Planned street 1 ■ use ■ SFTIBURONO • • Connection 1 � r Transportation Projects i Dutch Bros ■ SE SERENADE Bethel/Sedgwick Coffee ■ Corridor Plan Other street N ■_ - ._ — • improvements ■ -r L....�.L ■ - r.+.�. Parks 1 Bethel Bethel Lund Saloon (tF3) Ilk - - o w , 3 11 Port Orchard _ z ■ �.i { r O ■ j Port Orchard UGA _ ._ ��O � I I r . _ _�" � I ■ 1 -1.4 .+ SESAMONBERRYRD.. 0 400 Spa Feet N I i I SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2025-2030 and Tier 2 2031-2044. Note: Additional transportation improvements are planned for Lund Avenue as part of the County capital projects, see Table 2-4. w O w a U W As shown on TABLE 2-4, the Kitsap County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024 - 2029) also includes planned transportation enhancements for Lund Avenue. Planned transportation projects include roundabouts and pedestrian and bicycle facility enhancements. These transportation improvements will create safer, more accessible routes for all road users in the area and improve connectivity between Bethel -Lund and East Port Orchard. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 22 Existing Conditions - December 2024 TABLE 2-4 Kitsap County 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2024-2029) SegmentRoad Description Lund - Harris to Chase Median, sidewalk, and bike lane from Harris to Chase. Roundabout 2024 at Harris Lund & Hoover Median, sidewalk, and bike lane from Harris to Chase. Roundabout 2024 at Hoover Lund & Chase Roundabout 2027 Lund - Chase to Median, sidewalk, and bike lane, and u-turn 2023 Jackson SOURCE: Kitsap County Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Pedestrian Circulation and Access The majority of existing Subarea sidewalks are located along Bethel Road and Lund Avenue. Sidewalks are being installed in concert with new development, such as residential subdivisions Many older sidewalks have substandard widths and curb cuts. Sidewalks along arterial streets are fragmented and usually not present on both sides of a street. Most streets outside of the commercial areas have paved or gravel shoulders, which forces pedestrians to share high -volume roadways with vehicles and bicyclists. Safe pedestrian crossings are limited to the two signalized intersections on Bethel Road. Side street intersections and private driveways often have wide turning radii, which increases pedestrian crossing distances and allows vehicles to turn at higher speeds. Street lighting is limited, which can reduce the safety and comfort of walking at night. The fragmented active transportation network has resulted in a lack of safe and attractive connections to neighboring destinations and car dependency. Notably, there is no attractive active transportation option for travelling east -west between Bethel Road and Harris Road for a distance of one-half mile although Harris Road has numerous residential developments that are physically close to the shopping and job opportunities in the Bethel -Lund Subarea. A similar challenge exists for the Hoover Avenue/Green Dale Drive neighborhood northeast of the subarea. Overall, the environment in the Subarea is unpleasant for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other wheeled device users, such as wheelchairs, strollers, and scooters. Continuous active transportation infrastructure would improve the functionality of the existing network and quality of the pedestrian environment, providing a convenient, safe, and attractive option alternative to driving. The City has planned nonmotorized routes that are intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the City. Those within the Bethel -Lund Subarea are listed in TABLE 2-5. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 23 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Bicycle Facilities There are no existing bicycle facilities within Bethel -Lund. However, the City's planned nonmotorized routes will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and connection from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, recreation areas, and other nonmotorized routes outside of the city limits. These routes include Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road), Tremont Lund (State Route 16 to Jackson Avenue), and Salmonberry Road West (Bethel Road to Jackson Avenue). Both Bethel Road and Tremont Lund connect to Kitsap County nonmotorized routes and are included the Kitsap County Non -Motorized Facilities Plan. The Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan includes street improvements on Bethel Road. The Tremont Street Improvement project is partially constructed, and other phases of development are ongoing. The Kitsap County TIP identifies four improvement projects along Lund Avenue including sidewalks and bicycle lanes and three new roundabouts from the Port Orchard city limits to Jackson Avenue. The eastern end route to Jackson Avenue extends beyond the city limits requiring collaboration with Kitsap County. Continued design improvements for Salmonberry Road West are part of the Bethel Phase 1 project. TABLE 2-5 Planned Nonmotorized Routes Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Arterial Street - Bike Lane/Sidewalk 2.62 Planned Art Road) Tremont Lund On -Street - Bike Lane/Sidewalk 2.63 Partialy Built (SR 16 to Jackson Avenue) Arterial Salmonberry West (Bethel Avenue to Jackson On -Street - Residential Bike Lane/Sidewalk 0.98 Planned Avenue) SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 24 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-10 Planned Non -Motorized Routes IN rLundbeg Sc /� 5� East Port Orchard O G Elementary J� School 5`E L_UNDBER 4 ` Daffodil Storpge Christian P N s Life n- Monstar Center LL o Car ; p Wash Q o z Q = Kitsap Veterinary � Hospital C Orchard Bluff 9-.-.-.-r-.- Mobile Home >�s' Puerto pjB `Wal reens Vallartd g ® i � ��IAlllll�-�I�I��IIAiliNfptlSafew.ay,I Rite Fuel ( . Aid ` BETHEL Lui JUNCTION ¢ Poii 1 Kitsap w L---- ------- Bank Safeway Lul Q 1 U Viifc SE VaLLAIR CT 1 � - GWendy's • r --- Walmart 1 � r 7 �, ;.n — Coffee t w - a �—=i — L-�-�-� ._ I . - - � OIL �r SE[SS iONBERRYRL SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Transit MCKINLEY PL SE w h > Q o j O O SE BASIL C z 11i11111111 111i11i1111111 SE TIBURON C Non -Motorized Routes 11111 Arterial Planned LN SE SERENADE' 11111 Residential Planned Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Parks Bethel Lund 3 Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA 1111 i Q 400 800 Feet ' 11 N Kitsap Transit currently provides bus service in the Bethel -Lund Subarea six days a week with half-hour headways via Routes 8 and 9. Route 8 serves the Bethel Corridor operating between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Fred Meyer at Sedgwick Road. Route 9 serves East Port Orchard with stops at Town Square, Annapolis Ferry Dock, and the Port Orchard Ferry Dock. Projects outlined in the Kitsap Transit 2022-2042 Long -Range Transit Plan are expected to bring significant improvements to the transit service in Bethel -Lund. In the near -term, frequency upgrades for Route 9 will reduce transit service headways to fifteen minutes. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 25 Existing Conditions' December2024 In the long-term, Bethel Road has been identified as a potential location for high - capacity transit options, such as bus rapid transit (BRT) (See EXHIBIT 2-1 1). Additionally, a new fixed -route bus route is planned on Lund Avenue, connecting to McCormick Woods. These projects and expanded services are expected to enhance accessibility and convenience while providing more travel options for people living and working in the Subarea. EXHIBIT 2-11 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities XS Lundberg v+y Park = East �.—.---,—.- Port Orchard Elementary tic School LUNpBER `RD OG� g� GAO Daffodil i Christian LF N Storage - 1 Life Monstar Car Center o ` o wash ( Q o - Kltsap Veteririary j 0 �— - - Hospital Orchard Bluff ` Mobile Home Puerto ` Vallarta Walgreens Safeway 4 r Rite Aid BETHEL ruel Lund ' JUNCTION a Pointe 1 _ Kitsap w �•�• ........I Bank Safeway Pjf Lund [' 4F SE VAL LAIR CL Bethel 1 Saloon `w z O. O SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap Transit MCKINLEY PL SL Q East Port Orchard O SE BASIL CT Am Kitsap Transit Existing Route 8 Wendy's Q Existing Route 8 stops Walmart SE rIBURO — Existing Route 9 0 Existing Route 9 stops II Bros SE SERENA Planned Port Coffee Orchard - McCormick Woods Route _ IIIIIIII� Planned BRT Route �•�•�. Parks Bethel Lund QPort Orchard Part Orchard UGA SESALPAONBERRY ,"G 0 400 800 Feet I i N Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 26 Existing Conditions • December 2024 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Parks and Open Space The Port Orchard Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) identifies Lundberg Park, South Kitsap Regional Park, and East Port Orchard Elementary School as the nearest existing parks and recreation spaces to the Bethel -Lund Subarea. Lundberg Park is an undeveloped, forested city -owned property located just outside the northwest Subarea boundary. It currently has no public access or amenities, but its proximity to Blackjack Creek and a steadily growing residential area makes it suitable to become a neighborhood park. South Kitsap Regional Park, also known as Jackson Park, is on 209 acres one mile east of the Subarea and provides a range of amenities including sport fields, a playground, skate park, and walking and biking trails. Additionally, East Port Orchard Elementary School includes a playground and large playfield open for use by residents. There are opportunities to promote local neighborhood parks or park plaza spaces within the subarea through mixed -use and residential developments, particularly near the planned commercial development in the south and pending multifamily homes on Salmonberry Road. A large park could be sited on the undeveloped parcels south of Vallair Connector, which, due to its size, has the potential to include a mix of recreation facilities and/or programming (playground, picnic shelters, nature trail, etc.) (see EXHIBIT 2-12). Critical Areas Wetlands are vital to the local hydrologic cycle and offer a range of beneficial functions, such as wildlife habitat, improving water quality, reducing flood risks, and retaining stormwater. The City aims to preserve and protect wetlands and their buffers, but when impacts are unavoidable, wetland replacement or wetland mitigation banks must be utilized to mitigate impacts in accordance with Chapter 20.162 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Blackjack Creek is the largest stream system in Port Orchard, spanning a length of approximately three miles within the city limits (not including tributaries) and is considered one of the largest and most productive fish producing streams in South Kitsap. In recent years, the City has taken steps to protect the Blackjack Creek corridor and preserve and/or restore ecological function. Blackjack Terrace Open Space, located west of Vallair Connector, acts as a dedicated natural wooded buffer and much of the area surrounding Blackjack Creek is zoned Greenbelt. There is no public access to Blackjack Creek near Bethel -Lund, presenting an opportunity for a potential new trail connecting Blackjack Creek to adjacent Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 27 Existing Conditions • December 2024 subdivisions. The creation of such a trail would promote outdoor recreation and cultivate environmental stewardship within the Subarea. The 2023 the Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan assessed stormwater system impacts on local receiving waters based partly on impervious surface land coverage. Lower Blackjack Creek was ranked Moderate/High, indicating a greater level of water quality degradation. Impacts to water resources could increase due to new and upcoming development in the area. Surface water and stormwater capital improvement projects were developed to address the problems identified in the plan. Among the ten prioritized projects is the Salmonberry Road Lower Blackjack Creek Culvert Retrofit, which will remove and replace an existing culvert with a new storm conveyance system (see EXHIBIT 2-12). The Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan also programs stormwater infrastructure along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road to protect critical downstream creeks and waterways (i.e. Blackjack Creek). EXHIBIT 2-12 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas 44 4' Lundberg Park I� r i SE LUNPBEr2_(',.RJ Daffodil Storage Monstar Ar o Wash z Kitsap Veterl ary - - - .Hospital-, Orchard Sluff Mobite Home Life a Center 0 z it C) East Port Orchard Elementary School Puerto Vollorta Walgreens - Safeway_ Rlte Fuel Aid t -- Q P Kitsap Bank ? t Q SL vALLAI.R ct U VJ Wendy's 1 Bethel 2 Saloon W almart Dutch Bros Coffee SL aALnONBE.eRY RD "r,6tc;c. _. - kCu,!,. SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS 202z �P V\�G South Kitsap MCCINLEY PL $E Regional Park Q a O SE BASlL CT z i East ° Port Orchard w i Greenbelt - Open Space SE. n90RON C7 Iltl Parks '- d{ 40 Park Opportunities[.. SESERENADE IVAY - Blackjack Creek Wetlands Hydric Soil Slopes Bethel Lund q Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA 0 N I 400 800 Feel Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 28 Existing Conditions • December 2024 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment Economic Profile Demographics Port Orchard is a rapidly growing city with population growth rates in recent decades exceeding those of the county and state due to annexation, in -migration, and natural population growth. This has driven a rapid increase in housing unit demand and production, including in the Bethel -Lund Subarea. Overall, Port Orchard's population is younger and more diverse than regional averages, with smaller household sizes than the county and the state, and somewhat lower incomes than county and statewide averages. The Bethel -Lund area has very similar age breakdown to the City as a whole with a relatively large share of young residents, as shown below in EXHIBIT 2-13. EXHIBIT 2-13 Age in Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 24% ■ 65+ ■ 45-64 15% 15% ■ 35-44 25-34 14% 14% ■ 15-24 Lund Port Orchard SOURCE: ESRI ■ 0-14 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 29 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Incomes in the Subarea are somewhat higher than in Port Orchard as a whole, based on American Community Survey data, however, estimates for smaller geographies can be subject to significant margins of error. EXHIBIT 2-14 Household Incomes in the Bethel -Lund Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Lund SOURCE: ESRI Employment Port Orchard ■ $200,000+ ■ $150,000 - $199,999 ■ $100,000 - $149,999 ■ $75,000 - $99,999 $50,000 - $74,999 ■ $35,000 - $49,999 ■ $25,000 - $34,999 ■ $15,000 - $24,999 ■ <$15,000 According to 2023 data received from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), there are 988 jobs in the Bethel -Lund Subarea. PSRC does not provide a detailed breakdown of these jobs by sector, but the U.S. Census's OnTheMap tool does provide estimates for job sectors in the Subarea, shown below. Retail jobs comprise the majority of employment in the subarea, with food and other service jobs also present in smaller quantities. The employment mix has shifted in the past decade towards retail, and, with the forthcoming Home Depot, this shift is likely to continue. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 30 Existing Conditions • December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-15 Top Job Sectors in Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2012 and 2021 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% ■ 2021 2012 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% _ Retail Trade Food / Lodging Other Services Wholesale Health Care / Arts, Social Entertainment, Assistance and Recreation SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Commuting The map below shows estimated commuting patterns in the Subarea. As shown, essentially no residents of the Subarea also work in the Subarea. Given the commercial activity in the area, there is a significant net inflow of commuters into the Subarea. EXHIBIT 2-16 Commuting Patterns in the Bethel -Lund Subarea, 2021 s _ lhntt^^L "Frr+hear rn,:,yayrr ec � Port o, tl sr. 108 P, aetn _ - 3 _ 0 g 5^cr Snwryeap HeTcrtlla;e k'rm Cra�rtlRoae, 'r!'ea rr a"£r SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 31 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Development Pipeline The map below, EXHIBIT 2-17, shows the current housing unit counts as well as pipeline development in the Subarea. There are currently 174 single-family units and 85 multifamily units, for a total of 259 existing units. There are an additional 39 single-family units and 174 multifamily units currently under construction or in the development pipeline (as of September 2024). Once completed, this will total 472 units in the Subarea. EXHIBIT 2-17 Existing and Pipeline Units and Commercial Development in the Bethel - Lund Subarea Port Orchard Lund Existing and Pipel Legend Q Part Orchard City Limits Port Orchard LIGA Water Bodies Roads State Highway Collector / Arterial Local Road Existing Units by Parcel 00 of Lipp o z 3-5 - S+ Pipeline Units by Parcel 02 - 5+ 0 Commercial Pipeline G --F'i reweed St-- I SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Note: Pipeline data is as of September 2024. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 32 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity The map below in EXHIBIT 2-18 shows parcels classified as Vacant, Underutilized, or Partially Utilized in the Subarea. These classifications were based on the 2019 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report and updated to reflect recent development in the Subarea. After deducting critical areas, future infrastructure, right-of-way, and market factor considerations, there are a total of 16.9 acres available for residential development and 0.1 acres available for commercial development in the Subarea. This equates to a capacity for 301 housing units (34 single-family and 267 multifamily), and 21 jobs, given the assumptions used in the Land Capacity Analysis for Port Orchard's 2023 Comprehensive Plan (see TABLE 1-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Capacity Summary). EXHIBIT 2-18 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Bethel -Lund Subarea ® +'I In-]IF,Port Orchard i L u Lund Parcel Classifications Legend �.. e Q Port Orchard City Limits r Port Orchard VGA Water Bodies Roads State Highway Collector / Arterial Local Road Parcel status - PARTIALLY UTI LIZEO UNDERUTILIZED i® VACANT 1 �` Golde g_ 1 oon �.d. I I' County, City of Port O,hord, LCG SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 33 Goals and Vision • December 2024 I Goals and Vision 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges Bethel -Lund is rich with economic opportunities and community assets, but faces challenges from a disconnected, auto -oriented environment. EXHIBIT 3-1 summarizes the assets and challenges this plan addresses. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 34 Goals and Vision • December 2024 EXHIBIT 3- Bethel -Lund Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges j r'---- - - - - -- Kitsap Transit is planning Consider this area for annexation rapid transit along Bethel t_ Road !� to create a more continuous a • ' between Downtown and planning area and streamline p g 1. r Sedgwick Rood r transportation improvements for safe routes to school Sleep slopes " " - Some indirect routes for west of the subarea j� k'd + ,�r. + students to walk and bike from the subarea to the Elementary School, but sb$IF arse r streets are not up to current t�_ safety standards J Opportunity for a trail - j \% t �" "� A- East Port Orchard South Kitsap OIDng Blackjack Creek 1 - 1, .; Elementary Regional Park with connections to/from subdivisions t + r i I Less thon one mile to I major regional pork, 'r t ' but Lund Avenue Several older one-story �__--' - ,' �.4 I Sacks safe walking -^� commercal lots of the s and biking roufies heart of the subarea could I be T JE redeveloped with f ". i �`ririrurri s lur, gv[---------- .rtn mixed -use when they reach ' ! r• al COrllnlEr13f end of life. Opportunity for a ? Cente Active commercial center central park/plaza at one of - that serves as a hub for the these corners neighborhood and citywide East Two grocery and home East Port Orchard goods stores provides daily , needs and supports iabs ��,. ;;,' ;.,,, ! I Neighborhood I' Established subdivisions �` s •�=-Q are diconnected and Itor a I� inward facing from the Wa6nm art site is a aioruse that is j I� commerical uses unlikely to change + r at 0" 0,1. 0,2 Miles `-------' tlr Salmonberry al OI a Large infill opportunity but there kl.v�' -p are uncertain plans for a Home Ridge f Depot development which would mostly serve people living outside tillage = rr offhesubarea • tJr General Opportunities/Observations: Sedgwick 1 • Kitsap Transit planned BRT route on Bethel Road Bethel "t< I could facilitate more compact development a I opportunities Challenges 4-4 Major connections nut Fast moving traffic/ E - r, Street extension barrier Infill development Pedestrian -challenged Park opportunities intersection Wv Land use Nature trail development barrier Potential - annexation area SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS Existing Conditions *Assets Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Pending development 1111■ Natural areas • Bus stops Parks Commercial Streams centers Bethel Lurid • Neighborhoods • t port Orchard Schools c„rr C) -h—A I WZA • The Bethel/Sedgwick corridor planned pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure will create safer routes for all travelers • Need/opportunity for parks and/or gathering spaces to serve the subarea • Property ownership and public street grid is highly fragmented • Extend street grid as development occurs to enhance connectivity Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 35 Goals and Vision • December 2024 3.2 Alternatives The Bethel -Lund land use alternatives presented potential development scenarios tailored to the unique characteristics of the Subarea, informed by a thorough analysis of existing assets, challenges, and opportunities. These alternatives provided a framework for evaluating different development pathways. The chart below described the key features considered in the alternatives. For greater detail about the distinction between each alternative, see Note 3: Bethel -Lund Land Use Alternatives. Alternative 1 No Action Utilize current zoning and move forward with existing policies and planned public improvements. A notable exception will be zoning changes necessary to comply with the State's middle housing legislation. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Light Touch Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Create flexible regulations and implement strategic zoning changes to accommodate growth and promote an efficient mix of uses. Improve pedestrian mobility and access to parks and open space. Leverage planned transportation improvements and expand growth through mixed use opportunities to support walkable neighborhoods and economic vitality. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 36 Goals and Vision • December 2024 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework Values The following values were developed from the plan's purpose and context and shaped by community engagement. ■ Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility. Prioritize the development of a transportation system that ensures safety, efficiency, and comfort for all users — whether they are walking, biking, driving, or using public transit. This value underscores the importance of creating a well-connected and accessible neighborhood where residents and visitors can easily navigate using various modes of transportation, fostering greater mobility and reducing reliance on single - occupancy vehicles. ■ Thriving center with diverse uses. Foster the growth of vibrant community center that offers a harmonious blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. This center will act a hub where people can work, live, and play. The neighborhood is economically resilient and has a lively, multifaceted environment that meets many needs of the community. ■ Access to recreation. Provide convenient access to high -quality recreational facilities, parks, and open spaces. These amenities are essential for fostering physical health, mental well-being, and social connections, significantly enhancing the overall quality of life within the community and creating inviting spaces for leisure and interaction. Open spaces support important ecological functions such as wildlife habitat and stormwater management. ■ Resilient and sustainable community. Build a community that is resilient to environmental, economic, and social challenges. Sustainable practices are used in development, including the implementation of green infrastructure and the preservation of critical areas. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 37 Goals and Vision • December 2024 Plan Concept The plan concept is informed by the community engagement, an analysis of existing assets, and a review of challenges and opportunities. The concept consists of a set of actions to transform Bethel -Lund into a more active urban center. The vision is to create a vibrant, sustainable, and well-connected neighborhood. Plan recommendations include: Invest in public spaces, such as streetscapes, parks, and plazas. This will foster a sense of community and improve the overall urban experience for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Enhance walking, biking, and rolling connections to make it easier and more comfortable for people to navigate the neighborhood and access neighborhood amenities such as grocery stores schools, transit stops, and future BRT stations without needing a car. Update zoning, design standards, and regulations strategically to encourage private investment in new homes and workplaces. This approach aims to create a balanced community that meets the evolving needs of residents and supports economic growth. EXHIBIT 3-2 illustrates the key features recommended in the subarea plan that align with and support the neighborhood vision for Sedgwick-Bethel, highlighting areas for transit investment, public space enhancements, and potential development zones. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 38 Goals and Vision • December 2024 EXHIBIT 3-2 Bethel -Lund Subarea Framework Map Support efforts to activate Lundberg Park Zoning. Create more Flexible development regulations, including height overlay zones, and parking requirements to allow for more housing and mix of land uses Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund SALMONBERRY PARK. (NAME TBD) Create a central park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area w h 4 �andberg r Park a East yaP Port Orchard GO v� i �� s FtiNc s© Elementary r t•�'�� SE LUNDBEIRr �� school 94 Christian MCKINLEY Pt SE F . 1 LifesF South Kitsap o r lCenter a Regional Park `R3a R2I a monstar car a I -� Wash 1 w R3 R2 Kitsap Veterinary O 'a \ .Has- itbi o CC Puerto 11 r ens O SEBASIL CT Ito w Stotewa Y — Fuel — BETHEL � 1 1 JV CTION w eway j SE O vALunIR Ci East Port Orc 1 � 1 t I I art 1 I SE TIBURON CT 1 1 SE BER SE SERENADE WAY a i , ` CC »PF ow � 0 !r IBet el Saloon's to gCz Sed wick-Seick-8efhe! hat! O w 400 ® _��•'•r�_•w 800 Feet SE SALMpNBERRY RE)0 N I 1 M'x . Mi Improve connectivity and explore other active transportation improvements, such as mablock crossing and sidewalk buffer enhancements, along key routes to schools and other destinations Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects will occur as planned Support Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements Hub Pectures Transportation Ideas Zoning Existing Conditions (location flexrblet /. Mob€lily � t� Safe routes Residential 1 (R1) Commercial Corridor (CC) — Blackjack Creek Park plaza i mprovements to school Residential 2 (R2j Commerical Heavy (CH) = Pa andtRecreation Potential street �] Support BRT Residential 3 (Q) ///, Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Parks Ravine trail connection Public Facilities (PF) 'A'r Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU) ` •� Bethel -Lund i, _ Potential new �P, Planned ES Port orchard r 4 Roundabout bus routes OZaning change n Port Orchard UGA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 39 Goals and Vision ' December 2024 EXHIBIT 3-3 Bethel -Lund Height Overlay Districts 0 4 F, Lundberg w JCS Park t? East '"�•�'�•� Port Orchard aG0 yO0 Elementary li4C �1 School SE LUNDBERG RD MCKINLEY 1 PL SE Christian Life � South Kitsap CenterRegional IT) Park Monstar CarID1 sF p Wash Kitsap Veteri ary w > F Hospital j a ----------- Puerto >O Vallarta Walgreens ZO SE BASIL CT Rite N-Safeway Aid BETHEL Fuel 1 JIIN it • w L'—'„'—'—'—"� Safeway j SE VALLAIR CT East Port Orchard _ 1 j Walmart =r rIBURON CT 1 SE BERGER LN r, SE SERENADE WAY a aJ 0 4 1 Bethel 1 = N f Saloon 1 j 0 1 O 0 400 800 Feet 5E SALMONBERRY RD N I i I Maxar, Microsoft Bethel -Lund Height Overlay District (BLHOD) Existing Conditions . BLHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories — Blackjack Creek BLHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories -�� Bethel Lund BLHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories j= Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 40 Goals and Vision - December 2024 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies Land Use Goal LU-1 Develop a compact land use pattern to accommodate additional housing and businesses. LU-1 Allowed uses, building types, and height limits should accommodate at least 1,873 residents in the Bethel -Lund Countywide Center. LU-2 Adopt the Bethel -Lund Height Overlay Districts (BLHOD) as shown on EXHIBIT 3-3. BLHOD height limits are established as follows: ■ SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories • SBHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories • SBHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories LU-3 Promote incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing within the Subarea, including multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) and other development standards bonuses that prioritize a wide range of housing affordability. LU-4 Right -size minimum off-street parking requirements in the Subarea to incentivize economical housing construction and housing prices, reduce impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, reduce the urban heat island effect, and improve the aesthetic appeal of development. LU-5 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to be developed, with a focus on attached and compact housing. Support the citywide middle housing strategy to expand middle housing options for individuals and families at all stages of live and income levels living in Bethel -Lund. LU-6 Encourage growth of retail businesses and services in clusters at key locations to create economic relationships and places for people to mix and mingle, like Bethel Junction. LU-7 Ensure adequate utility systems are available to support the development and buildout of the Bethel -Lund center. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 41 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Goal LU-2 Support growth of neighborhood -serving retail, dining, services, and amenities. LU-8 Encourage ground floor shopfront development along Bethel Road and Lund Avenue through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. LU-9 Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. LU-10 Invest in public realm improvements such as streetscape updates, sidewalk improvements, and public plazas to strengthen retail clusters and encourage multifamily residential development. Goal LU-3 Ensure that development in Bethel -Lund is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. LU-11 Apply Port Orchard's Design Standards, as set forth in POMC Chapter 20.127 to enhance the layout and design of subarea sites and buildings. LU-12 Apply block frontage standards that emphasize pedestrian -friendly development frontages in mixed -use areas while providing strategic flexibility to integrate off-street parking areas and landscaped setbacks where necessary. LU-13 Amend POMC. 20.127.350(3) to require at least 3% usable open space for new non-residential development. LU-14 Designate high visibility street corners as defined in POMC 20.127.250 in strategic locations. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 42 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Transportation Goal T-1 Design streets to complement desired future land uses and ensure safe, comfortable mobility for all. T-1 Ensure new streets carry forwards streetscape themes found in other parts of the Subarea. Key streetscape elements include landscape, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and other hardscape elements. T-2 Plan a transportation network that reflects future land use goals. T-3 T-4 T-5 Support the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan to transform Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road as a pedestrian and bicycle - friendly complete streets and promote safer mobility for all users throughout these corridors. Where appropriate, integrate urban low impact development (LID) stormwater management features in roadway design, including bioswales and raingardens. Support Kitsap County planned improvements on Lund Avenue, including roundabouts at Hoover Road, Harris Road, and Chase Road, and medians, sidewalks and bike lanes from the city limits to Jackson Avenue. Complete streets are designed to ensure safe, convenient mobility options for all users, which vary based on community context. These may include a wide range of elements, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus lanes, transit stops, crossing opportunities, medians, and landscape treatments. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation T-6 Where feasible, design bike lanes to be protected from automobile traffic with curbs, horizontal separation, or other techniques that improve safety and comfort. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 43 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Goal T-2 Provide a robust multi -modal transportation network that serves all users. T-7 Support Kitsap Transit planned transit frequency and service upgrades. T-8 Adjust transit stop locations to maximize convenience as Bethel Road and Lund Avenue develop, accommodating future road improvements and transit services, including bus rapid transit T-9 Plan for safe and convenient access to transit services for all modes of travel, including wayfinding and signage. Urban low impact development (LID) refers to systems and strategies that mimic natural processes to manage and mitigate stormwater runoff. Examples of LID practices include bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. These practices can be applied at both site and regional scales. T-10 Support bicycle infrastructure and Source: U.S Environmental provide bicycle amenities, include Protection Agency secure bicycle parking. Goal T-3 Plan a well-connected and efficient road network. T-11 Plan a street pattern that improves internal street connectivity and provides multiple travel route options within the Subarea to access neighborhood destinations. T-12 Require the integration of through -block connections in the CMU, R4 and R5 zones where block -lengths are greater than 500 feet. This could come in the form of private streets with sidewalks, woonerfs (low volume street where vehicles share space with pedestrians), landscaped pathways or urban passageways, and alleys. Examples of through -block connections, from left, a woonerf, or shared street, a landscaped passageway, and an urban passageway. Source: MAKERS Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 44 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Goal T-4 Provide safe multimodal access to schools. T-13 Evaluate options for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at key routes to East Port Orchard Elementary School. Community Design Goal CD-1 Transform Bethel -Lund to a vibrant walkable neighborhood. CD-1 In conjunction with transportation improvements along Bethel Road and Lund Avenue, integrate placemaking strategies such as plantings, lighting, public art, or other techniques to create a more engaging and human - scaled walking environment. CD-2 Leverage redevelopment to obtain wider sidewalks and pedestrian - friendly building design. CD-3 Promote planting of street trees to improve livability, reduce urban heat islands, and reduce stormwater runoff. CD-4 Work with property owners and existing business to integrate murals and public artworks that promote neighborhood identity. Goal CD-2 Encourage the development of public plaza and other gathering spaces. CD-5 Work with property owners, Urban heat island effect can cause higher temperatures in urban areas compared to their rural surroundings, primarily due to the concentration of buildings, paving, and human activities that absorb and retain heat. Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency developers, nonprofit organizations and other agencies to invest in indoor/outdoor community spaces, such as a YMCA, event spaces, and community gardens. CD-6 Explore public -private partnerships to create public open spaces integrated with surrounding development - ranging from large neighborhood parks, high visibility street corner public plazas, to neighborhood gateway features. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 45 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Illustrative Conceptual Site Plan Given the envisioned transformation of the subarea from a low -density suburban node to more of a compact pedestrian -oriented mixed -use neighborhood center, the planning team crafted a site plan to illustrate how key sites within the subarea could be developed or redeveloped over 20 years consistent with the goals and policies of this plan. This is an example only and illustrates just one of many ways that the area could be transformed consistent with the plan's goals and policies. The site plan is particularly useful to illustrate how future development can be coordinated. Specifically note: New through -block connection. Sites where property consolidation would help facilitate coordinated development. Examples of mixed -use development. The integration of usable open space for residential uses. EXHIBIT 3-4 Bethel -Lund Concept r ffi Through -block connection o (partly pedestrian -only) Casandra r Loop Live/work units s F4'No I 4 -story apartment/ mixed -use buildings Vallair court se vALLA R ci Bethel Valley 1A 0 50 200 feet N -' ' Puerto a Wall Vallarto Y � Q fl � BETHEL Redevelopment example with townhomes Rite Aid JUNCTION x Retoil infill building with small plaza and streetscape improvements linked to future bus stops Safeway Planned Smal commercial roundabout infill development a OWalmart Commercial // Live -Work Apartments = Mixed -Use with Townhomes Aparments over Commercial "— Bethel -Lund Port Orchard UGA Note: This concept is an example only and illustrates just one of many ways that portions of the subarea could be developed consistent with the plan's goals and policies. Source: MAKERS. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 46 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Goal POC-1 Expand park and recreational assets within Bethel -Lund. POC-1 Use open space and recreation uses to buffer Blackjack Creek Greenbelt from new commercial and residential development. Encourage neighborhood parks to incorporate natural or environmental features. POC-2 Provide trail connections to parks and open space that are accessible and designed for both walking and biking. POC-3 Explore options for developing a new "Salmonberry Park" as a community park with walking and biking trails, playgrounds, and nature observation, while conserving Ruby Creek Greenbelt. POC-4 Support opportunities to activate Lundberg Park to serve the growing neighborhood on Harold Drive. Goal POC-2 Create a well-connected low impact trail system that capitalizes view opportunities of Blackjack Creek and connects open spaces. POC-5 Explore opportunities to provide a multi -use trail along Blackjack Creek that provides viewpoint and linkages to parks and open space areas between Sedwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund, provided that habitat mitigation is implemented in accordance with the critical areas code. POC-6 Foster relationships with surrounding property owners to facilitate trail development. POC-7 Incorporate wayfinding, orientation, educational historic/cultural interpretive signage or kiosks into the trail design. Goal POC-3 Ensure critical areas and wildlife habitats are protected consistent with critical areas regulations. POC-8 Partner with other government entities and non-profit organizations to manage natural areas and ensure healthy ecosystem functions that contribute to site and community resilience. POC-9 Promote extensive use of low impact development in project and street design. POC-10 Plan for active and passive recreational opportunities within parks adjacent to sensitive areas and greenbelts. POC-11 Support efforts to acquire property for conservation and mitigation around the Blackjack Creek tributaries. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 47 Action Plan • December 2024 FEWAY0 4, Action Plan This chapter describes the key steps to achieve the vision for Bethel -Lund. Although this is a long-term plan that includes actions to take place over the next 20 years, several priority actions should be accomplished over the next few years. For this plan to be realized, public and private investment will be required. Trends over the past 20 years show that, without change, private investment alone will not achieve the Subarea vision, goals, and policies. The following steps lay the groundwork for attracting private investment and shaping the built environment. Port Orchard will need to dedicate staff resources for code updates and secure additional funding sources for capital investments. The following table of actions summarizes the recommended steps with ideal timing, priority, and potential costs (represented generally from low to high as $, $$, and $$$). Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 48 Action Plan - December 2024 TABLE 4-1 Bethel -Lund Action Plan Bethel -Lund Action Timing Priority Cost Land Use and Zoning Residential zoning: Expand middle housing options with 1 year High $ the adoption of the citywide middle housing zoning strategy. Commercial and mixed -use zoning: Increase 1 year High $ commercial capacity and flexibility. Rezone along Bethel Road, west of Walmart and the northwest intersection of Bethel Road and Lund Avenue, to promote a more pedestrian friendly mix of uses. Adopt height overlay districts: Reference EXHIBIT 3.3 of 1-2 years High $ this plan. This will provide more opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and vertical mixed -use buildings. Decrease parking requirements. This will provide more 1-2 years High $ opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and reduced environmental impacts of development. Expand and adjust the community design framework 1-2 years Medium $ maps (POMC 20.127.130). The maps should reflect existing conditions from recent/near-term developments, and add desired new streets that reduce block sizes to promote connectivity. Designate high visibility street corners in strategic locations (POMC 20.127.250) . Increase non-residential open space requirements. 1-2 years Low $ Within the subarea boundaries, require at least 3% open space for new non-residential development (POMC 20.127.350(3)). Transportation Construct the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan to build a 2-5 years High $$$ complete transportation network along Bethel Road. Improve pedestrian and bike connectivity to access 2-5 years High $$ key neighborhood destinations, such as East Port Orchard Elementary School and South Kitsap Regional Park. Some improvements may go beyond what is identified/designed in the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Potential improvements could include new or rebuilt sidewalks, midblock crossings, protected or buffered bike facilities, street trees, traffic diverters, and other features that enhance mobility and comfort. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 49 Action Plan • December 2024 Specific enhancements will be determined through further study. Support the Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements, 5-10 Medium $$ including the planned BRT route and new fixed -route years bus routes on Lund Avenue with service to McCormick Woods. Coordinate on placement of bus stops, pedestrian improvements (including sidewalks and crosswalks), and BRT bus -priority features (such as queue jumps and signal priority). Blackjack Creek trail: Study design options and 5-15 Low $$ construct a trail that offers more transportation options, years access to nature, habitat protection, and healthy recreational activities. Capital Facilities and Parks Lundberg Park: Design and operate a park on this City- 2-5 years Medium $$ owned site to improve access to recreation and open space for residents. The park design should incorporate protective features for Blackjack Creek. "Salmonberry Park": Study the potential development 5-10 Medium $$ of park near the intersection of Bethel Road and years Salmonberry Road to improve access to recreation and open sace for residents. Identify a location, funding, and partnerships for a 5-15 Low $$$ community facility, such as a recreation/athletics years center, culture and arts center, library branch, senior or teen center, event venue, or similar gathering space. This could be a publicly -operated facility or created and operated by a private or non-profit partner. The facility should be located with good transit access and sized to serve all Port Orchard residents. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 50 Notes • December 2024 So Notes Note 1: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Centers Goals and Policies Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary Note 3: Bethel -Lund Land Use Alternatives Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 51 Notes • December 2024 Note 1: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Centers Goals and Policies The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan contains the following centers policies. These policies are not tailored this Subarea but should be implemented across all centers. For specific policies related to Bethel -Lund, see 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies. Policy CN-1. Prioritize the City's residential, commercial and light industrial growth and infrastructure investments within designated Centers, in accordance with VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy CN-2. Focus future growth in designated, higher intensity areas in an effort to encourage the preservation of open space and maintain surrounding neighborhood character. Policy CN-3. Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. Policy CN-4. Provide commercial services that serve the population of the Center, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region (dependent on the suitability of the scale of each Center). Policy CN-5. Support pedestrian and transit uses by promoting compact, mixed -use areas with appropriate infrastructure that provide a variety of activities. Policy CN-6. Balance objectives for accommodating growth, encouraging compatibility, promoting housing affordability, and offering a wide range of housing types. Policy CN-7. Provide access to parks and public pedestrian spaces by creating them within each Center or by creating connections to existing public and open spaces. Policy CN-8. During subarea planning for Centers, develop an implementation plan that addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. Policy CN-9. The City shall direct growth to Centers of all types through focused regulations and directed capital projects. Policy CN-10. The City should support employment growth, the increased use of non - automobile transportation options, and the preservation of the character of existing built-up areas by encouraging residential and mixed -use development at increased densities in designated Centers. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 52 Notes • December 2024 Policy CN-1 1. The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well - served by public transit. Policy CN-12. The City shall create and designate zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. Policy CN-13. The City shall encourage abroad range of housing types and commercial uses within designated Centers, through zoning and development regulations that serve a local, Citywide, or regional market. Policy CN-14. The City shall encourage the creation of public open space, private open space, and parks within and serving designated centers Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 53 Notes • December 2024 Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary FROM: Makers Architecture and Urban Design DATE: August 15, 2024 Subarea Workshop Summary On July 29, 2024, the project team, which included the City, AHBL, and MAKERS, organized an in -person open house at the Kitsap Regional Library Port Orchard branch. An online survey ran concurrently with the open house and remained active until August 12, 2024, allowing those unable to attend the in -person workshop to share their feedback. The purpose of these events is to share project information and invite the community to provide feedback on the following key topics: Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel Existing_ Conditions Report. Confirm preliminary findings of neighborhood assets and challenges and gather additional input on community priorities Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives. Community members voted for their preferred land use alternative or shared feedback on specific elements to be included in the preferred concept. Ensuring the preferred land use alternative aligns with the community's vision for the Subareas. Consultants and City Staff address questions from attendees during the presentation and open house portion of the workshop. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 54 Notes • December 2024 Main Takeaways Themes that arose from the open house and online survey include the following: Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility. Many respondents desire improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructures to improve walkability, reduce reliance on cars, and boost access to neighborhood amenities (i.e., parks, neighborhood shopping centers, schools, etc.) Protect people on foot, wheel, or bicycle by physically separating them from fast-moving vehicles (e.g., enhanced, buffered, or protected bike facilities and sidewalks). Encourage a network of trails, bike facilities, and crossing that safely connect grocery stores, bus stops, schools, and parks to and within the Subareas. Develop connectivity between Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel. Fill gaps and maintain sidewalks to improve walkability Safety enhancements and traffic calming measure at key intersections and destinations Public supportive statements: "It is lacking safe biking corridors. Safe means separation from cars. Paint is not protection. Bike paths need to be protected from cars by a barrier or planting strip." "I want to see a healthier community with alternative and safe options to commute without the need for cars." "Wider roads and side walks to improve walkability along with bike lanes would be amazing." "How do residents west of Bethel cross safely to catch a bus downtown?" "Pedestrian crossings across major streets such as Bethel and Sedgwick; we live across Bethel but cannot safely cross to get to the bus stop. As mentioned above, sidewalks need to connect - I live a short distance from Fred Meyer but cannot walk there safely given the lack of sidewalks along Bethel. As older residents we would like to increase our bus ridership and walk to various errands - but we all require sidewalk connectivity and crosswalks to do so safely." Efficient transportation system and traffic management. Residents have expressed concerns about the strain on existing road infrastructure due to ongoing and future development and call for enhancements to increase capacity, safety, and improve traffic flow. Residents living in the northwest subdivision of Sedgwick-Bethel (ex. Ridge Village) describe the challenges they face to turn onto Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Mixed views about the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor improvements, particularly the addition of roundabouts. Some residents believe that a signalized intersection would enhance traffic flow more effectively. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 55 Notes • December 2024 Overall support for the installations of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and green stormwater infrastructures Public supportive statements: "Less traffic hold up. It's wild in the afternoon. But I think owing forward with significant expansion is fantastic. We just need the roads and safety to support it." "Vastly improved traffic flow and sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the expected influx of residents and housing." "We live in Magnolia Ridge. Off Geiger, you can't turn left on Sedgwick. From Blueberry, turning left on Bethel is very difficult. Heavy traffic on Sedgwick and Bethel in the afternoon more than double my drive to work (SKHS 2.2 miles)." "One of the main concerns I have heard since living here, on all sides of the political spectrum, is that people are concerned about the new housing developments and the traffic load that they will bring. If we prioritize cars over people, then this will not help with the traffic problem that everyone complains about....Also, many people in this area drive cars that must be way over the decibel levels according to the laws and drive at extreme speeds through the neighborhood streets that are only 30 mph, like Salmonberry Rd. Speed bumps or rain gardens need to be put in place to slow down traffic to safe speeds since more enforcement is not working. I have been told Salmonberry is an arterial vein and therefore cannot have speed bumps put in based on the amount of traffic flow, but I would question the statistics on traffic there to believe this is true." Thriving centers with diverse uses for people to work, live, and play. Many residents expressed interest in an attractive, walkable neighborhood that has a mix of activities and diverse commercial and retail use Retain and attract businesses in the Subareas with focus on restaurants, shops, fitness, entertainment, and other services. (i.e., farm -to -table -style restaurants, local brewery, independent movie theater, etc.) Encourage mixed use developments with shared parking. Promote green/plaza spaces as central features of shopping centers (i.e., courtyard shopping centers) Reduce parking ratios to promote land use that make use of transit and active transportation Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 56 Notes • December 2024 Public supportive statements: "I wish to see it become a little area on its own with shops, food, accessibility, and adequate infrastructure that families can bike around together and have a community park." "It would be nice for this area to feel similar to Gig Harbor North with walkability, public parks and plazas. It will give the residents the feel of community." "I wish I could see harmony and beauty. Less strip malls, parking lots, and congestion, more pedestrian courtyards and safe bike routes." "We need more sidewalks for safe running and walking. Also more public parks for kids and families. Fewer housing developments- keep the green!" Access to recreational facilities, parks, and open space. Promote recreational and park opportunities that celebrate the beauty of Port Orchard and support play and gathering, especially for youth and teens. The community brought forth ideas such as athletic fields, disc golf courses, mid -size parks with playgrounds, and walking and biking trails. Improve park security and regulate access Some residents are supportive of the Blackjack Creek nature trail. Others were concerned it would pose safety concerns if not maintained. Public supportive statements: "The parks are really nice here, but sometimes go unmonitored or protected at night and become vandalized. It would be nice if there was better patrol or times when the park gates could be closed at night. Additionally, it would be nice to see more community gardens and disc golf courses, and if possible, I would like to see nature trails added to view wildlife around the creeks." "By ten years' time we'd hope that additional parks, tennis/pickleball/basketball courts, baseball and soccer fields would be available within Port Orchard - not specific to Sedgwick-Bethel however." "Parks and hiking trails that maintain the overall fee[I] and beauty of Port Orchard" "Please don't make a trail along Blackjack Creek. It will only encourage traffic through quiet neighborhoods and create more encampments." Resilient and sustainable community. Residents encourage to preserve greenery and encourage sustainable features (considering climate change and heat risk) such as using green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) in transportation improvements or other developments. Seek opportunities to promote community amenities such as health facilities and community gardens Protect greenery and open space and promote planting of native trees and vegetation Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 57 Notes • December 2024 Public supportive statements: "Pea patches or community gardens would be an awesome addition to any park added. A native plant or medicinal plant garden would be cool. Disc golf is always fun." "More bus routes & stops, sidewalks. More health and human services" "Please preserve as much greenbelt as possible" "Would love to see increased maintenance of vacant spaces - possibly to include wildflowers or other plantings instead of weeds." "Please preserve as much of the greenbelt as possible. Also, keeping it family and pet friendly/safe is very important." Some residents want to make limited changes within the subareas and expect the development to occur with a density similar to existing conditions, but with improved infrastructure Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 58 Notes • December 2024 Reactions to the Land Use Alternatives About 60% of online survey respondents supported Alternative 3 in both Subareas. The reaction amongst workshop attendees were generally split, vocal comments following the presentation geared toward Alternative 1. Attendees expressed concerns about the increase in height and density changes and related transportation impacts, as well as limited internal connectivity with the assumed developments. Comments by other participants during the open house favored components of Alternative 2 and 3 Based on the general feedback received during the workshop and online survey, community members were receptive to elements that support mixed -use developments with plaza spaces, improve commercial opportunities near arterial corridors, enhance access to parks and trails, and advance multimodal transportation. General Overview of Bethel -Lund Alternative 1 No Action and Sedgwick -Bethel Land Alternative 2 Light Touch Use Alternatives Alternative 3 Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Utilize current zoning and Create flexible regulations Leverage planned moves forward with and implement strategic transportation existing policies and zoning changes to improvements and planned public accommodate growth expand growth through improvements. A notable and promote efficient mix mixed use opportunities to exception will be zoning of uses. Improve support walkable changes necessary to pedestrian mobility and neighborhoods and comply with the State's access to parks and open economic vitality. middle housing legislation. space. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. For more information on the Bethel -Lund land use alternatives, see Note 3: Bethel -Lund Land Use Alternatives. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 59 Notes - December 2024 Bethel -Lund Alternative 1 received the most votes in support of no changes in zoning or land use regulations. Alternative 3 received the second most votes. Comments by workshop attendees favored Alternative 1, while online respondents preferred Alternative 3. The chart represents the combined votes for each proposed alternative from the open house and online survey. There are 14 total votes, with 7 from the open house and 7 from the online survey. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 60 Notes - December 2024 •=,Ac' - YC.:. IR Vq ALTERNATIVE 3 - mrXED USE. ALTERNATIVE i - NO ACTION ALTRmATLYE 2 - UGHT TOUCH TRANSIT-GRIENTED DEVELOMENT 4, F F L F_ 7 4R, t R-i LP _j . . .. ........ nL Wgr, 0 0 %,=j .67* 1 A 7— VI; 1W kro-v I., A 1� Above is the poster of the Bethel -Lund alternatives displayed at the workshop. Each dot stickers represent a vote. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 61 Notes - December 2024 Sedgwick-Bethel The results showed that Alternative 3 received the most votes, assuming an increase in mixed -use residential and commercial retail along arterials. Alternative 2 received the second -highest number of votes. Workshop attendees preferred Alternative 2, with limited increase in building height and densities and online survey respondents favored Alternative 3. The chart represents the combined votes for each proposed alternative from the open house and online survey. There are 33 total votes, with 17 from the open house and 16 from the online survey. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 62 Notes • December 2024 .1 PI -CI Lei a i ` + PL U.mIIr ruIL.%l ti ALTtRIYATIWE j-NO MUM. JLLTERNATTE7-I.ICFn TOUCH ALTERNAUVE3-MIXED USE'J — T1, 10SIT-01RIENTgo DEVELOMENT . . 31 I I, I Easl TI ��isil r d- frr. r ti 4::1- 81_ i.'I•' - HWEIAI.: .+ N L' I .. - rleTcnrcry &uFn l HUD FeoMrQi -... � .. —. J TraaspaflaKvn Jdca$ ng CohdRona h xa=sn,x�v. l 45uHE' y *—�51..pI.rrEErR' OCV�7_'kl,Y3k Nixed _sue Ir. {a: rr;:ry sn'.s *- — *'01eriUKIl rp y a�g ick E 61: x l Hwh;irr<es1l^er'I ..* r{}len-diirLe' busr{x;lr.s o"c3rchcrrl {[xarl •7�fi❑ cvF,',r!�_lian T SR ',6 r'ly�ri! I'Or1 �[:E'q� L'�+� P::ISfoozC Flared I I,_ .__ . xo_r.d3b:,:)t Cvnh�r Above is a photo of a poster of the Sedgwick-Bethel alternatives displayed at the workshop, including public comments posted at the meeting. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 63 Notes • December 2024 Note 3: Bethel -Lund Land Use Alternatives FROM: Makers Architecture and Urban Design DATE: August 28, 2024 Bethe-Lund Land Use Alternatives The Bethel -Lund land use alternatives present potential development scenarios tailored to the unique characteristics of the Subarea, informed by a thorough analysis of existing assets, challenges, and opportunities. These alternatives serve as a framework for evaluating different development pathways and engage the public in the decision - making process. Through a combination of an in -person workshop and an online survey, residents had the opportunity to choose the most desirable components and design elements from these alternatives, ultimately leading to the development of a locally - preferred land use alternative. The chart below describes the key features recommended in each of the land use alternatives. - - Alternative 1 Alternative 2 1 Alternative 3 1 No Action Light Touch Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Utilize current zoning and Create flexible regulations Leverage planned moves forward with and implement strategic transportation existing policies and zoning changes to improvements and planned public accommodate growth expand growth through improvements. A notable and promote efficient mix mixed use opportunities to exception will be zoning of uses. Improve support walkable changes necessary to pedestrian mobility and neighborhoods and comply with the State's access to parks and open economic vitality. middle housing legislation. space. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 64 Notes • December 2024 The table below present the distinctions between each alternative, focusing on whether the assumed future development will prioritize greater vertical mixed -use development or retain the current configuration while strategically redesignating zones to encourage more commercial and residential capacity within Bethel -Lund. Height limits No change, current limits of 35-40' Commercial/ mixed -use zoning Limited or no changes. There is a mix of CC, CMU, and CH zoning in the areas today. Residential No change zoning Adopt the "proposed base height limit" from HAP Strategy 2.3.2. These changes would only apply within subarea boundaries and not citywide. R3 - 45 feet (+10 feet) R4 - 45 feet (no change) CC - 45 feet (+10 feet) CMU - 55 feet (+15 feet) Retain CH zoning only for gas stations and the big box stores ( Safeway, Walmart, and future Home Depot sites). Other CH sites get rezoned to CC or CMU. Consider rezoning CC to CMU in strategic locations. This creates some non -conforming uses. Rezone R1 and R2 zones to R3 or R4, except for residential lots which were recently developed. Affordable No change. Explore MFTE opportunities housing for the subareas. Parking No change Reduce multifamily and commercial minimum parking requirements within the subarea boundaries. For example, up to 1 space for studio/one-bedroom apartment and do not require extra parking when on -street parking is not present. Public No change. POMC 20.127.350(3) is space/plaza amended to apply larger commercial open spaces Adopt the "proposed bonus height limit" from HAP Strategy 2.3.2 as the base height limit. These changes would only apply within subarea boundaries and not citywide. R4 - 55 feet (+10 feet) CMU - 75 feet (+35 feet) Rezone all CH and CC sites to CMU. This creates some non- conforming uses. Rezone all residential lots to R4. Rezone some commercial properties to R4 when such properties are some distance from an arterial street. Same as Alternative 2. Remove all minimum parking requirements within the subareas boundaries, per HAP Strategy 4.2.4. Apply a maximum parking requirement for commercial use. POMC 20.127.350(3) is amended to apply larger commercial open Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 65 Notes • December 2024 Public parks/green space Off-street trails within the subarea spaces within the boundaries, e.g. 3% of site subarea boundaries, area. e.g. 4% of site area. No change. 1. Lundberg Park is Same as Alternative 2 Lundberg developed with a with addition of: Park and connection to a trail in 1 Large iconic park Sedgwick- the Blackjack Creek south of Vallair Bethel ravine. properties remain in limbo with no development plans and are at risk of disposition. No change. A central plaza at the Bethel Junction area. Neighborhood park within future residential development in Sedgwick Road A limited Blackjack Creek ravine trail is planned adjacent to the Subarea. 2. Restore and developed a wetland park north of Walgreens Same as Alternative 2, but a longer Blackjack Creek ravine trail is planned to connect between the two subareas. A new east - west pedestrian/bike connection across the ravine is planned in the vicinity of Salmonberry Road. Street design Bethel/Sedgwick Bethel/Sedgwick Same as Alternative 2. improvements and improvements and other In addition, new all - other TIP projects TIP projects occur as ages -and -abilities occur as currently currently planned. In walking and biking planned. addition: routes (such as a wider • Midblock crossings are sidewalk or off-street added on Lund and trail and protected bike Sedgwick east and west lanes) are added to of Bethel connect the subareas • Sidewalks and bike to East Port Orchard lanes are added on Elementary School. Lund and Sedgwick east of Bethel. • Existing commercial driveways are right - sized for pedestrian safety and comfort New street None except for New planned streets as Same as Alternative 2. connections minor street shown in the block In addition, new extensions as part of frontage maps (POMC through -block new developments. 20.127.130) are connection implemented by future requirements are development. added to add more Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 66 Notes • December 2024 frequent vehicle and pedestrian routes. Transit service Kitsap Transit Kitsap Transit provides bus Kitsap Transit provides provides enhanced rapid transit to Downtown, bus rapid transit to bus service on Bethel with a terminus at Downtown, with service Road at an Sedgwick-Bethel. extending west on undetermined future Sedgwick (possibly to date. the Ruby Creek area at Sedgwick-Sydney) . Capital facilities No change. In a citywide facilities plan, Same as Alternative 2. assess whether Bethel - Lund, which is more centrally located to the city, is a viable location for a civic use such as a library branch or community center. Utilities TBD. TBD TBD Bethel/Sedgwick improvements appear to include some stormwater system upgrades. Natural systems TBD. Continue TBD TBD preserving the Blackjack Creek ravine. Some existing vegetated properties could be opportunities for open space preservation and/or City acquisition for park space. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 67 Notes - December 2024 Bethel -Lund Land Use Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action No action would assume no change to zoning or other land use regulations. This alternative assumes that development will still occur, but at a density similar to the existing conditions. Lundberg Park remains in limbo with no development plans and at risk of disposition Adopt proposed zoning changes to promote middle housing (This citywide effort is separate from the subarea planning process] Support Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements Lundberg v ,�5 rk U East R Port Orchard Elementary T•�•�� SE LUNUBER"Rp G �[- School iy 1 , 9� Christian � MCKINLEY PL SE Life cF South Kiisap 1 1 Center o Regional Park `0 1 Monster Car a a Wash o 1 F\ Kitsap Veterinary w > a Hospital r 0 0 PU rt0 •�� • dallarta Walgrgens "' SE BA5IL CT I % ~Rite — - _Safeway — — — — — -'► Aid Fuel BETHEL > 1 JUNCTION w ateway s SE vALLAiR u 1 C� East 1 Port Orchard 1 1 Walma rt SE TIBURON CT 1 ++ yam• SERER SE SERENADE WAY Q w 1 N i._._. Q Sol b - z 0 i o ` 1 D I 400 SOD Feet SE SALMONSERRY RD N Transportation Ideas Mobility 401 Support BRT improvements f - ► Potential new Potential street bus routes connection 490, Planned *4►4 Roundobout Zoning/ Height Limits Residential I (R1)/35feet Residential 2 (R2)/35 feet Residential 3 (R3)/35 feet Commercial Corridor (CC)/ 35feet Commerical Heavy (CH)/ 35 feet Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU)/ 40feet o�O Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)/ 40 feet Zoning. No change in zoning and code regulations Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects occur as currently planned Minor street extensions as part of new developments Existing Conditions Blackjack Creek Greenbelt Bethel Lund Q Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 68 Notes • December 2024 Alternative 2 - Light Touch This alternative focus on increasing residential and commercial capacity with zoning changes to accommodate multifamily residential options and commercial and mixed - use development along arterials. The maximum building height and densities would see increases. Support efforts to activate Lundberg Park Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations within the subarea to allow more housing and an efficient mix of land uses Include additional multimodal improvements, and consider midblock crossing and complete streets features including green stormwater infrastructure Create a limited trail along the Blackjack Creek ravine r _7'�Park R ` r ` 1 a ! r•�•� sE ! R3+R4 , � 1 ,j �j r r 1�s•1 r i ` L--------- rRR z 0 0 0 400 800 Feet N 1 1 Monstar J ast Kltsap Vetei Puerto valladi Bethel Hub Features Transportation Ideas iroce Yon aexrb!e) Mobility 4--), Support BRT Mixed use improvements _ Potential new hub: Investment t- Potential street bus routes focus area connection Park/plaza 41♦ Planned 'A ill Roundabout Ravine trail � SSE U East I Port orchard ♦ `Yp Elementary ���/NCOCry s`rt,9 SCh001 M�KINLEY PL SE Christian qLF�� Lffe s� South Kitsap Center Regional Park n w o o 0 eens s r =C>CMU R3+R4 afeway — — — —]► w_.. Fuel East Port Orchard SE TIBURON CT SE SE SERENADE WAY z a 0 0 SE SALMONBERRY RD Ma r, Zoning/ Height Limits Residential 2 (R2)/35 feet (no change) Zoning change Residential (R3)/45 feet i+lo feet) Residential 4 (R4)145 feet (no change) Commercial Corridor ICCJ/ Commerical Heavy [CH)/ 35 feet (no change) Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU)/ 40 feet (no change) /✓L Commercial Mixed Use ICMU)/ 55ieeti+15feed BETHEL JUNCTION PLAZA. (NAME TBD) Support the development of an accessible open/plaza space in conjunction with new developments Encourage park/ open space with any new development Existing Conditions --- Blackjack Creek Greenbelt Bethel Lund 0 Port Orchard Port Orchard UOA Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 69 Notes • December 2024 Alternative 3 - Mixed use/ Transit Oriented Development This alternative assumes an increase in mixed -use residential and commercial retail development. Potential zoning changes focus on increasing residential capacity in both existing commercial and residential zones. The maximum building height and densities increase within the Subarea to encourage more vertical mix use buildings. Support efforts to activate Lundberg Park Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations within the subarea to allow more housing and an efficient mix of land uses Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel SOUTH VALLAIR. (NAME Till Create a large iconic park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area Lundberg Park East dti�� 0��� R , F Port Orchard ��C, 5o i'•�'► Elementary r �l"�(iN �F School SE LUNDBERG COC r 1 RD R3�R4 N 9� tl MCKI NLEY se 'v Christian Life sF South Kitsap x r l p� 1 o Center Regional Park r�° , o Mons}ar Car c wash o w x Kitsap Veterinary . w ` Hospital Q o \ Puerto. -Vollorto Walgreens SE BASK CT CC-CMU R3 � R4 r I R2+R4 Rile Safeway l �.r Aid � � Fuel 1 CC>CMU �-BE JUNCTION w �l �•�•�•�•� SafewoY, I'-�.. SE vnualR cr��'. East R1-R4 I Pori Orchard I r r r W Imad se rlsuROIJ cr r SE BER SE SERENACE C A � a rJ Connect to Bethe- r Sedgwick-Bethel Salourf. Trail z 2 Y 0 o R3 R4 0 400 800 Feet SE SALMON6ERRY RD IN I Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning/ Height Limits r�....... f1xibf,) Mobility Safero Residential 2 (R2)/35 feet (no change) OZoning change Mixed use hub; Investment Im o scprovements hoolol school Residential3 (R3)/45 feet (+3afeel) Potential street �] Support BRT---"sidentiol 4 (R4)155 feet {+10 feet] focus area connection Commercial Corridor (CC)/ Park/plaza I &'/ Planned F _ Potential new 45 feet (+10 feet) �► Roundabout bus routes ! Commerical Heavy (CH)/ �- - Ravine frail 35 feet lno change) Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMUJ/ 40 feet (no change) Commeroal Mixed Use (CMU)/ Improve active transportation routes to school, and better buffering for people walking, biking, and rolling Restore wetland and create a gathering space Encourage park/ open space with any new development Existing Conditions •-- Blackjack Creek Greenbelt Bethel Lund Q Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 70 Notes - December 2024 Bethel -Lund Preferred Alternative Based on feedback gathered from community engagement activities, including workshops and an online survey, community members expressed strong support for specific design elements within the land use alternatives. These elements emphasize the importance of mixed -use developments featuring neighborhood parks, enhancing commercial opportunities along arterial corridors, improving access to parks and trails, and expanding multimodal transportation options. Many online survey respondents favored Alternative 3, while opinions were split among workshop attendees. Some workshop attendees raised concerns about the increase in height and density and impact of these changes on transportation infrastructure and the overall character of the neighborhoods. The community outreach process highlighted several core values that align with the desired elements of the Subarea land use alternatives Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility Thriving centers with diverse uses for people to work, live, and play Access to recreational facilities, parks, and open space Resilient and sustainable community For more detailed information on the engagement effort and feedback regarding the subarea, refer to the Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary The community engagement results guide the preferred alternatives to realize the vision of creating a walkable, vibrant community. These alternatives leverage planned transportation improvements, increase commercial and residential capacity through flexible development options, and expand community assets where residents can gather. With these goals in mind, the Bethel -Lund preferred alternative aim to revitalize the community and improve the well-being of residents Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 71 Notes • December 2024 Bethel -Lund Preferred Alternative The map below illustrates the key features that support a cohesive, connected neighborhood aligning with the community's vision for Bethel -Lund. Support efforts to activate Lundberg Park Zoning. Create more Flexible development regulations, including height overlay zones, and parking requirements to allow for more housing and a mix of land uses Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund SALMONBERRY PARK. (NAME TBD) Create a central park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area Lundberg r R ' w ,ti5 .Park East?P '+'—'+'r. C Port Orchard \GO ti 1 ♦ ✓ ► F[iN 5O� El r Schoolry r T•+•+� SE LUNagERG,RD q MCKINLEY PL SE 1 IP u [ Christian 1 Life w ��' South Kitsap r l N 1 Center o M R3 R2 o oostor Car LLI Q Regional Pork sF� p Wash o Utio R3+A2 '= ��� •� L Kitsap Veterinary Q r Hospital <n o - Puerto ,+•+•+•^� Cm] - . Volludb �algreens SE 9ASIl CT 'BEIHEL 1' RB w Safeway �'�•� Al Fuel — i JUNCTIO w �.+.+.+...+. afeway z u j r -sF VALrAIRARC i r East Port Orc `t 1 1 1 SE rIB1RON Q 1 ' SE BER r� , SE SERENADE WAY CC � PF z o 1 1 ethe�f�S SolooM1iE n �✓Connecf to Sedgwick-Bethel hall o 0 400 800 Feet SESALMONBERRVRf7 N I Ma ,,, Micros Improve connectivity and explore other active transportation improvements, such as midblock crossing and sidewalk buffer enhancements, along key routes to schools and other destinations Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects will occur as planned Support Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning Existing Conditions Cccatlon fie beJ - Mobility Sate routes Residential 1 (RI) Commercial Corridor (CC) Blackjack Creek Pork/plaza improvements to school Residential 2 (R2( 61ii Commerical Heavy (CH) Greenbelt Potential street �� Support BRT Residential 3 (R3{ W. Commercial Mixed Use (CMU{ - Parks and Recreation Ravine trail connection Public Facilities (PFj Business Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU) �•� Bethel -Lund "I Planned ~ - Potential new r-1 Port Orchard �..% Roundabout bus routes =Zoning change Port Orchard UGA See 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework for more details on the urban design vision and investments priorities. Capacity In addition to the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers eligibility requirements, Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies establish that Countywide Centers must show a minimum of 10 Activity Units per acre. An Activity Unit is one person or one job. For more information about the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers criteria see 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework. Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 72 Notes • December 2024 As shown on the table below, the Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity based on the development pattern outlined in this preferred alternative, can accommodate up to 13.1 Activity Units per acre. Existing Pipeline (as Existing + Additional Total of Sept. Pipeline Land 2024) Capacity Acres 211.2 211.2 Vacant/Redevelopable Residential Acres 16.9 Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Acres Housing Units 259 Single Family 174 213 39 472 213 0.1 301 34 773 247 Condo 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 85 174 259 267 526 People per Household Single Family 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Condo 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Multifamily 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Population 665 460 1,124 632 1,756 Jobs 988 0 988 21 1,009 Activity Units 1,653 460 2,112 653 2,765 AUs / Acre 10.0 13.1 Requirements Required Acres 160-500 160-500 Actual Acres 211.2 211.2 Surplus /Shortfall 51.2 51.2 Required Use Mix 20% Res. / Emp. 20% Res. / Emp. Actual Res. Mix 53% 64% Actual Emp. Mix 47% 36% Required AUs/Acre 10 10 Actual AUs/Acre 10.0 13.1 Surplus /Shortfall 0.0 Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 73 Notes • December 2024 Height Overlays Generally, the maximum building height allowed within Bethel -Lund is three stories or 35 feet. The Bethel -Lund height overlay districts (BLHOD) intent is to support focused growth with compact development form to achieve added dwelling units and vertical mixed - use buildings necessary to concentrate growth in the Subarea. As shown on the map below, the three different BLHOD height zones are as follows: a) BLHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories b) BLHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories c) BLHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories w y Q Lundberg' yES Park V East '"".`.•.. Port Orchard AGO Elementary 1 SE LUNC]BER_G,RD Vice School �(N MCKINLEY PL SE a 1 Christian 1 Life South Kitsap 1 vw 1 Center n Regional Park 1 o Monstar Car a u m 1 sF Wash n Kitsap Veteri ary w > F Hospital Q q j Puerto o Vallarta Walgreens SE BASIL CT 1 Rite ti Safewpy t •!•1 Aid w Fuel BETHEL 1 A JItN-I• w_ L ............� ateway - U Li SE VALLAIR CT _ �.; _- East 1 _ Port Orchard 1 u` � alm_art' rrBLrRory cr 1 SE BERGER LN �. SE SERENADE WAY h h z o N � m Bethel x �� ` Saloon 1 Z � 1 OU ........... 0 400 800 Feet SE SALMONBERRY RD N IJ Maxar. Microsoft Bethel -Lund Height Overlay District (BLHOD) BLHOD 5: 55 feet -five stories BLHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories BLHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories Existing Conditions Blackjack Creek Bethel Lund 0 Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Port Orchard Bethel -Lund Subarea Plan 74 Notes • December 2024 ORCHARD December 2024 45 m eagwicK 56 ubarea Plar Aak �'�- ORCHARD -dW 4e December 2024 Acknowledgements The Sedgwick-Bethel Plan would not be possible without the enthusiasm and support of community stakeholders, including the businesses neighbors, and agency partners in and around the Sedgwick-Bethel area. A special thanks to everyone who contributed their time and effort to the development of this plan. Mayor Rob Putaansuu City Council Members: Mark Trenary Jay Rosapepe Scott Diener Eric Worden Heidi Fenton Fred Chang John Morrissey Planning Commission: Annette Stewart Stephanie Bailey Tyler McKlosky Wayne Wright Louis Ta Paul Fontenot Joe Morrison City Staff: Nicholas Bond, AICP, Community Development Director Jim Fisk, AICP, Principal Planner Stephanie Andrews, Senior Planner Shaun Raja, Associate Planner Connor Dahlquist, Assistant Planner Consultant Team: MAKERS AHBL Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan December 2024 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Plan Background and Context................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Area................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework..........................................................................................3 2. Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning.................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Transportation............................................................................................................................17 Recent Transportation Planning Efforts.......................................................................................... 17 Vehicular Circulation and Access..................................................................................................20 Pedestrian Circulation and Access................................................................................................ 23 BicycleFacilities................................................................................................................................24 Transit.................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.................................................................................28 Parksand Open Space....................................................................................................................28 CriticalAreas..................................................................................................................................... 28 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment................................................................................................30 EconomicProfile............................................................................................................................... 30 DevelopmentPipeline......................................................................................................................33 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity................................................................................................34 3. Goals and Vision..........................................................................................................................35 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges..................................................................................35 3.2 Alternatives...............................................................................................................................37 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework...........................................................................38 Values................................................................................................................................................. 38 PlanConcept....................................................................................................................................39 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies.........................................................................................................42 LandUse............................................................................................................................................42 Transportation.................................................................................................................................... 44 CommunityDesign...........................................................................................................................46 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas.........................................................................................49 4. Action Plan...................................................................................................................................50 5. Notes.............................................................................................................................................53 Note 1: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Centers Goals and Policies....................................54 Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary.................................................................... 56 Note 3: Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives.............................................................................. 66 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan December 2024 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1-2 EXHIBIT 2-1 EXHIBIT 2-2 EXHIBIT 2-3 EXHIBIT 2-4 EXHIBIT 2-5 EXHIBIT 2-6 EXHIBIT 2-7 EXHIBIT 2-8 EXHIBIT 2-9 EXHIBIT 2-10 EXHIBIT 2-1 1 EXHIBIT 2-12 EXHIBIT 2-13 EXHIBIT 2-14 EXHIBIT 2-15 EXHIBIT 2-16 EXHIBIT 2-17 EXHIBIT 2-16 EXHIBIT 3-1 EXHIBIT 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-3 EXHIBIT 3-4 Table TABLE 1-1 TABLE 1-2 TABLE 2-1 TABLE 2-2 TABLE 2-3 TABLE 2-4 TABLE 4-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Study Area......................................................................................... 2 New Residential Developments in Sedgwick - Bethel ................................................ 6 ExistingLand Uses............................................................................................................7 ExistingZoning.................................................................................................................9 BlockFrontage Map #9............................................................................................... 14 Looking west from Sedgwick Road............................................................................ 15 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual Rendering..........................................17 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan.................................................................................... 18 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections...................................................................19 Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Map..............................21 Planned Non -Motorized Routes.................................................................................. 25 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities..............................................................27 Parks, Open Space and Critical Areas.......................................................................29 Age in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023.....................................30 Household Incomes in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 ...31 Top Job Sectors in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2012 and 2021................................32 Commuting Patterns in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2021..................................32 Existing and Pipeline Units in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea...................................33 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea .......................34 Sedgwick-Bethel Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges........................................36 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Framework Map..............................................................40 Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay Districts..................................................................41 Sedgwick-Bethel Concept Plan..................................................................................47 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers .............. Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary .......................... Permitted Building Types............................................................... Permitted Land Uses for Centers .................................................. Port Orchard 6/20-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2043)................................................................................................ Planned Nonmotorized Routes .................................................... Sedgwick-Bethel Action Plan ....................................................... ..................................... 3 ..................................... 5 ..................................... 9 ...................................10 (2025-2030/2030- ................................... 21 ................................... 24 ................................... 51 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Introduction • December 2024 1. Introduction 1.1 Plan Background and Context The centers approach to planning was first introduced in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. This approach fosters a sustainable future by accommodating growth through concentrated development patterns and preserves the community's valued traits through collaborative planning efforts. This centers approach is also reflected in Vision 2050, the regional plan adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and in the Countywide Planning Policies managed by Kitsap County. According to Vision 2050, centers are hubs that serve as important focal points for jobs, housing, shopping, and recreation, and are supported by multimodal transportation including transit. Centers create spaces where people can gather, live, and thrive. In alignment with PSRC's criteria outlined in Vision 2050, the 2024 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan designates six "countywide centers" and three "local centers." Sedgwick-Bethel is a countywide center. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Introduction - December 2024 The City of Port Orchard gathered community input to inform this Subarea plan. Input was collected through a an in -person workshop and an online survey to evaluate alternative concepts. This feedback informed the locally preferred land use and urban design vision in the plan. The plan presents a vision for Sedgwick-Bethel to be a walkable, mixed -use urban neighborhood by updating development regulations, encouraging transit -oriented development and redevelopment, and increasing open space and recreational opportunities in the area. 1.2 Study Area The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is located at the intersection of Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road. It is bordered by Port Orchard's unincorporated area to the east and by Blackjack Creek to the west. The area includes recent developments and other vacant and developable lands. The Subarea covers a total of 235.7 acres. Following a thorough evaluation, the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is larger than initially mapped in the 2016 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan. The larger area includes more areas of potential development and recently constructed residential subdivisions. The southwestern boundary has also been revised to exclude critical areas. This updated boundary better aligns with PSRC guidance for countywide growth centers. EXHIBIT 1-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Study Area r, j Easl Sedgwick Bethel Pod Orchard Pro Posed New Subarea Boundary FArrg Subarea B.-Wry i d _ Port Orchard POYi OfChartl UGA Srrv_cc�..Esc�Masar. Eaitpc�ai Geaa pni_ss antl a',R1SUs Cammomtr. SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, 2024 .�.. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 2 Introduction - December 2024 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework PSRC 2018 Regional Centers Framework establishes eligibility requirements for Countywide Growth Centers for which designation criteria is listed below. TABLE 1-1 Designation Criteria for Countywide Growth Centers Identified as a countywide center in the countywide The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies planning policies AAppedix D: List of Centers identified Sedgwick/Bethel Center as a countywide center candidiate. Located within a city or unincorporated urban area Demonstration that the center is a local planning and investment priority: ■ Identified as a countywide center in a local comprehensive plan; subarea plan recommended ■ Clear evidence that area is a local priority for investment, such as planning efforts or infrastructure The center is a location for compact, mixed -use development; including: ■ A minimum existing activity unit density of 10 activity units per acre ■ Planning and zoning for a minimum mix of uses of 20 percent residential and 20 percent employment unless unique circumstances make these percentages not possible to achieve. ■ Capacity and planning for additional growth Sedgwick-Bethel is located within the Port Orchard city limits. This area is identified as a countywide center in the Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan Centers Strategy as found in the Land Use Element Section 2.8. In addition to the development of this plan, various intergovernmental and agency transportation investments planned within Sedgwick-Bethel, detailed in Section 2.2 Transportation. These include: ■ Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan ■ Kitsap Transit Long -Range Transit Plan 2022-2042 ■ Port Orchard 2025-2030/2031-2044 - 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Program TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary indicates that Sedgwick-Bethel meets the minimim existing activity unit density, and has capacity to accommodate 20.8 activity units per acre. Existing mix of residential (74%) and employment (26%) use surpass the minimum mix requiremen t. The center supports multi -modal transportation, There is existing transit service in the including: Subarea and some limited pedestrian ■ Transit service infrastructure. The Subarea plan identifies multi -modal transportation investments that ■ Pedestrian infrastructure and amenities are in various stages of planning and ■ Street pattern that supports walkability design (see the 'priority' checklist item ■ Bicycle infrastructure and amenities above), including projects for enhanced Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 3 Introduction • December 2024 bus service, new sidewalks and crossings, potential off-street trails, and bike facilities. The Subarea plan also identifies conceptual locations for some new streets. Development regulations will incrementally result in higher -quality private develoment with walkable frontages and pedestrian - oriented site and building design. Compact, walkable size of one -quarter mile squared The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is 235.7 acres. (160 acres), up to half -mile transit walkshed (500 acres) Capacity In addition to the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers framework above, Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies establishes that Countywide Centers must show a minimum of 10 activity units per acre. TABLE 1-2 below summarizes the existing, pipeline, and additional land capacity for housing and jobs in the Subarea. An activity unit is one person or one job. The additional land capacity is based on the development pattern outlined in this plan (see Planning Framework). As shown, the Subarea's existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity, can accommodate up to 19.1 activity units per acre. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 4 TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary Sedgwick-Bethel Existing Pipeline (as of Existing + Sept.2024) Pipeline Acres 235.7 Introduction • December 2024 Additional Total Land Capacity 235.7 Vacant/Redevelopable Residential Acres 26.8 Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Acres 5.2 Housing Units 292 457 749 855 1,604 Single Family 156 151 307 1 308 Condo 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 136 306 442 854 1,296 People per Household Single Family 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Condo 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Multifamily 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Population 716 1,042 1,758 1,715 3,473 Jobs 619 10 629 388 1,017 Activity Units 1,335 1,052 2,387 2,103 4,490 AUs / Acre 10.1 19.1 Requirements Required Acres 160-500 160-500 Actual Acres 235.7 235.7 Surplus / Shortfall Required Use Mix 75.7 20% Res. / Emp. 75.7 20% Res. / Emp. Actual Res. Mix 74% 77% Actual Emp. Mix 26% 23% Required AUs/Acre 10 Actual AUs/Acre 10.1 19.1 Surplus / Shortfall 0.1 SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 5 Existing Conditions - December 2024 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning The Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea is an EXHIBIT 2-1 emerging commercial hub at the southeastern corner of Port Orchard city limits. It has long had a mix of rural and suburban commercial attributes, though has recently been seeing more single-family and multifamily residential development. Sedgwick-Bethel contains a mix of land uses including a large grocery store, smaller retail shops, restaurants, and general services (see EXHIBIT 2-2). There are three commercial clusters located along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road including Bethel Centre, SOURCE: Google Earth, 2024 Sedgwick Plaza, and Fred Meyer. There are civic facilities, such as Hidden Creek Elementary School, located just outside of the Subarea to the southeast. New Residential Developments Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 6 Existing Conditions - December 2024 In 2017, major residential construction projects began in Sedgwick-Bethel. The first of these projects was Andaiso Village, a single-family subdivision in the northwestern quadrant of the area. Following this came construction of the Magnolia Ridge and Sidney Ridge subdivisions. The first phase of a new multifamily residential complex, Pottery Creek Apartments, was recently built on the southern edge of the Subarea and second phase will be completed in 2024. Another multifamily project located along Blueberry Road is under construction and will likely be completed in early 2025 (see 2.4 Development Pipeline). EXHIBIT 2-2 Existing Land Uses Magnolia Ridge Andaiso Village Sidney . ' Ridge OSETHEL Retail commu Grocery Restour f Auto Se t� Office �K'\\\\ SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 EDGWICK PLAZA Pottery Creek a Medical nity Shopping Center Storage Warehouse Single Family Housing nt/Eateries Multifamily Housing (5+ Units) rvice/Convenience Market Manufactured Home School SALMONBERR.Y=RD Greenbelt j Undesignated C;3 Sedgwick Bethel 0 Port Orchard / ® Port Orchard UGA �0����4 0��� 800 Feet Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 7 Existing Conditions • December 2024 The Subarea is currently zoned Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), Commercial Heavy (CH), Commercial Corridor (CC), Residential 1 (Rl ), Residential 2 (R2), Residential 3 (R3), and Residential (R4) (EXHIBIT 2-3). TABLE 2-1 and TABLE 2-2 list the building types and land uses permitted in these zones. Generally, the maximum building height allowed within Sedgwick-Bethel is three stories or 35 feet. Port Orchard's subarea policies (established in the Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan) describe a need to support focused growth with compact development forms. Low height limits can be a barrier to achieving the added dwelling units and vertical mixed -use buildings necessary to concentrate growth in the Subarea, as envisioned by the City's land use and centers policies. The increased cost and risk of developing mixed -use structures and leasing ground -floor commercial space (compared to a single -use, low-rise apartment building) can be offset by a higher amount of residential floor area. This is because allowing additional dwelling units which can help spread out of the cost of construction across more units. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, developers are indicating increased risk associated with commercial development due to continued uncertainty about retail and office markets (this is a nationwide trend but was also confirmed in local stakeholder interviews for the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan). 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 are complex and require savvy and willing participants. To date, no project has 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. Increased height limits and potentially larger buildings will be mitigated by a broad set of multifamily and commercial design standards that Port Orchard already has in place (Chapter 20.127 POMC). These include but are not limited to standards for building massing, light and air access, useable open space, building materials, and windows and entries. According to the Port Orchard Housing Action Plan (HAP), the economic benefits of light wood frame construction are maximized with height limits in the 65-85 feet range. The HAP makes specific recommendations for height limits in several zones that exist in the Subarea. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 8 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-3 Zoning a Magnoffa Ridge Q 1 u Andalso a Viflage, ]SE.BWEBERRX-F Sidney Ridge I SE KODA-CIR.. B -- a C sr DO Westcoast P�ff Taqueria El Rey Fitness Star SOURCE: City of Port Orchard 2023 Zoning SE FAY CT U j z East Port Orchard ��� siparrmeors U � -r.......... z In O � w � z O � U Zoning Greenbelt (GB) Commercial Corridor (CC) ���! Sedgwick Lund Residential 1 (RI) Commerical Heavy (CH) Q Port Orchard Residential 2 (R2) /W/ Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 7-71 Pod Orchard UGA Residential 3 (R3) Public Facilities (PF) Residential 4 ( R4) 0 40 800 Feet y 1 i I TABLE 2-1 Permitted Building Types Building Type Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH Townhouse -- P* P P P -- -- Fourplex (and Triplex) -- -- P P -- -- -- Apartment -- -- P P P -- -- Mixed Use Shopfront -- -- -- -- P P -- Single-Story Shopfront -- -- -- -- P P P Detached House P P P -- -- -- -- Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 9 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Building Type Backyard Cottage Cottage Court Duplex: Side -by -Side Duplex: Back -to -Back Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH P P P -- -- -- -- P P P -- -- -- -- -- P P -- -- -- -- -- P P -- -- -- -- Attached House -- P P -- -- -- -- Live-Work -- -- -- -- P P -- General Building -- -- -- -- P P P Shopfront House -- -- -- -- P P -- Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.32.015 Building type zoning matrix *Note: In the R2 zone townhouses are limited to three or four units (POMC 20.32.090.2) **Note: Permitted building types in the R1 and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. TABLE 2-2 Permitted Land Uses for Centers Land Use Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH Residential Single-family detached P P P -- -- -- -- Two-family -- P P -- -- -- -- Single-family attached (2 -- P P -- -- -- -- units) Single-family attached (3-4 -- P P P P P -- units) Single-family attached (5-6 -- -- P P P P -- units) Multifamily (3 or more units) -- -- P P P P -- Permanent supportive housing C C C C C C C Commercial Group day care (7 to 12) C C C -- P P -- Day care center (13 or more) -- -- -- -- C P P Indoor recreation* -- -- -- -- P P P Outdoor recreation* -- -- -- -- C P P Hotel -- -- -- -- P P P Medical* -- -- -- -- C P P Office* -- -- -- -- P P P Personal service* -- -- -- -- P P P Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 10 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Land Use Residential Zones Commercial Zones R1 ** R2** R3 R4 CMU CC CH Restaurants -- -- -- -- P P P Retail sales: Up to 5,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- P P P 5,001 - 15,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- P P P 15,001 - 50,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- -- P P Over 50,000 SF GFA -- -- -- -- -- C P Convenience store w/ fuel -- -- -- -- -- -- C Convenience store w/o fuel -- -- -- -- C P P Industrial Light manufacturing -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Brewery, distillery: Up 5,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- -- P 5,001 - 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- C P Over 15,000 square feet -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Food processing, boutique -- -- -- -- P P P Self-service storage -- -- -- -- C C C Key: P= Permitted Use C=Conditional Use -- = Use Note Permitted SOURCE: Port Orchard Municipal Code 20.30.040 Use Table *Note: Some specific types of uses within these categories have further restrictions per POMC 20.39.040 **Note: Permitted land uses in the Rl and R2 zone may change to comply with RCW 36.70A.635. See next section on middle housing. Commercial zoning represents a large share of the Subarea. The CMU zone offers the most flexibility for residential uses because it allows single -purpose apartment buildings, townhouses, and mixed -use buildings. The CC zone allows apartments only in mixed -use buildings and residential use is mostly prohibited in the CH zone. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 1 1 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Middle Housing The City is taking proactive measures to ensure compliance with Washington State's new middle housing bills, HB 1 110 and HB 2321, adopted during the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions respectively. HB 1 1 10 mandates cities of specific sizes and locations to permit multiple dwelling units per lot in areas that are traditionally exclusive to single- family detached homes. HB 2321 modified the requirements created under HB 1 110. The law is codified primarily under RCW 36.70A.635. What is Middle Housing? "Middle housing" includes duplexes, townhouses, cottages, courtyard apartments, and other building types that fall between the scale of single-family detached houses and larger apartment buildings. Middle housing units tend to be more affordable to build than single-family homes and offer greater varieties of layout and sizes that are suited for a wider range of households. Expanding the areas where middle housing is allowed offer greater opportunities for "starter homes", or homeownership, to all residents of a community. Townhouses Courtyard apartments Small apartments (5-10 units) Source: MAKERS, 2023 Currently, Port Orchard is a Tier 3 city as described by the Department of Commerce Middle Housing Model Ordinance User Guide. Tier 3 cities must allow at least two units per lot. Port Orchard is anticipated to cross the 25,000-person population threshold and become a Tier 2 city. Tier 2 cities are required to allow at least two units per lot and also at least four units per lot when a lot provides one affordable housing unit or a lot is near a major transit stop. Should Kitsap Transit implement bus rapid transit in the Bethel corridor, stops for that service will be considered major transit stops. To implement middle housing effectively, Port Orchard proposes the redesignation of properties currently within the R 1 zone to R2, effectively repealing existing R 1 zoning standards and implementing middle housing building types mandated by HB 1 1 10 in the R2 zoning district. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 12 Existing Conditions • December 2024 The Port Orchard HAP provides guidance to promote middle housing while the middle housing compliance strategy is part of the broader update and adoption of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan. Block Frontage Standards Chapter 20.127 POMC provides citywide multifamily and commercial design standards. Article II provides block frontage design standards that emphasize compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment. Many of Port Orchard's streets are designated on block frontage maps for which specific standards apply to different frontage designations. In this Subarea, Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are both designated as "varied" in the community design framework maps (POMC 20.127.130) meaning developments fronting these streets are subject to either "storefront" or "landscaped" block frontage standards. Storefront frontages feature traditional ground -floor commercial spaces at the edge of the public sidewalk. Landscape frontages feature landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and building. In some cases, parking is restricted from being located and visible adjacent to public sidewalks. Sedgwick Road at the western edge of the subarea is designated as "gateway". This designation is reserved for areas near highway interchanges with heavy vehicle traffic and serve the purpose of providing attractive landscaped frontages. In addition to the existing streets, EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #9 uses black dashed lines to indicate planned locations for new streets. Such streets can be created through a public capital project or as a condition of approval for private development occurring on applicable lots. The block frontage type that applies on planned streets is "other", regulated under POMC 20.127.210. In this subarea, the widening of Blueberry Road and a portion of Geiger Road have been completed as a condition of recent single-family subdivisions. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 13 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-4 Block Frontage Map #9 SOURCE: POMC 20.127.130 Community design framework maps Existing Aesthetics and Design Standards Located in the far southeast corner of Port Orchard city limits, this subarea is transitioning from a rural setting into a more suburban setting. Aesthetics in the subarea are typical of low -density, auto -oriented commercial and residential development in the Puget Sound region, mixed with larger vacant parcels consisting of forestlands and fields. Most commercial properties contain one-story buildings set back from the street by expansive parking lots. There are multiple drive -through businesses. Commercial signage is typical for the region and mostly consists of monument and wall -mounted signs. Larger commercial buildings typically have service access in rear -facing areas, while smaller commercial buildings have screened trash collection located in in parking areas. Travel in the area is primarily by automobile and likely related to the long distances between residential and commercial land uses and the incomplete nature of the sidewalk and bicycling infrastructure network. See more information in 2.2 Transportation. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 14 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Residential development consists of detached single-family homes and apartment complexes. Most of the residential developments were built within the last decade and have been subject to more contemporary standards requiring good street networks with multiple external connections. There are a few older single-family properties on large lots fronting the western portion Sedgwick Road. On the eastern portion of Sedgwick Road there is a concentration of new apartment complexes with three-story buildings. Some properties have landscaped perimeters and parking lots. The general auto - oriented nature of the environment competes with the aesthetic benefits of trees, particularly due to the lack of street trees on Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road. Many of the vacant properties have stands of larger trees and dense vegetation, particularly to the west. The Subarea is mostly flat with the exception of the Blackjack Creek ravine. Subarea aesthetic and pedestrian experience are expected to improve with the implementation of the Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan, which calls for continuous sidewalks and landscape strips along the length of Bethel Road. Aesthetics will also improve over time through redevelopment and required compliance with the Port Orchard multifamily and commercial design standards under Chapter 20.127 POMC, which ensure that new development is high quality and positively contributes to Port Orchard's community character. EXHIBIT 2-5 Looking west from Sedgwick Road SOURCE: Google, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 15 Existing Conditions • December 2024 These design standards consist of: • Article II - Block Frontage Standards (described above). Most importantly, new buildings must be located adjacent to Bethel and Sedgwick rather than set back behind parking. • Article III -Site Planning Standards o Standards for light and air access to residential dwelling units o Nonmotorized circulation standards, including minimum connectivity o Vehicular circulation standards for internal roadways o Open space standards o Standards for the design of service areas and mechanical equipment • Article IV - Building Design Standards o Prohibition on corporate architecture o Building massing and articulation standards that reduce the perceived scale of large buildings o Building detail requirements for commercial ground floors o Exterior material standards o Requirements for treating blank walls Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 16 Existing Conditions - December 2024 2.2 Transportation Recent Transportation Planning Efforts Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan 2018 The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive plan and conceptual design for two major corridors in Port Orchard: Sedgwick Road (State Route 160) and Bethel Road. These are major arterials that serve the Bethel -Lund Subarea and provide connections to State Route 16, Downtown Port Orchard, and the Southworth Ferry Terminal. Elements of the study were centered on: Ensuring mobility for all users, including drivers, people walking and bicycling, and transit riders Supporting existing businesses and future commercial growth in the area Guiding future development of the corridors through design considerations and funding tools The proposed conceptual design introduces roundabouts on key segments of both roadways. Additionally, the study recommends enhancing sidewalk connectivity, bicycle facilities, and implementing green stormwater infrastructure. The multi -phase reconstruction of Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road offers a unique opportunity to transform these corridors into attractive, pedestrian -friendly streets, while strengthening connections among the area neighborhoods. Phase I of the Bethel Road corridor improvements includes roundabouts at the intersections of Bethel Road with Blueberry Road and Salmonberry Road. EXHIBIT 2-6 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan Conceptual .ram: 1 �. . 1 o� S _ SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 17 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-7 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Plan LEGEND -- — ------ � - Bettiel Road— Typical Sect!an A Be; het Road — Typical Section B f Sedgwick Road — T]jpiC315ectlon Mile Hill drive E3�saireg SingleAane Roundshout Proposed -Sin l6e4ane RDurmiabout Praprsed Multi -lane RDundabW - Tremwt AwenmQ SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 18 Existing Conditions • December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-8 Bethel Sedgwick Corridor Cross Sections Bethel Road - Typical Section A w .. - 12' 11 6' B' -'r- 1*elane _ .-..... Sidewalk Bethel Road - Typical Section B 4 • # f�' 6 12' 8 8' Sde,a''k k;losKa-c Bike lane 'dehicle la^e M dian Vehicle lane Bike lane Bioswale Sidewalk Sedgwick Road - Typical Section SOURCE: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan, City of Port Orchard, 2018 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan M Existing Conditions • December 2024 Vehicular Circulation and Access Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are important throughfares, providing crucial access and mobility through Sedgwick Bethel. Salmonberry Road is a residential street that connects the outlying neighborhood within Port Orchard's Urban Growth Area to Bethel commercial corridor. Bethel Road is a key north -south connection. It spans across the southern city limits to the northern waterfront, providing access to transit centers, ferry terminals, and other major commercial centers, such as Downtown Port Orchard. It also links State Route 160 and State Route 166, connecting the city to the other parts of the county. Bethel Road is generally a three -lane road with a center turn lane, and carries 11,500 to 16,900 Average Weekly Daily Traffic (AWDT), depending on the segment. Sedgwick Road (State Route160) is a two-lane highway that serves as the primary east/west ferry commuter route to Southworth Ferry Terminal and provides convenient access to the State Route 16 interchange. State Route 16 is a regional route that connects Kitsap County to Pierce County and ends at Interstate 5. To the north, State Route 16 links to State Route 3, providing access to northern Kitsap County. The Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan analyzed the crash frequency along the study segments from 2013-2017. Between the two corridors, Sedgwick Road has more crashes. Crashes on Sedgwick Road are spread out along the study segment, while on the Bethel corridor, certain intersections such as Lund Avenue, Salmonberry Road, and Mitchell Road have experienced more crashes than others. Crashes related to turning movements were more common on Bethel Road than Sedgwick Road, due in part to the fact that Bethel Road has more driveways and intersections. Additionally, there were no reported crashed involving bicyclists on either study corridor over the period that was analyzed. The study recommends increasing corridor capacity on Sedgwick Road and access management on Bethel Road to address safety issues and preserve safety, function, and capacity of these corridors. Salmonberry Road is a two-lane east -west connector that runs through unincorporated residential neighborhoods in the urban growth area connecting Jackson Avenue to Bethel Road, serving an estimated 2,300 AWDT. The subarea does not have a conventional grid system. Vehicular traffic is limited to a few streets, leading to increased congestion, safety concerns, and road deterioration associated with those streets. Side streets primarily function as low -volume, local residential streets. The City has planned new street connections on Piperberry Way to enhance pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area. This plan envisions several streets, particularly in the northwest quadrant of the Subarea, to allow greater options for vehicular access and circulation. See EXHIBIT 2-9. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 20 Existing Conditions - December 2024 The City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) identifies planned transportation projects and enhancements including intersection improvements, street extensions, pedestrian and bicycle facilities upgrades, and installation of stormwater infrastructure. TABLE 2-3 are the planned transportation projects related to Sedgwick-Bethel, and EXHIBIT 2-9 illustrate these projects. TABLE 2-3 Planned Transportation Improvements in Sedgwick-Bethel 1 Blueberry roundabout Bethel Road: Blueberry Phase 1 a. Bethel/Blueberry roundabout 2022 intersection Salmonberry Bethel Road: Phase 1 b. Bethel/ Salmonberry 2 roundabout Salmonberry roundabout and roadway segment 2023 intersection design from Blueberry to Salmonberry Right-of-way and Sedgwick Road: SR-16 Design, right-of-way acquisition and 3 construction interchange to Bethel construction of Phase 2 per the 2030 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan Design, right-of-way acquisition and 4 Right-of-way and Bethel Road: Lund to construction of the fourth phase of the 2034 construction Salmonberry street improvements per the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan New rounabout mid way between SR16 5 SIR 160/Sedgwick New intersection and Bethel Road right-of-way acquisition 2027 and design Sedgwick Road to Widen road to two travel lanes with bike 6 Geiger Road Widening Blueberry Road lanes, sidewalks and stormwater system 2034 improvements Provide an extention of Piperberry from 7 Piperberry Way Extention Geiger Road to Ramsey to Geiger and a new street 2034 Ramsey Road connection to the proposed round about on Sedgwick Salmonberry Road Ramsey Road to Widen road to two travel lanes with bike 8 Widening Bethel Road lanes, sidewalks and stormwater system 2028 improvements Widen road to two travel lanes with bike 9 Ramsey Road Widening Sedgwick Road to Salmonberry Road lanes, sidewalks and stormwater system 2029 improvements. Blueberry Road Geiger Road to Bethel Widen road to two travel lanes with bike 10 Widening Road lanes, sidewalks and stormwater system 2036 improvements SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2025-2030 and Tier 2 2031-2044 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 21 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-9 Planned Transportation Improvements in Sedgwick-Bethel Map w w _ -, - SE SkrMON3FRRY RD_ w Mognolh, v 1 Ridge u Andoiso ��•„ Q Villoge .ChinalSun ' � Buffet��,�•� Szi-LIEBERRY{RD,L{E�1 1 1 ► 1 1.� Sidney ! sE sv vls L j Ridge 6 rSF KOon cJR BETHEL 1 CENTRE 1 i %•SE PiPERKIRRY WAY 1 i 1 N 1 Weslcoasl IlAfli` Fitness Starbucks SEDGWICK PLAZA �,�r1111I� sESEpc,wlcK Ro 1 .... _ '' Pottery Creek Fred Meyer Apartments y , io C......... SE FAY CT w C O East Port Orchard 1G0 Transportation Improvements Program (TIP) Transportation Projects �'�Sedgwick-Bethel �• 4I►d Planned intersection 'I►,� New street Bethel/Sedgwick 0 Port Orchard improvement connection Corridor Plan �1►P Planned street • Other street Port Orchard UGA Newinstersection improvement improvements 0 4110 800 Feet SE MELINE RD SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Tier 1 2025-2030 and Tier 2 2031-2044. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 22 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Pedestrian Circulation and Access Most existing sidewalks are located along a portion of Sedgwick Road (east of Bethel Road) and the portion of Blueberry Road west of Bethel Road. Sidewalks are also being installed in concert with new development, such as residential subdivisions. However, many older sidewalks have substandard widths and curb cuts, and sidewalks along arterial streets are fragmented and usually not present on both sides of a street. Most streets outside of the commercial areas have paved or gravel shoulders, which forces pedestrians to share high -volume roadways with vehicles. Pedestrian crossings are limited to the signalized intersection at Bethel/Sedgwick. Side street intersections and private driveways often have wide turning radii, which increases crossing distances for people walking and allows vehicles to turn at higher speeds. Street lighting is limited, which can reduce the safety and comfort of walking at night. Overall, the environment in the Subarea is unpleasant for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other wheeled device users, such as wheelchairs, strollers, and scooters. Continuous active transportation infrastructure would improve the functionality of the existing network and quality of the pedestrian environment, providing a convenient, safe, and attractive option alternative to driving. The City has planned nonmotorized routes that are intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the City. Those within the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea are listed in TABLE 2-4. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 23 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Bicycle Facilities There are no existing bicycle facilities within Sedgwick-Bethel. However, the City's planned nonmotorized routes will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and connect residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, recreational areas, and Kitsap County nonmotorized routes outside of the city limits. These routes include Bethel Road (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road), Sedgwick Road (Sidney Road SW to Long Lake Road), and Salmonberry Road West (Bethel Avenue to Jackson Avenue). Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road also connect to the Kitsap County nonmotorized routes, and therefore, these trails are identified as part of the nonmotorized routes in the Kitsap County Non - Motorized Facilities Plan. Improvements to Bethel Road have already been programmed through the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Most of Sedgwick Road is designated as highway and future improvement requires collaboration with Kitsap County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Continued design improvements for Salmonberry Road West are part of the Bethel Phase 1 project. TABLE 2-4 Planned Nonmotorized Routes Bethel Road On -Street Bike (Bay Street to Sedgwick Road) - Arterial Lane/Sidewalk 2.62 Planned Sedgwick Road (Sidney Road On -Street Bike 2.98 Planned SW to Long Lake Road) - Arterial Lane/Sidewalk Salmonberry West On -Street (Bethel Avenue to Jackson - Bike 0.98 Planned Avenue) Residential Lane/Sidewalk SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 24 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-10 Planned Non -Motorized Routes Non -Motorized Routes 11111 Arterial Planned SE IVES MILL Ro 11111 Resldenfial Planned 16 C r SE MELINE R� � SOURCE: City of Port Orchard Non -Motorized Transportation Plan, 2024 o - a _ �rlulrii�� > A z O U - East Port Orchard Irur lco unlrnnr+ u � a z o w Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan L-:) Sedgwick-Bethel L�� Q Port Orchard Part Orchard UGA ,_� 0 400 800 Feet N I I i Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 25 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Transit Kitsap Transit currently operates Route 8 along Bethel Road in the Subarea which provides transit service between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the Fred Meyer at Sedgwick Road. Route 8 operates six days a week with half-hour headways. There is currently no transit service offered on Sedgwick Road. Kitsap Transit's 2022-2042 Long -Range Transit Plan identifies several major projects that will improve transit service and access in Sedgwick-Bethel. These include the implementation of high -capacity transit options, such as bus rapid transit (BRT) along Bethel Road and constructing a new SR 16 Transit Center with a park -and -ride lot on Sidney Road, located in the Ruby Creek neighborhood west of the SR 16/Sedgwick Road interchange (see EXHIBIT 2-1 1). Additionally, a new fixed -route bus route is planned on Sedgwick Road, to connect Southworth to the SR 16 Transit Center. These projects and expanded services are expected to enhance accessibility and convenience while providing more travel options for people living and working in the Subarea. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 26 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-11 Kitsap Transit Existing and Planned Facilities ' Z-'-_-_-_-_- Magnolia Ridge Andaiso t i j ¢ Village .._,_._. 5�6LWEBERRY RG ■ Sidney - j Ridge SL gun -:gar, BETHEL CENTRE SE PiP@RBERF." td,1r W estc oa st Fitness Starbucks SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap Transit SEDGWICK PLAZA D Pottery Creek Fred Meyer Aparlments o - Kitsap Transit Existing _ _ Planned Sedgwick Bethel Route 8 SDuthworih - port Orchard S-,veS iss Ro O Existing d P&R Route Port Orchard UGA Route 8 stops Planned BRT Route 0 400 800 Feet N I I 1 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 27 Existing Conditions • December 2024 2.3 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Parks and Open Space Sedgwick-Bethel has few formal open spaces and parks, with South Kitsap Regional Park being the closest park at approximately two miles away. One notable feature of new subdivisions are private HOA-managed parks and playgrounds. These amenities enhance the quality of life for residents and offer a greater sense of community through shared spaces. The Port Orchard Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) identifies a large site on Sedgwick/Geiger/Blueberry/Ramsey as a potential local or neighborhood athletic park equipped with picnic shelters, playgrounds, multi -purpose fields, and skateboarding features to provide more outdoor recreation opportunities in the area. Other potential parks identified include a park plaza centrally located in the Subarea (see EXHIBIT 2-12). Critical Areas Wetlands are vital to the local hydrologic cycle and offer a range of beneficial functions, such as wildlife habitat, improving water quality, reducing flood risks, and retaining stormwater. The City aims to preserve and protect wetlands and their buffers, but when impacts are unavoidable, wetland replacement or wetland mitigation banks must be utilized to mitigate impacts in accordance with Chapter 20.162 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code. Blackjack Creek is the largest stream system in Port Orchard, spanning a length of approximately three miles within the city limits (not including tributaries) and is considered one of the largest and most productive fish producing streams in South Kitsap. In recent years, the City has taken steps to protect the Blackjack Creek corridor and preserve and/or restore ecological function. There is no public access to Blackjack Creek near Sedgwick-Bethel, presenting an opportunity for a potential new trail connecting Blackjack Creek to adjacent subdivisions. The creation of such a trail would promote outdoor recreation and cultivate environmental stewardship within the Subarea. The 2023 the Port Orchard Stormwater and Watersheds Comprehensive Plan assessed stormwater system impacts on local receiving waters based partly on impervious surface land coverage. Lower Blackjack Creek was ranked Moderate/High, indicating a greater level of water quality degradation. Impacts to water resources could increase due to new and upcoming development in the area. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 28 Existing Conditions • December 2024 Surface water and stormwater capital improvement projects were developed to address the problems identified in the plan. Among the ten prioritized projects is the Salmonberry Road Lower Blackjack Creek Culvert Retrofit, which will remove and replace an existing culvert with a new storm conveyance system (see EXHIBIT 2-12). The Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan also programs stormwater infrastructure along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road to protect critical downstream creeks and waterways (i.e. Blackjack Creek). EXHIBIT 2-12 Parks, Open Space and Critical Areas r - U, ,• � � I �' �I •` a �� `' I I si sn vnnB.' I Lower Blackjack Greek.Culvert'Rehofti r. 1--+ 1! - ffffff 0 no is rl I Ru'Jge Anddisol h r� Vlfiage Ii vuN.�lK`BETHEL { l ) CENTRI PIP,ERBERR MAP IR120 1 W77II-�wesrcoasI fitness $tc SE IVES NULL' SEviL-LINE-1IJ�'17r°f.� . �.. SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS 2024 s un E ��� FLAZ& 1 Port Orchard PLAZA, SE S�LGWICK-Rp Pottery Creek Fred Meyer Apartments \ U .............. L Greenbelt Park Opportunities Wetlands [ !Sedgwick Bethe€ — Blackjack Creek Q Port Orchard Slopes 0 Port Orchard UGA Hydric Soil ao � � Feet N I I Source; Esri, Maxar earthstar Gcographics, and the &S User Gom.munity Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 29 Existing Conditions - December 2024 2.4 Market Conditions Assessment Economic Profile Demographics Port Orchard is a rapidly growing city, with population growth rates in recent decades exceeding those of the county and state due to annexation, in -migration, and natural population growth. This has driven a rapid increase in housing unit demand and production, including in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea. Overall, Port Orchard's population is younger and more diverse than regional averages, with smaller household sizes than the county and the state, and somewhat lower incomes than county and statewide averages. The Sedgwick-Bethel area has very similar age breakdown to the City as a whole with a relatively large share of young residents, as shown below in EXHIBIT 2-13. EXHIBIT 2-13 Age in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 ■ 65+ ■ 45-64 15% 15% ■ 35-44 25-34 14% 14% ■ 15-24 ■ 0-14 Sedgwick Port Orchard SOURCE: ESRI Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 30 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Incomes in the Subarea are somewhat higher than in Port Orchard as a whole, based on American Community Survey data, however, estimates for smaller geographies can be subject to significant margins of error. EXHIBIT 2-14 Household Incomes in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea and Port Orchard, 2023 100% 90% 80% ■ $200,000+ 70% ■ $150,000 - $199,999 60% ■ $100,000 - $149,999 $75,000 - $99,999 50% $50,000 - $74,999 40% ■ $35,000 - $49,999 • $25,000 - $34,999 30% 20% ■ $15,000 - $24,999 0<$15,000 10% 0% SOURCE: ESRI Sedgwick Port Orchard Employment According to 2023 data received from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), there are 619 jobs in the Sedgwick-Bethel subarea. PSRC does not provide a detailed breakdown of these jobs by sector, but the U.S. Census's OnTheMap tool does provide estimates for job sectors in the Subarea, shown below. Retail jobs comprise the majority of employment in the subarea, with various retail centers along the Sedgwick corridor. Food and other service jobs are also present in smaller quantities. As shown, the employment mix in the Subarea has not changed significantly over the past decade. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 31 Existing Conditions - December 2024 EXHIBIT 2-15 Top Job Sectors in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2012 and 2021 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Retail Trade Food / Lodging Other Services SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Commuting ■ 2021 ■2012 r Wholesale Health Care / Arts, Social Entertainment, Assistance and Recreation The map below shows estimated commuting patterns in the Subarea. As shown, essentially no residents of the Subarea also work in the Subarea. Given the commercial activity centered around the Bethel-Sedgwick intersection, there is a significant net inflow of commuters into the Subarea. EXHIBIT 2-16 Commuting Patterns in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea, 2021 Q' M3=* * Z "'� "" 7[� SOURCE: LEHD via Census OnTheMap Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 32 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Development Pipeline The map below in EXHIBIT 2-17 shows the current housing unit counts as well as pipeline development in the Subarea. There are currently 156 single-family units and 136 multifamily units, for a total of 292 existing units. There are an additional 151 single-family units and 306 multifamily units currently under construction or in the development pipeline (as of September 2024). Once completed, this will total 749 units in the subarea. Overall, developments nearer to the arterial roads are apartments and those set farther back are single-family subdivisions. EXHIBIT 2-17 Existing and Pipeline Units in the Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Port Orchard Sedgwick Existing and Pipeline Units Legend = 0 Port Orchard City Limits Port Orchard UGA Water Bodies Roads -- State Highway Collector / Arterial Local Road Existing Units by Parcel C� 0 �3-5 - 5+ Pipeline Units by Parcel 0 B 0 � ®z �-3-s ems+ ttA, ���aorce: Kitsap County, City o j Pott Orchard, iCG SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Note: Pipeline data is as of September 2024. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 33 Existing Conditions - December 2024 Buildable Lands & Future Capacity The map below in EXHIBIT 2-16 shows parcels classified as Vacant, Underutilized, or Partially Utilized in the Subarea. These classifications were based on the 2019 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Report and were updated to reflect recent development in the Subarea. After deducting for critical areas, future infrastructure and right-of-way, and market factor considerations, there are a total of 26.8 acres available for residential development and 5.2 acres available for commercial development in the Subarea. This equates to a capacity for 855 housing units (one single-family and 854 multifamily), and 388 jobs, given the assumptions used in the Land Capacity Analysis for Port Orchard's 2023 Comprehensive Plan (see TABLE 1-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Capacity Summary). EXHIBIT 2-18Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea _ Port Orchard Sedgwick Parcel Classifications Legend Q Port Omhard City Limits Port Orchard UGA Water Bodies Roads - State Highway \ Collector/Arterial Local Road L ParceiStatus PARTIALLY UTILIZED - UNDERUTILIZED =] VACANT V, SourceK Nap Ca My, City o(Port Ordmrd, LCG SOURCE: Kitsap County, City of Port Orchard, LCG Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 34 Goals and Vision • December 2024 3. Goals and Vision 3.1 Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges Sedgwick-Bethel is rich with economic opportunities and community assets, but faces challenges from a disconnected, auto -oriented environment. EXHIBIT 3-1 summarizes the assets and challenges this plan addresses. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 35 Goals and Vision - December 2024 EXHIBIT 3-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Opportunities, Assets, and Challenges •. a m.i.ri ,t Bethel I ;ii • _ - I Kitsap Transit is planning bus Opportunity for a trail s _ Lund l along Blackjack Creek rapid transit along Bethel Road Tre" ' with connections �¢ between Downtown and toffrom subOvis.ipns i= Sedgwick Road w v g, di -y4 alb Opportunity on this southwest u 1 u coc rner to create a mixed -use O I O devclopmentwith park/plaza cI East P I Potential site to develop local or Port Orchard neighborhood park to increase recreation capacity Longtime vacant Ridge / Sedgwick Road acts commercial land; likely \ Village g indicates a surplus of \ as physical barrier commercial zoning and ♦� �,/� `i for pedestrians large opportunity for i new multifamily 1/ East sourNeighborhood w sir i� (eoLit!ISouthworth I �`�� ltt�ff ��IIIIIIPII �6o Ililillllil(Irit111111�Jlllillfl Steep slopes Commercial I west of 'enter , n I No indirect routes for the subarea students to safely walk and bike from the SR 1 I _ _ I subarea to the Transit t - - ` I Elementary School Ruby o' Grocery and home Creek r goods store Potential 10 extend provides daily Kitsa Transit planned needs and Hidden Creek e,�1111111111tT' p p Elementary BRT route to Ruby Creek . supports jobs to support more compact development The subarea has - -- _' in both subareas good regional access I with state highways, v which supports the t I + commercial uses \ t \ p _ General Opportunities/Observations: o 0.1 0,2 Miles • Kiisa Transit planned BRT route on Bethel Road Bethel p could facilitate more compact development - The Bethel/Sedgwick corridor planned Opportunities Challenges Existing Conditions pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure will create ,.-* Major connections init Fast moving traffic/ * Assets Bethel/Sedgwick safer routes for all travelers F - D Street extension barrier Corridor Plan • Need/opportunity for parks and/or gathering Pending Infill development Pedestrian -challenged development litlit■ Natural areas spaces to serve the subarea Intersection Parks - Property ownership and public street grid is Park opportunities • Bus stops highly fragmented vvv Land use barrier Nature trail developmentCommercial — Streams - Extend street grid as development occurs to SR16 Centers r _; Sedgwick Bethel enhance connectivity ® Transit Center Neighborhoods -i Port Orchard Schools Pori Orchard UGA SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 36 Goals and Vision - December 2024 3.2 Alternatives The Sedgwick-Bethel land use alternatives presented potential development scenarios tailored to the unique characteristics of the Subarea, informed by a thorough analysis of existing assets, challenges, and opportunities. These alternatives provided a framework for evaluating different development pathways. The chart below described the key features considered in the alternatives. For greater detail about the distinction between each alternative, see Note 3: Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives. Alternative 1 No Action Utilize current zoning and move forward with existing policies and planned public improvements. A notable exception will be zoning changes necessary to comply with the State's middle housing legislation. Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Light Touch Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Create flexible regulations and implement strategic zoning changes to accommodate growth and promote an efficient mix of uses. Improve pedestrian mobility and access to parks and open space. Leverage planned transportation improvements and expand growth through mixed use opportunities to support walkable neighborhoods and economic vitality. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 37 Goals and Vision • December 2024 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework Values The following values were developed from the plan's purpose and context and shaped by community engagement. Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility. Prioritize the development of a transportation system that ensures safety, efficiency, and comfort for all users — whether they are walking, biking, driving, or using public transit. This value highlights the importance of creating a well-connected and accessible neighborhood where residents and visitors can easily navigate using various modes of transportation, fostering greater mobility and reducing reliance on single -occupancy vehicles. Thriving center with diverse uses. Promote the development of a vibrant community center that offers a harmonious blend of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. This center will act as dynamic hub where people can work, live, and play. The neighborhood is economically resilient and has a lively, multifaceted environment that meets the many needs of the community. Access to recreation. Provide convenient access to high -quality recreational facilities, parks, and open spaces. These amenities are essential for fostering physical health, mental well-being, and social connections, significantly enhancing the overall quality of life within the community and creating inviting spaces for leisure and interaction. Open spaces support important ecological functions such as wildlife habitat and stormwater management. ■ Resilient and sustainable community. Cultivate a community that is resilient to environmental, economic, and social challenges. Sustainable practices are used in development, including the implementation of green infrastructure and the preservation of critical areas. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 38 Goals and Vision • December 2024 Plan Concept The plan concept is informed by the community engagement, an analysis of existing assets, and a review of challenges and opportunities. The concept consists of a set of actions to transform Sedgwick-Bethel into a more active urban center. The vision is to create a vibrant, sustainable, and well-connected neighborhood. Plan recommendations include: Invest in public spaces, such as streetscapes, parks, and plazas. This will foster a sense of community and improve the overall urban experience for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Enhance walking, biking, and rolling connections to make it easier and more comfortable for people to navigate the neighborhood and access neighborhood amenities such as grocery stores schools, transit stops, and future BRT stations without needing a car. Update zoning, design standards, and regulations strategically to encourage private investment in new homes and workplaces. This approach aims to create a balanced community that meets the evolving needs of residents and supports economic growth. EXHIBIT 3-2 illustrates the key features recommended in the subarea plan that align with and support the neighborhood vision for Sedgwick-Bethel, highlighting areas for transit investment, public space enhancements, and potential development zones. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 39 Goals and Vision • December 2024 EXHIBIT 3-2 Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Framework Map Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick Bethel and Bethel -Lund Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects will occur as planned GEIGER SEDGWICK. (NAME TBD) Create a large iconic park and public gathering space within mixed -use developments that make use of active transit corridors Support Kitsop Transit's planned bus service enhancements and propose extending the planned BRT route to the SR 16 Transit Center to link Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek `T: Connect to y rrBethel-Lund hail .- ESALUONSERreY RD WA r. U ! s R2-R3 Ga°e I u+ SE fP.Y CT b U . � R2RT V a ., Chinai <r, Bufteh_•i 1 � •�•���• SE�BLUEBE4RV R� � i, CMU L'BET LSEYLV$I� LN IkT V a FER3+R7. r �. R13R3 Se roon CIR •ENTRE m z SR 76 ;I Westco'hst%/// East V Transit Center -FIi1� S4 forb Cks ISEp' cl( Port OrChprd east of Sidney Rd. SE SED(SWI• *� � �•�•�• � Fred Meyer l: Z + O � tir o y j u o ..........IF ♦� IF 1s �• � 40.4 ..ter SE I VES MILL RD Hidden Creek 0 400 800 Feet Elementary School N Maxar, Microsoft SALMONBERRY PARK, (NAME TBD) Create a central park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area Zoning. Create more Flexible development regulations, including height overlay zones, and parking requirements to allow for more housing and a mix of land uses Encourage the development of a gateway plaza through public - private partnerships Improve connectivity and explore other active transportation improvements, such as midblock crossing and sidewalk buffer enhancements, along key routes to schools and other destinations Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning Existing Conditions potation fJ-1blel Mobility safe routes -r SR 16 Transit Residential 1 (R I) Commercial Corridor (CC) — Blackjack Creek .to Mixed use � improvements school Center Residential {R2) � Commerical Heavy {CN) Greenbelt � Parks and Recreation hub; investment �_ * Potential street E1 Support BRT Residential 3 (R3) 07.. Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) focus area connection a - 0-Potential new Residential 4 (R4) %/. Business Prat, Mixed Use (BPMU) =2 Sedgwick-Bethel Parkiplaza ►4 ' Planned 0 1► Roundabout bus routes Public Facilities (PF) 0 Port Orchard 0 Port Orchard UGA OZoning change �- - Ravine trap SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 40 Goals and Vision • December 2024 EXHIBIT 3-3 Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay Districts r������E�•A�LMONBERRY RN i � V r O e�' �41+•.r f^.r �S {}� M SE ..Y C U s U � - 4 _� Chlr10 Uf! � a Bullet "•�•�•� SE BLUEBERRY RD. d �.� SE SYCVI LIN I I BETHEL � E CENTRE M N 1 SE PIPERBERRY WAY _ East W stcoast ED I -K Porf Orchard Fdnes Starbucks PLAZA .�� SE SEDGWICK RIO) 160 Fred eyer . LEd 0 > Ew 1G SE I',ES ,MILL RC Hidden Creek 0 400 800 Feet Elementary School I Maxai; Microsoft SE MELINE RE) Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay District (SBHOD) SBHOD 5: 55 feet -five stories SBHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories SOURCE: City of Port Orchard, MAKERS, 2024 Existing Conditions — Blackjack Creek S:-3 Sedgwick Bethel 0 Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 41 Goals and Vision - December 2024 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies Land Use Goal LU-1 Develop a compact land use pattern to accommodate additional housing and businesses. LU-1 Allowed uses, building types, and height limits should accommodate at least 3,892 residents in the Sedgwick-Bethel Countywide Center. LU-2 Adopt the Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay Districts (SBHOD) as shown on EXHIBIT 3-3 map. SBHOD height limits are established as follows: ■ SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories ■ SBHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories ■ SBHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories LU-3 Create a large iconic park and public gathering space that is integrated with mixed -use and multifamily developments and functions as the heart of the community. LU-4 Promote incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing within the Subarea, including multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) and other development standards bonuses that prioritize a wide range of housing affordability. LU-5 Right -size minimum off-street parking requirements in the Subarea to incentivize economical housing construction and housing prices, reduce impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff, reduce the urban heat island effect, and improve the aesthetic appeal of development. LU-6 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to be developed, witr a focus on attached and compact housing. Support the citywide middle housing strategy to expand middle housing options for individuals and families at all stages of live and income levels living in Sedgwick-Bethel. LU-7 Encourage growth of retail businesses and services in clusters at key locations to create economic relationships and places for people to mix and mingle, like Bethel Centre and Fred Meyer. LU-8 Ensure adequate utility systems are available to support the development and buildout of the Sedgwick-Bethel center. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 42 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Goal LU-2 Support growth of neighborhood -serving retail, dining, services, and amenities. LU-9 Encourage ground floor shopfront development along Sedgwick Road and Bethel Rood through either single -story shopfront or mixed -use shopfront building types. LU-10 Allow residential uses above shopfront development where shopfront development is required. LU-11 Invest in public realm improvements such as streetscape updates, sidewalk improvements, and public plazas to strengthen retail clusters and encourage multifamily residential development. Goal LU-3 Ensure that development in Sedgwick-Bethel is attractive and provides variety and visual interest. LU-12 Apply Port Orchard's Design Standards, as set forth in POMC Chapter 20.127 to enhance the layout and design of subarea sites and buildings. LU-13 Apply block frontage standards that emphasize pedestrian -friendly development frontages in mixed -use areas while providing strategic flexibility to integrate off-street parking areas and landscaped setbacks where necessary. LU-14 Require the integration of usable open space within multifamily residential developments as set forth in POMC 20.127.350(2). LU-15 Amend POMC. 20.127.350(3) to require at least 3% usable open space for new non-residential development. LU-16 Designate high visibility street corners as defined in POMC 20.127.250 in strategic locations. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 43 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Transportation Goal T-1 Design streets to complement desired future land uses and ensure safe, comfortable mobility for all. T-1 Ensure new streets carry forwards streetscape themes found in other parts of the Subarea. Key streetscape elements include landscape, lighting, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and other hardscape elements. T-2 Plan a transportation network that reflects future land use goals. T-3 Support the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan to transform Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road as a pedestrian and bicycle - friendly complete streets and promote safer mobility for all users throughout these corridors. T-4 Where appropriate, integrate urban low impact development (LID) stormwater management features in roadway design, including bioswales and raingardens. T-5 Coordinate with WSDOT to improve SR-160 and the interchange at SR-160 and SR-16. T-6 Where feasible, design bike lanes to be protected from automobile traffic with curbs, horizontal separation, or other techniques that improve safety and comfort. Complete streets are designed to ensure safe, convenient mobility options for all users, which vary based on community context. These may include a wide range of elements, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus lanes, transit stops, crossing opportunities, medians, and landscape treatments. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 44 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Goal T-2 Provide a robust multi -modal transportation network that serves all users. T-7 Support Kitsap Transit planned transit frequency and service upgrades. Explore potential bus rapid transit service from Bethel Road to SR 16 Transit Center (via Sedgwick Road) to improve connectivity between the Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek Subareas T-8 Adjust transit stop locations to maximize convenience as Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road develop, accommodating future road improvements and transit services, including bus rapid transit. T-9 Plan for safe and convenient access to transit services for all modes of travel, including wayfinding and signage. Urban low impact development (LID) refers to systems and strategies that mimic natural processes to manage and mitigate stormwater runoff. Examples of LID practices include bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, and permeable pavements. These practices can be applied at both site and regional scales. Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency T-10 Support bicycle infrastructure and provide bicycle amenities, including secure bicycle parking. Goal T-3 Plan a well-connected and efficient road network. T-11 Plana street pattern that improves internal street connectivity and provides multiple travel route options within the Subarea to access neighborhood destinations. T-12 Require the integration of through -block connections in the CMU, R4 and R5 zones where block -lengths are greater than 500 feet. This could come in the form of private streets with sidewalks, woonerfs (low volume street where vehicles share space with pedestrians), landscaped pathways or urban passageways, and alleys. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 45 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Examples of through -block connections, from left, a woonerf, or shared street, a landscaped passageway, and an urban passageway. Source: MAKERS T-13 Promote coordinated patterns of development that create a network of off-street pedestrian and bicycle routes. Goal T-4 Provide safe multimodal access to schools. T-14 Evaluate options for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at key routes to Hidden Creek Elementary School. Community Design Goal CD-1 Transform Sedgwick- Bethel to a vibrant walkable neighborhood. CD-1 In conjunction with transportation improvements along Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road, integrate placemaking strategies such as plantings, lighting, public art, or other techniques to create a more engaging and human -scaled walking environment. CD-2 Leverage redevelopment to obtain wider sidewalks and pedestrian - friendly building design. CD-3 Promote planting of street trees to Urban heat island effect can improve livability, reduce urban heat cause higher temperatures in islands, and reduce stormwater runoff. urban areas compared to their rural surroundings, CD-4 Work with property owners and existing business to integrate murals and public artworks that promotes neighborhood identity. primarily due to the concentration of buildings, paving, and human activities that absorb and retain heat. Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 46 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Goal CD-2 Encourage the development of public plaza and other gathering spaces. CD-5 Work with property owners, developers, nonprofit organizations and other agencies to invest in indoor/outdoor community spaces, such as community gardens and event spaces. CD-6 Explore public -private partnerships to create public open spaces integrated with surrounding development - ranging from large neighborhood parks, high visibility street corner public plazas, to neighborhood gateway features. Illustrative Conceptual Site Plan Given the undeveloped state of large portions of the subarea, the planning team crafted a site plan to illustrate how a portion of the subarea could be developed over 20 years consistent with the goals and policies of this plan. This is an example only and illustrates just one of many ways that the area could be transformed consistent with the plan's goals and policies. The site plan is particularly useful to illustrate how future development can be coordinated. Specifically note: New street extensions and connections. Connected network of trails. New park bordered by residential, civic, and mixed -use developments that face and complement the park. Commercial buildings front onto Sedgewick Road, with the intent of creating a more walkable, pedestrian -friendly corridor. The integration of usable open space for residential uses. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 47 Goals and Vision • December 2024 EXHIBIT 3-4 Sedgwick-Bethel Concept Townhomes feature on -street parking with vehicle access in back Organizing new developments around an integrated trail system Sidney Ridge New multi -use park with mix of active and passive uses (Le, playground, community garden, mini -pitch and skatedot) 5-story apartment building with in -structure parking, but featuring ground floor townhomes along perimeter Magnolia Ridge Single -story retail commercial; long term mixed -use opportunity /_\ 0 50 200feet N I I I I I Coordinating street access Planned Andoiso Village Creating centralized common open space Sound Storage Townhomes, Koda BETHEL apartments, and Circle CENTRE civic uses face park Potential future connections Trail connection Westcoast �� Fitness .Y� Small plaza spaces integrated with commercial development = Commercial Sedgwick-Bethel = Civic ® Port Orchard UGA = Apartments Townhomes Note: This concept is an example only and illustrates just one of many ways that a portion of the subarea could be developed consistent with the plan's goals and policies. Source: MAKERS. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 48 Goals and Vision - December 2024 Parks, Open Space, and Critical Areas Goal POC-1 Expand park and recreational assets within Sedgwick-Bethel. POC-1 Use open space and recreation uses to buffer Blackjack Creek Greenbelt from new commercial and residential development. Encourage neighborhood parks to incorporate natural or environmental features. POC-2 Provide trail connections to parks and open space that are accessible and designed for both walking and biking. POC-3 Explore options for developing "Salmonberry Park" into a community park, featuring walking and biking trails, playgrounds, and nature observation, while conserving Ruby Creek Greenbelt. POC-4 Support the PROS Plan to develop "Geiger Park" as a multi -purpose athletic park with playgrounds, athletics court, sports fields, and skate features. Goal POC-2 Create a well-connected low impact trail system that capitalizes view opportunities of Blackjack Creek and connects open spaces. POC-5 Explore opportunities to provide a multi -use trail along Blackjack Creek that provides viewpoint and linkages to parks and open space areas between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund, provided that habitat mitigation is implemented in accordance with the critical areas code. POC-6 Foster relationships with surrounding property owners to facilitate trail development. POC-7 Incorporate wayfinding, orientation, educational historic/cultural interpretive signage or kiosks into trail design. Goal POC-3 Ensure critical areas and wildlife habitats are protected consistent with critical areas regulations POC-8 Partner with other government entities and non-profit organizations to manage natural areas and ensure healthy ecosystem functions that contribute to site and community resilience. POC-9 Promote extensive use of low impact development in project and street design. POC-10 Plan for active and passive recreational opportunities within parks adjacent to sensitive areas and greenbelts. POC-11 Support efforts to acquire property for conservation and mitigation around the Blackjack Creek tributaries. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 49 Action Plan • December 2024 4, Action Plan This chapter describes the key steps to achieve the vision for Sedgwick-Bethel. Although this is a long-term plan that includes actions to take place over the next 20 years, several priority actions should be accomplished over the next few years. For this plan to be realized, public and private investment will be required. Trends over the past 20 years show that, without change, private investment alone will not achieve the Subarea vision, goals, and policies. The following steps lay the groundwork for attracting private investment and shaping the built environment. Port Orchard will need to dedicate staff resources for code updates and secure additional funding sources for capital investments. The following table of actions summarizes the recommended steps with ideal timing, priority, and potential costs (represented generally from low to high as $, $$, and $$$). Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 50 Action Plan - December 2024 TABLE 4-1 Sedgwick-Bethel Action Plan MNEW _ Action Timing Priority Cost Land Use and Zoning Residential zoning: Expand middle housing options with 1 year High $ the adoption of the citywide middle housing zoning strategy. Upzone select areas west of Ramsey Road. Commercial and mixed -use zoning: Increase 1 year High $ commercial capacity and flexibility. Adopt height overlay districts: Reference EXHIBIT 3.3 of 1-2 years High $ this plan. This will provide more opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and vertical mixed -use buildings. Decrease parking requirements. This will provide more 1-2 years High $ opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and reduced environmental impacts of development. Expand and adjust the community design framework 1-2 years Medium $ maps (POMC 20.127.130). The maps should reflect existing conditions from recent/near-term developments, and add desired new streets that reduce block sizes to promote connectivity. Designate high visibility street corners in strategic locations (POMC 20.127.250) . Increase non-residential open space requirements. 1-2 years Low $ Within the subarea boundaries, require at least 3% open space for new non-residential development (POMC 20.127.350(3)). Transportation Construct the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan to build a 2-5 years High $$$ complete transportation network along Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road. Improve pedestrian and bike connectivity to access 2-5 years High $$ key neighborhood destinations, such as Hidden Creek Elementary School and Fred Meyer. Some improvements may go beyond what is identified/designed in the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Potential improvements could include new or rebuilt sidewalks, midblock crossings, protected or buffered bike facilities, street trees, traffic diverters, and other features that enhance mobility and comfort. Specific enhancements will be determined through further study. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 51 Action Plan - December 2024 Support the Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements, 5-10 Medium $$ including the planned BRT route and new fixed -route years bus routes on Lund Avenue with service to McCormick Woods. Coordinate on placement of bus stops, pedestrian improvements (including sidewalks and crosswalks), and BRT bus -priority features (such as queue jumps and signal priority). Support extension of local or BRT bus service between 5-10 Medium $$ Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek. This can facilitate years desired transit -oriented development within both neighborhoods. Blackjack Creek trail: Study design options and 5-15 Low $$ construct a trail that offers more transportation options, years access to nature, habitat protection, and healthy recreational activities. Capital Facilities and Parks Geiger Sedgwick Park: Support the Port Orchard Parks, 2-5 years Medium $$ Recreation, and Open Space plan to develop this park as a central, publicly accessible gathering and recreational space for the community. Public works and/or public safety facilities: Identify a 5-15 Low $$$ location(s) and funding for necessary public works and years public safety facilities to support this area of the city and future annexations of the eastern urban growth area. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 52 DRAFT December 2024 5,, Notes Note 1: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Centers Goals and Policies Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary Note 3: Bethel Subareas Alternatives Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 53 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Note 1: Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan - Centers Goals and Policies The Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan contains the following centers policies. These policies are not tailored this Subarea but should be implemented across all centers. For specific policies related to Sedgwick-Bethel, see 3.4 Subarea Goals & Policies. Policy CN-1. Prioritize the City's residential, commercial and light industrial growth and infrastructure investments within designated Centers, in accordance with VISION 2050 and the Countywide Planning Policies. Policy CN-2. Focus future growth in designated, higher intensity areas in an effort to encourage the preservation of open space and maintain surrounding neighborhood character. Policy CN-3. Shorten commutes by concentrating housing and employment in strategic locations, which provides residents opportunities to live and work in the same neighborhood. Policy CN-4. Provide commercial services that serve the population of the Center, surrounding neighborhoods, the city, and the region (dependent on the suitability of the scale of each Center). Policy CN-5. Support pedestrian and transit uses by promoting compact, mixed -use areas with appropriate infrastructure that provide a variety of activities. Policy CN-6. Balance objectives for accommodating growth, encouraging compatibility, promoting housing affordability, and offering a wide range of housing types. Policy CN-7. Provide access to parks and public pedestrian spaces by creating them within each Center or by creating connections to existing public and open spaces. Policy CN-8. During subarea planning for Centers, develop an implementation plan that addresses how the City will meet Center goals through appropriate land use designations, annexation, development of capital facilities and utilities, and related measures. Policy CN-9. The City shall direct growth to Centers of all types through focused regulations and directed capital projects. Policy CN-10. The City should support employment growth, the increased use of non - automobile transportation options, and the preservation of the character of existing built-up areas by encouraging residential and mixed -use development at increased densities in designated Centers. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 54 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Policy CN-1 1. The City shall ensure that higher density development in Centers is either within walking or biking distance of jobs, schools, and parks and is well - served by public transit. Policy CN-12. The City shall create and designate zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing. Policy CN-13. The City shall encourage abroad range of housing types and commercial uses within designated Centers, through zoning and development regulations that serve a local, Citywide, or regional market. Policy CN-14. The City shall encourage the creation of public open space, private open space, and parks within and serving designated centers Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 55 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary FROM: Makers Architecture and Urban Design DATE: August 15, 2024 Subarea Workshop Summary On July 29, 2024, the project team, which included the City, AHBL, and MAKERS, organized an in -person open house at the Kitsap Regional Library Port Orchard branch. An online survey ran concurrently with the open house and remained active until August 12, 2024, allowing those unable to attend the in -person workshop to share their feedback. The purpose of these events is to share project information and invite the community to provide feedback on the following key topics: Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel Existing_ Conditions Report. Confirm preliminary findings of neighborhood assets and challenges and gather additional input on community priorities Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives. Community members voted for their preferred land use alternative or shared feedback on specific elements to be included in the preferred concept. Ensuring the preferred land use alternative aligns with the community's vision for the Subareas. Consultants and City Staff address questions from attendees during the presentation and open house portion of the workshop. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 56 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Main Takeaways Themes that arose from the open house and online survey include the following: Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility. Many respondents desire improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructures to improve walkability, reduce reliance on cars, and boost access to neighborhood amenities (i.e., parks, neighborhood shopping centers, schools, etc.) Protect people on foot, wheel, or bicycle by physically separating them from fast-moving vehicles (e.g., enhanced, buffered, or protected bike facilities and sidewalks). Encourage a network of trails, bike facilities, and crossing that safely connect grocery stores, bus stops, schools, and parks to and within the Subareas. Develop connectivity between Bethel -Lund and Sedgwick-Bethel. Fill gaps and maintain sidewalks to improve walkability Safety enhancements and traffic calming measure at key intersections and destinations Public supportive statements: "It is lacking safe biking corridors. Safe means separation from cars. Paint is not protection. Bike paths need to be protected from cars by a barrier or planting strip." "I want to see a healthier community with alternative and safe options to commute without the need for cars." "Wider roads and side walks to improve walkability along with bike lanes would be amazing." "How do residents west of Bethel cross safely to catch a bus downtown?" "Pedestrian crossings across major streets such as Bethel and Sedgwick; we live across Bethel but cannot safely cross to get to the bus stop. As mentioned above, sidewalks need to connect - I live a short distance from Fred Meyer but cannot walk there safely given the lack of sidewalks along Bethel. As older residents we would like to increase our bus ridership and walk to various errands - but we all require sidewalk connectivity and crosswalks to do so safely." Efficient transportation system and traffic management. Residents have expressed concerns about the strain on existing road infrastructure due to ongoing and future development and call for enhancements to increase capacity, safety, and improve traffic flow. Residents living in the northwest subdivision of Sedgwick-Bethel (ex. Ridge Village) describe the challenges they face to turn onto Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Mixed views about the Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor improvements, particularly the addition of roundabouts. Some residents believe that a signalized intersection would enhance traffic flow more effectively. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 57 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Overall support for the installations of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and green stormwater infrastructures Public supportive statements: "Less traffic hold up. It's wild in the afternoon. But I think owing forward with significant expansion is fantastic. We just need the roads and safety to support it." "Vastly improved traffic flow and sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the expected influx of residents and housing." "We live in Magnolia Ridge. Off Geiger, you can't turn left on Sedgwick. From Blueberry, turning left on Bethel is very difficult. Heavy traffic on Sedgwick and Bethel in the afternoon more than double my drive to work (SKHS 2.2 miles)." "One of the main concerns I have heard since living here, on all sides of the political spectrum, is that people are concerned about the new housing developments and the traffic load that they will bring. If we prioritize cars over people, then this will not help with the traffic problem that everyone complains about....Also, many people in this area drive cars that must be way over the decibel levels according to the laws and drive at extreme speeds through the neighborhood streets that are only 30 mph, like Salmonberry Rd. Speed bumps or rain gardens need to be put in place to slow down traffic to safe speeds since more enforcement is not working. I have been told Salmonberry is an arterial vein and therefore cannot have speed bumps put in based on the amount of traffic flow, but I would question the statistics on traffic there to believe this is true." Thriving centers with diverse uses for people to work, live, and play. Many residents expressed interest in an attractive, walkable neighborhood that has a mix of activities and diverse commercial and retail use Retain and attract businesses in the Subareas with focus on restaurants, shops, fitness, entertainment, and other services. (i.e., farm -to -table -style restaurants, local brewery, independent movie theater, etc.) Encourage mixed use developments with shared parking. Promote green/plaza spaces as central features of shopping centers (i.e., courtyard shopping centers) Reduce parking ratios to promote land use that make use of transit and active transportation Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan m Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Public supportive statements: "I wish to see it become a little area on its own with shops, food, accessibility, and adequate infrastructure that families can bike around together and have a community park." "It would be nice for this area to feel similar to Gig Harbor North with walkability, public parks and plazas. It will give the residents the feel of community." "I wish I could see harmony and beauty. Less strip malls, parking lots, and congestion, more pedestrian courtyards and safe bike routes." "We need more sidewalks for safe running and walking. Also more public parks for kids and families. Fewer housing developments- keep the green!" Access to recreational facilities, parks, and open space. Promote recreational and park opportunities that celebrate the beauty of Port Orchard and support play and gathering, especially for youth and teens. The community brought forth ideas such as athletic fields, disc golf courses, mid -size parks with playgrounds, and walking and biking trails. Improve park security and regulate access Some residents are supportive of the Blackjack Creek nature trail. Others were concerned it would pose safety concerns if not maintained. Public supportive statements: "The parks are really nice here, but sometimes go unmonitored or protected at night and become vandalized. It would be nice if there was better patrol or times when the park gates could be closed at night. Additionally, it would be nice to see more community gardens and disc golf courses, and if possible, I would like to see nature trails added to view wildlife around the creeks." "By ten years' time we'd hope that additional parks, tennis/pickleball/basketball courts, baseball and soccer fields would be available within Port Orchard - not specific to Sedgwick-Bethel however." "Parks and hiking trails that maintain the overall fee[I] and beauty of Port Orchard" "Please don't make a trail along Blackjack Creek. It will only encourage traffic through quiet neighborhoods and create more encampments." Resilient and sustainable community. Residents encourage to preserve greenery and encourage sustainable features (considering climate change and heat risk) such as using green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) in transportation improvements or other developments. Seek opportunities to promote community amenities such as health facilities and community gardens Protect greenery and open space and promote planting of native trees and vegetation Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 59 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Public supportive statements: "Pea patches or community gardens would be an awesome addition to any park added. A native plant or medicinal plant garden would be cool. Disc golf is always fun." "More bus routes & stops, sidewalks. More health and human services" "Please preserve as much greenbelt as possible" "Would love to see increased maintenance of vacant spaces - possibly to include wildflowers or other plantings instead of weeds." "Please preserve as much of the greenbelt as possible. Also, keeping it family and pet friendly/safe is very important." Some residents want to make limited changes within the subareas and expect the development to occur with a density similar to existing conditions, but with improved infrastructure Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 60 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Reactions to the Land Use Alternatives About 60% of online survey respondents supported Alternative 3 in both Subareas. The reaction amongst workshop attendees were generally split, vocal comments following the presentation geared toward Alternative 1. Attendees expressed concerns about the increase in height and density changes and related transportation impacts, as well as limited internal connectivity with the assumed developments. Comments by other participants during the open house favored components of Alternative 2 and 3 Based on the general feedback received during the workshop and online survey, community members were receptive to elements that support mixed -use developments with plaza spaces, improve commercial opportunities near arterial corridors, enhance access to parks and trails, and advance multimodal transportation. General Overview of Bethel -Lund Alternative 1 No Action and Sedgwick -Bethel Land Alternative 2 Light Touch Use Alternatives Alternative 3 Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Utilize current zoning and Create flexible regulations Leverage planned moves forward with and implement strategic transportation existing policies and zoning changes to improvements and planned public accommodate growth expand growth through improvements. A notable and promote efficient mix mixed use opportunities to exception will be zoning of uses. Improve support walkable changes necessary to pedestrian mobility and neighborhoods and comply with the State's access to parks and open economic vitality. middle housing legislation. space. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. For more information on the Sedgwick-Bethel land use alternative, see Note 3: Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 61 Notes - DRAFT December 2024 Bethel -Lund Alternative 1 received the most votes in support of no changes in zoning or land use regulations. Alternative 3 received the second most votes. Comments by workshop attendees favored Alternative 1, while online respondents preferred Alternative 3. The chart represents the combined votes for each proposed alternative from the open house and online survey. There are 14 total votes, with 7 from the open house and 7 from the online survey. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 62 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 =,Ac' IR Vq ALTERNATIVE 3 - mrXED USE. ALTERNATIVE i - NO ACTION ALTERmATLYE 2 - UGHT TOUCH TRANSIT-GRIENTED DEVELOMEITr 4, F F L F_ 7 4R, t K-i LP _j . . .. ........ nL Wgr, 0 0 %,=j .67* 1 A 7— VI; 1W I- A, Above is the poster of the Bethel -Lund alternatives displayed at the workshop. Each dot stickers represent a vote. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 63 Notes - DRAFT December 2024 Sedgwick-Bethel The results showed that Alternative 3 received the most votes, assuming an increase in mixed -use residential and commercial retail along arterials. Alternative 2 received the second -highest number of votes. Workshop attendees preferred Alternative 2, with limited increase in building height and densities and online survey respondents favored Alternative 3. The chart represents the combined votes for each proposed alternative from the open house and online survey. There are 33 total votes, with 17 from the open house and 16 from the online survey. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 64 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 ATRA71wE-NOMTWRLTER}agTTVE3-416FTin4H 7AAL7ERNATVk3-MIXE7 LSEJ ASI7-0191ENTEo of p,Ni ice.;{ I � �.: ���"' i � I.—sZ.`•M1--�I I r 1 Easl I'or} Orchnm I l I ! A I � I �l _ HIGtla =1eTonrary &uFnol Y.J.. i 14 HUD Feohro� T=sporlahw Jdcax ng CohdHlanij *—�SLpi.rrE qh' f fixed Ir. p:r '::ry sn'.s •'O1enrKII rpry HVS. Iriva9 ir^e:' I Polnn-i71 ML'E' bus f{ lr. l -�,jg,&ick [!EIS CI o'-- QrchLrrj Trx-Ls area -jn- .licn 6 Pul L/p, ¢� Flc-j)ed 1 T 1 SR I. T7s'ni'. Sri �ff:Elq� Urn Above is a photo of a poster of the Sedgwick-Bethel alternatives displayed at the workshop, including public comments posted at the meeting. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Notes - DRAFT December 2024 Note 3: Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives FROM: Makers Architecture and Urban Design DATE: August 28, 2024 Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives The Sedgwick-Bethel land use alternatives present potential development scenarios tailored to the unique characteristics of the Subarea, informed by a thorough analysis of existing assets, challenges, and opportunities. These alternatives serve as a framework for evaluating different development pathways and engage the public in the decision -making process. Through a combination of an in -person workshop and an online survey, residents had the opportunity to choose the most desirable components and design elements from these alternatives, ultimately leading to the development of a locally -preferred land use alternative. The chart below describes the key features recommended in each of the land use alternatives. General Overview of Sedgwick-Bethell Alternative 1 No Action Land Use Alternatives Alternative 2 Alternative 3 1 Light Touch Mixed Use/Transit-Oriented Development Utilize current zoning and Create flexible regulations Leverage planned moves forward with and implement strategic transportation existing policies and zoning changes to improvements and planned public accommodate growth expand growth through improvements. A notable and promote efficient mix mixed use opportunities to exception will be zoning of uses. Improve support walkable changes necessary to pedestrian mobility and neighborhoods and comply with the State's access to parks and open economic vitality. middle housing legislation. space. Advance regional trail and safe routes to school to support multimodal network. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 66 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 The table below present the distinctions between each alternative, focusing on whether the assumed future development will prioritize greater vertical mixed -use development or retain the current configuration while strategically redesignating zones to encourage more commercial and residential capacity within Sedgwick-Bethel. Height limits No change, current limits of 35-40' Commercial/ mixed -use zoning Limited or no changes. There is a mix of CC, CMU, and CH zoning in the areas today. Residential No change zoning Adopt the "proposed base height limit" from HAP Strategy 2.3.2. These changes would only apply within subarea boundaries and not citywide. R3 - 45 feet (+10 feet) R4 - 45 feet (no change) CC - 45 feet (+10 feet) CMU - 55 feet (+15 feet) Retain CH zoning only for gas stations and the big box stores (i.e., Fred Meyer). Other CH sites get rezoned to CC or CMU. Consider rezoning CC to CMU in strategic locations. This creates some non- conforming uses. Rezone R1 and R2 zones to R3 or R4, except for residential lots which were recently developed. Affordable No change. Explore MFTE opportunities housing for the subareas. Parking No change Reduce multifamily and commercial minimum parking requirements within the subarea boundaries. For example, up to 1 space for studio/one-bedroom apartment and do not require extra parking when on -street parking is not present. Adopt the "proposed bonus height limit" from HAP Strategy 2.3.2 as the base height limit. These changes would only apply within subarea boundaries and not citywide. R4 - 55 feet (+10 feet) CMU - 75 feet (+35 feet) Rezone all CH and CC sites to CMU. This creates some non- conforming uses. Rezone all residential lots to R4. Rezone some commercial properties to R4 when such properties are some distance from an arterial street (e.g. southwest corner of Sedgwick- Bethel subarea). Same as Alternative 2. Remove all minimum parking requirements within the subareas boundaries, per HAP Strategy 4.2.4. Apply a maximum parking requirement for commercial use. Public No change. POMC 20.127.350(3) is POMC 20.127.350(3) is space/plaza amended to apply larger amended to apply commercial open spaces larger commercial open Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Public parks/green space Off-street trails Street design No change. Lundberg Park and Sedgwick-Bethel properties remain in limbo with no development plans and are at risk of disposition. No change Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other TIP projects occur as currently planned. within the subarea boundaries, e.g. 3% of site area. 1. Develop PROS identified potential park north of the Sedgwick-Geiger intersection. 2. Bethel South property is leveraged to acquire adjacent properties and create a neighborhood park on the southwest corner of Bethel-Sedgwick intersection. 3. An additional future neighborhood park location is identified east of the Bethel - Blueberry intersection. A limited Blackjack Creek ravine trail is planned adjacent to Sedgwick- Bethel. An additional trail is planned in the Geiger Road corridor north and south of Sedgwick and in the northeast area between Sedgwick and Salmonberry. Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other TIP projects occur as currently planned. In addition: • Midblock crossings are added on Lund and Sedgwick east and west of Bethel • Sidewalks and bike lanes are added on Lund and Sedgwick east of Bethel. • Existing commercial driveways are right -sized for pedestrian safety and comfort spaces within the subarea boundaries, e.g. 4% of site area. Same as Alternative 2; focus investments on Geiger Park Same as Alternative 2, but a longer Blackjack Creek ravine trail is planned to connect between the two subareas. A new east - west pedestrian/bike connection across the ravine is planned in the vicinity of Salmonberry Road. Same as Alternative 2. In addition, new all -ages - and -abilities walking and biking routes (such as a wider sidewalk or off-street trail and protected bike lanes) are added to connect the subareas to Hidden Creek Elementary School. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan Notes • DRAFT December 2024 New street connections None except for minor street extensions as part of new developments. New planned streets as shown in the block frontage maps (POMC 20.127.130) are implemented by future development. Same as Alternative 2. In addition, new through - block connection requirements are added to add more frequent vehicle and pedestrian routes. Transit service Kitsap Transit Kitsap Transit provides bus Kitsap Transit provides provides enhanced rapid transit to Downtown, bus rapid transit to bus service on with a terminus at Downtown, with service Bethel Road at a Sedgwick-Bethel. extending west on undetermined future Sedgwick (possibly to date. the Ruby Creek area at Sedgwick-Sydney). Capital facilities No change. In a citywide facilities plan, Same as Alternative 2. assess whether Sedgwick- Bethel, which has more vacant land available, is a viable location for public works and/or public safety facilities needed to support the eastern part of the city and the adjacent urban growth area (future annexation area). Utilities Natural systems TBD. Bethel/Sedgwick improvements appear to include some stormwater system upgrades. TBD. Continue preserving the Blackjack Creek ravine. Some existing vegetated properties could be opportunities for open space preservation and/or City acquisition for park space. TBD TBD TBD TBD Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 69 Notes - DRAFT December 2024 Sedgwick-Bethel Land Use Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action No action would assume no change to zoning or other land use regulations. This alternative assumes that development will still occur, but at a density similar to the existing conditions. Adopt proposed zoning changes to promote middle housing (This citywide effort is separate from the subarea planning process) Minor street extensions as part of new developments Support Kitsap Transit bus service enhancements 2 r-•-•-. SEEJALLMONBERRY R�� , < u + 1 o =s [ErA°_ • < ChinaF5un 1 eaAet�.l •�•—•�•—• SE BLUEBERRY RD _ LSE's ':V§ L1 1 ��—i j 6Erl E w 1 — _ - SExooA cIR CENTRE m SE PIPERBERRYY.VJA�Y u SR tb East Transit Center Wesfco st EP Port Orchard ast of Sidney Rd � ; Fit i eep tar6LIE ZIA�K rj sE,sEo�wicK,R�, � 16 o ♦�� A P Meyer w U a G 1 w 0 N < SE.IVES MILL RD Hidden Creek Elementary Schoo AD 400 800 Feet N Maxar, Microsoft Zoning. No change in zoning and code regulations Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects occur as currently planned Transportation Ideas Zoning/Height Limits Existing Conditions Modility ~improvements 4-4, Support BRT Greenbelt (GB)/35 feet — Blackjack Creek Potential new Residential 1 (R 1)/35 feet r,� Sedgwick Bethel F-i Potential street bus routes Residential 2 (R2)/35 feet O Port Orchard connection SR 16 Transit Residential 3 (R3)/35 feet —I Port Orchard UGA 4'9* Planned O Center Residential 4(R4)/45feet Pi►f Roundabout M Commercial Corridor (CC)/ 35feet tttt■ Commerical Heavy (CH)/ 35 feet IW Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)/ 40 feet Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 70 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Alternative 2 - Light Touch This alternative focus on increasing residential and commercial capacity with zoning changes to accommodate multifamily residential options and commercial and mixed - use development along arterials. The maximum building height and densities would see increases. Create a limited trail along the Blackjack Creek ravine Encourage park/ open space with any new development Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations within the subarea to allow more housing and an efficient mix of land uses r SE $ALMONtSERR' RDA , xo i o r ..... ►�_� R2�R3 1 I S, FAY CT r Clirnul5un a l BuHe1 //f I SE BLUEBERRY RD. I r- r R1' R2 IN! w G r BETHE 1L - t 1 W u w - SEKOD�CJR � iT,RE m P,IP,ERBEFR.V_WhY r R1;R4 //J � 0 u t r / SR 16s- s- Westcoasf Eb��WI-K9 j Fitness Starbucks 'Transit /,Cl�6�r _ East rchard Center a, FL4PA sEs �KrRo r , I t6 Fred Meyer j L V a �, 1� o a 1 w o 1 u SE ll M.LL RD .a 0 400 800 Feet hidden Creek Elementary Scho N MaKar, 1,11Cro5olt Zoning/Height Limits Hub Features Transportation Ideas Greenbelt GB)/35 feet (no change] (acaflar*axe ) I I ble �) Support BRT Residential 2 IR2)135 feet (no change) OZoning change Mixed use impro,i im provement5 �- - Potential nee Residential 3 1 feet (I ]' .- ' hub: investment Potential street bus routes Residential 4 R4)/45 feet (no Change) Focus area connection SR 16 Transit Commercial Corridor (CC)/ Park/plaza 411, Planned O Center ;c. •--- - - - �1 Roundabout Commencal Heavy (CH)/ f - Ravine trail 35 feet (no change) 7//• Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)/ Public Facilities (PF)/85feet (no change) BETHEL BLUEBERRY (NAME TBD) Create open/plaza space to support commercial centers and public life SEDGWICK CENTER (NAME TBD) Encourage a central gateway plaza through public private development Include additional multimodol improvements, and consider midblock crossing and complete streets features including green stormwater infrastructure Existing Conditions •— Blackjack creek V.= Sedgwick Bethel Q Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 71 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Alternative 3 - Mixed use/ Transit Oriented Development This alternative assumes an increase in mixed -use residential and commercial retail development. Potential zoning changes focus on increasing residential capacity in both existing commercial and residential zones. The maximum building height and densities increase within the Subarea to encourage more vertical mix use buildings. Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund GEIGER SEDGWICK (NAME TBD) Create an iconic park and public gathering space within mixed use developments and make use of active transit corridor Support BRT expansion to SR 16 Transit Center to connect Sedgwick- Bethel and Ruby Creek 'A Connect to 0 rBethel-Lund Troll r I SC SAtMONEERRY RDA , r i =nY c2 Oa �r v J / 4 /✓/: China Sun i Bullet 1 €� SPAU-BERRY.�D R2+R4 r '• Rl -R2 rSE'ST.LV�S LN �% i l BETHEL t sr KOr)q CIR CENTRE SE.F'IPFRBERR.Y_WgY Westcoast SR id ' i' - r EOGWICK ort Orchard Fitness $tarbucks Transit Center � -v, %ZAy east of Sldn E SEocwleK Ro Iis lv j u�CC> CMU f�11 _ �Fr Myer a CC- R4 z i - c o m 16 sE iVr5!,I LRo Hidden Creek 0 400 800 Feet Elementary Sch N Ma-r, Microsoft Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations within the subarea to allow more housing and an efficient mix of land uses Support a more walkable neighborhood through mixed use development Improve active transportation routes to school, and better buffering for people walking, biking, and rolling Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning/Height Limits Existing Conditions /locanon flexble7 Mobility Safe routes Greenbelt [GB)/35 feet (no change) =Zoning change -- Blackjack Creek Mixed use improvements to school Residential 2 (R2)/35 feet (no change) Cr Sedgwick Bethel ' hub; investment Potential street Ft Support BRT Residential [R3)/45 feet (+10 feet) 0 Port Orchard focus area connection Potential nee Residential 4 (R4)/55 feet 1+10 feet[ Port Orchard UGA Parklplaza a'►. Planned bus routes r�,p Commercial Mixed Use (CMl1)/ dI Roundabout - + Ravine hall Public Facilities (PFJ/85 feet (no change} Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 72 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Sedgwick-Bethel Preferred Alternative Based on feedback gathered from community engagement activities, including workshops and an online survey, community members expressed strong support for specific design elements within the land use alternatives. These elements emphasize the importance of mixed -use developments featuring neighborhood parks, enhancing commercial opportunities along arterial corridors, improving access to parks and trails, and expanding multimodal transportation options. Many online survey respondents favored Alternative 3, while opinions were split among workshop attendees. Some workshop attendees raised concerns about the increase in height and density and impact of these changes on transportation infrastructure and the overall character of the neighborhoods. The community outreach process highlighted several core values that align with the desired elements of the Subarea land use alternatives Safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal mobility Thriving centers with diverse uses for people to work, live, and play Access to recreational facilities, parks, and open space Resilient and sustainable community For more detailed information on the engagement effort and feedback regarding the subarea, refer to the Note 2: Bethel Subarea Plans Engagement Summary The community engagement results guide the preferred alternatives to realize the vision of creating a walkable, vibrant community. These alternatives leverage planned transportation improvements, increase commercial and residential capacity through flexible development options, and expand community assets where residents can gather. With these goals in mind, the Sedgwick-Bethel preferred alternative aim to revitalize the community and improve the well-being of residents Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 73 Notes - DRAFT December 2024 Sedgwick-Bethel Preferred Alternative The map below illustrates the key features that support a thriving, well-connected neighborhood. Create a trail network to connect parks and open spaces between Sedgwick-Bethel and Bethel -Lund Bethel/Sedgwick improvements and other street projects will occur as planned GEIGER SEDGWICK. (NAME Tl Create a large iconic park and public gathering space within mixed -use developments that make use of active transit corridors Support Kitsap Transit's planned bus service enhancements and propose extending the planned BRT route to the SR 16 Transit Center to link Sedgwick-Bethel and Ruby Creek �k Connect to Bethel -Lund troll rr ESALMONBERRY Rni ! 1 V r r !i s° R2-R3 le, 5E FAY CI u � a GhrnaTSun r�� �—'�' sE el7E9ERer �! --r Ro CMURF Lr VISLF- e r 67 I 1 r. 1 R3;R1 BETH EL - R19R3 s-Koon na CENTRE 5FFBERRXW SR i W�sic o st% �� .ter.-.�.� EH WICK. East Port Orchard Transit Cen—tt er �F. n e� �torbuc P ZA �- east or Sidne T �� / SE uo- WI- 16 i ! 1 1� L�.�.�. f I 16 SE NES :UILi Ra Hidden Creek 0 400 600 Feet Elementary School N I M2%d Y, MU056ti SALMONBERRY PARK. (NAME TBD) Create a central park to buffer the ravine and support recreational needs in the area Zoning. Create more flexible development regulations, including height overlay zones, and parking requirements to allow for more housing and a mix of land uses Encourage the development of a gateway plaza through public - private partnerships Improve connectivity and explore other active transportation improvements, such as mid block crossing and sidewalk buffer enhancements, along key routes to schools and other destinations Hub Features Transportation Ideas Zoning Existing Conditions Gocalron Y�xlUlel Mobility Safe routes 0 SR 16Transit Residential 1 (R1) Commercial Corridor (CC) s Blackjack Creek Mixed use improvements to school Center Residential 2 (R2) Commerical Heavy [CH) ! Greenbelt hub; investment Potential street 4-0, Support BRT Residential3 (1 </9 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) M Parks and Recreation focus area connection w - . Potential new Residential 4 (R4) Buslness Prof. Mixed Use (BPMU) "2 Sedgwick-Bethel Parklplaza �i Planned � bus routes Public Facilities PF ( ) I Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA - + Rpvine trail •1 Roundabout Zoning change See 3.3 Preferred Alternative: Planning Framework for more details on the urban design vision and investments priorities. Capacity In addition to the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers eligibility requirements, Kitsap County's Countywide Planning Policies establish that Countywide Centers must show a minimum of 10 Activity Units per acre. An Activity Unit is one person or one job. For more information about the PSRC Countywide Growth Centers criteria see 1.3 PSRC Regional Centers Framework. Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 74 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 The table below shows the Sedgwick-Bethel existing and pipeline development meets the Countywide Centers Designation Criteria and, with additional land capacity based on the development pattern outlined in this preferred alternative, can accommodate up to 19.1 Activity Units per acre. Existing Pipeline (as of Existing + Additional Total Sept.2024) Pipeline Land Capacity Acres 235.7 235.7 Vacant/Redevelopable Residential Acres 26.8 Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Acres 5.2 Housing Units 292 457 749 855 1,604 Single Family 156 151 307 1 308 Condo 0 0 0 0 Multifamily 136 306 442 854 1,296 People per Household Single Family 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Condo 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Multifamily 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Population 716 1,042 1,758 1,715 3,473 Jobs 619 10 629 388 1,017 Activity Units 1,335 1,052 2,387 2,103 4,490 AUs / Acre 10.1 19.1 Requirements Required Acres 160-500 160-500 Actual Acres 235.7 235.7 Surplus / Shortfall 75.7 75.7 Required Use Mix 20% Res. / Emp. 20% Res. / Emp. Actual Res. Mix 74% 77% Actual Emp. Mix 26% 23% Required AUs/Acre 10 Actual AUs/Acre 10.1 19.1 Surplus / Shortfall 0.1 Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 75 Notes • DRAFT December 2024 Height Overlays In Sedgwick-Bethel, the general maximum building height allowed is three stories or 35 feet. The purpose of the Sedgwick-Bethel height overlay districts (SBHOD) is to provide more opportunities for housing supply, compact growth, and vertical mixed -use buildings. As shown on the map below, the three different SBHOD height zones are as follows: a) SBHOD 5: 55 feet - five stories b) SBHOD 4: 45 feet - four stories c) SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories a FM .S.,E: LMONSERRY RD r O ' O , 7 Gtm Si rAY C w G�la� i a u Q U � G; Ina un a Buffet SE BLUEBERRY RD. d �.� SE SYCVI LN u I ETHEL w i E C-E THE m � EPPEER W Y ED I -K East Port Orchard itc PLAZA .�� SE SEDGWICK RD 150 I Ed 0 ° Fred eyer w i 1G SE V MILL RD Hidden Creek 0 400 800 Feet Elementary School N I Maxai; Microsoft SE MELINE RD Sedgwick-Bethel Height Overlay District (SBHOD) SBHOD 5: 55 feet -five stories SBHOD 4: 45 feet four stories SBHOD 3: 35 feet - three stories Existing Conditions — Blackjack Creek S_—J Sedgwick Bethel 0 Port Orchard Port Orchard UGA Port Orchard Sedgwick-Bethel Subarea Plan 76 ORCHARD December 2024 'I.7ZMiF • nitl!qinn Actic - BARD !� ------------ 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 Page 3 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. - • - 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 .vext 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 3-person household 2-person 16% hold ,,,, Housing Unit Size 3 bedrooms 41% an Studioro bedom 10% bedrooms 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 $97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020 $71,719 $75,600 $78,969 $77,006 $70,268 _ $67,548 $59,325 $44,074 $46,209 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 $10,000 per year than countywide averages. 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% ■Port Orchard pKitsap County I I o O O o b4 Hi Hi b4 O O O O CV m 'q Ln "Pri>4 b4 I I i in O O N vl O N to b4 b4 Ln � O Ln O O � Ln 71 yy Figure 3. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table B19001 Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 9 Lower -income Port Orchard residents face significant challenges paying for housing —70 percent of households earning under 30 percent of the MFI spend more than half of their income on housing costs, and 75 percent of households earning between 30 and 50 percent of the MFI spend over 30 percent of their income on housing costs.' This shows a need for deeply subsidized housing for Port Orchard's lower -income residents, corroborated by stakeholders who described over 1,000 people on the waiting list for housing vouchers administered by the Kitsap Housing Authority. Family size and composition can also affect housing needs, particularly when correlated with incomes. In Port Orchard, 69 percent of households are family households. Of these, most are married -couple families, nearly 3,000 households. The remaining 824 are classified as "other family," which includes single -parent households. Census data indicates about 250 Port Orchard households are single mothers earning less than the federal poverty level. This is about five times higher than the number of married -couple households below the poverty level.$ 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 A household earning $100,000 $700 could not afford the median Port 1$575 Orchard sales price of $468,000 $600 even though they are earning Median Sales Price ($468) nearly $30,000 more than the median household income. $500 T� $3A3 $400 , $287 $300 Median Household $200 $200 Income ($71 �$192 — $150 $96 $75 $100 $100 $50 $766 Figure 5. Housing Prices Affordable to Various Incomes with Port Orchard Median Income and Sales Price, 2021. Source: Zillow, Freddie Mac, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Leland Consulting Group Preliminary Kitsap County housing targets indicate that Port Orchard will see a demand for up to 4,804 new housing units by 2044. This is fewer housing units than are currently in the permitting pipeline and indicate that Port Orchard may exceed its housing and/or population growth targets prior to 2044. Figure 6 shows the breakdown of these units by household income level, based on Port Orchard's current income distribution. The breakdown of units by income is relatively even. It includes about 1,000 units over the next two decades for the lowest - income households which can only be met through regulated affordable (i.e., subsidized) housing, and nearly 1,000 units for households earning between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI (often referred to as "workforce" housing) which can be provided through a variety of channels 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 0 N >, 1,000 -0 800 () a) Z 600 U) c Z) 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 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. %-eiillbui!P IrCiLc uc3Ld Port Orchard, WA arL e�,IIIIII„+ Information retreived frc Census Tract 921.01 $45,096 no-n,+ n am,1 H,-1r..r $458,600 MF,+a,r �-,�. nnann Census Tract 921.02 Census Tract922 Census Tract923 till Mi a $36,299 $28,431 Mr+� n� Erre.ar rren+ �,., �N.,an�rri $361600 $317,700 McN>n�+l+reun> enrzup'ra u. r, �M.. �e r+rnxnr�x��lrtlu k, Census Tract 924 $35,085 $33,671 M.AiT mm�crP-rxr �;� Mrt ai nms e�prrcTp�r $288 200 $328,800 N Census Tract 925 Census Tract 928.01 $38,262 $36,995 $350,200 $339 800 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% ■ Rent ■ Own 65% 60% 80% 100% 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 ' 99 98 Black or African American 73 Hispanic or Latino origin 206 One/Two or more races M 143 193 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 27 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Households ■ Rent ■ Own Figure 9. Household Tenure by Race/Ethnicity. Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table B25003 series A common form of rental housing is multifamily (apartment) buildings, which are more limited in where and how they can be built in Port Orchard compared to where and how single-family homes are regulated. Zoning matters for social welfare because where people live makes a difference. Neighborhood quality can have significant effects on long-term outcomes like school performance, income, labor mobility, and health. It also contributes to the multi- Figure 1 U. txample of multifamily 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 • 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, 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 — orbilt 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, https://bellevue.municipal.codes/LUC/20.20.845.E.2 17 Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.057, https://library.municode.com/wa/seattle/codes/municipal code? node Id=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. Ly .. 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. r 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. 4 rY 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 startingLmuk point. Do not allow tiny homes to be used for short- _i 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.'a Consider limiting permanent clusters to lower g� intensity residential zones such as R1 and R2. �I '$ Langley Municipal Code 18.22.290. https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Lanqlev/#!/Langley18/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? node Id=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 Type 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 Standard Remove the minimum site size and width and let other zoning standards and market factors dictate the land area needed for townhouse development. While 5,000 square feet is a small site to begin with, this would remove duplication in code and would improve flexibility in where and how townhouse units can be developed. Standards for open space, parking, setbacks, and landscaping would continue to apply and influence required land area and how townhouses are placed on a site. Also see related lot size and width suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards 2.2.5 — Consolidate the Live -Work Type Live -work has limited feasibility outside of the strongest urban markets and could be de- emphasized in the code. It is relatively uncommon since a small number of households are self- employed in businesses which can also be in their home in a separate space (excluding standard office work -from -home setups). Additionally, live -work units are often expensive since they need to be relatively large to accommodate the workspace. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 27 There is an opportunity to retain the live -work standards while streamlining the code; current code illustrations and the limitation of "six units in a row" indicate live -work is intended to be integrated into townhouse -style buildings. Amend the Townhouse building type section to note where standards differ for Live - Work configurations. The separate site area and width standards for Live -Work are proposed to be removed. Notations could also be added to explain Townhouses are allowed in the DMU, CC, and IF zones only if the development includes space designed for live -work use. A related option is to allow or encourage the Apartment building type to be designed with ground floor units that are convertible and usable as commercial space. One option to incentivize this may be providing a height bonus for such designs. Also see related suggestions in Strategy 2.3.1 regarding minimum lot size and width standards. 2.2.6 — Adiust 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 Height All of the building types in Chapter 20.32 POMC have a maximum building height specified, but this standard is either duplicated or overridden by zone -specific maximum building heights in Chapters 20.34 and 20.35 POMC. Maximum building height is a critical and sensitive zoning tool, so it should have clear and consistent standards across the code. A unique case is backyard cottages and cottage courts which are intended to be small. Remove the maximum building height from all building types, except for backyard cottages and cottage courts. Regulate accessory structure height limits in the zoning chapters. 2.2.8 — Minimum Private Useable Open Space Integrating multiple dwelling units onto relatively small lots requires careful planning to integrate the buildings, access and parking, and usable open space in a way which works for the site residents and the neighborhood. The Design Standards in Chapter 20.127 POMC require usable open space for multifamily uses but not middle housing types. Coupled with Strategy 2.3.1 for relaxing minimum lot size standards, it is recommended to add requirements for minimum private usable open space for duplexes (multiple types), triplexes/fourplexes, townhouses, and shopfront houses. Specific recommend standards: Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - June 2023 Page 28 • Minimum private usable open space per unit: 300 square feet (50% of the required usable open space may be satisfied through a rooftop patio or balcony) • Minimum dimensions: 10 feet for each unit, except 6 feet for rooftop patio or balcony. • Spaces shared between two or three units are permitted, provided the shared open space dimension is 15 feet and the space is located adjacent to each unit. For townhouses with four or more units, shared open spaces must comply with 20.127.350(2)(b), On -site open space. • The front yard may be used as private usable open space, provided a low fence (between 16" and 48") demarcates the space • Private usable open space cannot be parked or driven on, except for emergency access 2.2.9 — Ground Floor Elevation Nearly all of the building types require a minimum ground floor elevation of two feet. This adds significant cost to construction by requiring a taller foundation and the addition of ramps for ADA wheelchair access on buildings with four or more units. The purpose behind this type of standard is usually to promote a transition between the public and private realms and improve security and privacy for ground -floor residents. This is already addressed by the block frontage standards under POMC 20.127.230, which requires a combination of setbacks and/or raised elevation for ground floor residential units, depending on the context. The block frontage standards apply to all building types except single-family and duplexes. Recommendation: Apply this standard only to detached houses and duplex types, and reduce the minimum elevation from two feet to 16 inches. 2.2.10 — Blank Walls Blank walls are regulated in the design standards in POMC 20.127.460, which applies to commercial uses and multifamily uses with five or more units. To reduce duplication or conflicts, the blank wall standards can be removed for at least the apartment, single -story shopfront, mixed use shopfront, and general building types. For the smaller building types where blank walls are regulated, consider applying a standard consistent with POMC 20.127.460. 2.2.11 - 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 — Adjust Heiqht Limits and Add Affordable Housina 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. Base R3 Current Height Limit 35 Propo:ied Base I I I ht Limit 45 Proposed Bonus Height Limit with 12 or i Year INIFTE ParticipationZone 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'/2 net acre; a "net acre" could use the same measurement as applied in the MFTE chapter, which is defined to exclude critical areas and buffer, and other land that is undevelopable such as shoreline buffers and tidelands. Another option is to apply the standard only to sites within designated centers, where the City is seeking to direct growth most intensely. Based on public feedback and where the MFTE program typically applies, a limited number of zones is proposed to have a minimum residential standard. rcoposed Minimum esidential Density (dwelling units/gross aH!)—, Apply only to sites above a certain size as a % 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 Pet meFe +ha^ feu related and unrelated adults and their related minor children; 24 "Does Money Grow on Trees?" Neiman Taber Architects. April 2023. http://nei manarch itects. blogspot. com/2023/04/does-money-grows-on-trees. htm I 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://secondegress.ca/Seattle 26 "A Trailblazing Reform Supports Small -Scale Development in Memphis." Strong Towns. January 2022. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/l /26/a-trailblazing-reform-supports-small-scale-development-in-memphis 27 "Memphis, TN Amends Local Building Code to Allow up to Six Units Under Residential Building Code (IRC) to Enable Missing Middle Housing." Opticos Design. January 2022. https://opticosdesign.com/blog/memphis-tn- amends-local-building-code-to-allow-up-to-six-units-under-residential-building-code-irc-to-enable-missing-midd le - 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 to 9 lots). It is recommended that Port Orchard comply with this statue and also make the option available for regular plats (10 or more lots). Unit lot subdivisions follow the procedures for the underlying plat type. 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 Can Affect This Indicator Zoning standards that directly regulate the density of residential development. Higher rates of Zoning and subdivision standards that allow and encourage a greater variety of small homeownership and attached housing types (e.g., small single-family, cottages, townhomes, flats, condos). A New York Times report finds that the production of entry/starter homes has never been lower than today (particularly homes smaller than 1,400 square feet).33 Presence of community Financial and/or staffing support for community organizations. organizations Zoning standards that provide low-cost commercial space and/or municipal facilities with space for community organizations to have offices, host events, run recreation and cultural programs, etc. Figure 15. Inclusion indicators 3.1.1 — Local Tenant Protections Washington State sets the baseline for the landlord -tenant relationship through the State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act, RCW 59.18. Washington State regularly amends the Act as summarized in the HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report. According to the Attorney General's Office, there is no centralized enforcement mechanism for the RCW, and so it is incumbent upon landlords and tenants to either self -remedy violations, seek counseling or low-cost legal help from non-profit organizations, and/or resolve disputes through the courts. Local ordinances are enforced by the local jurisdiction. Cities are free to adopt additional or more stringent regulations than those provided by the state (with the exception of market -rate rent control), and numerous Washington communities have done so. Port Orchard has not enacted any local tenant protection ordinances. The King County Bar Association (KCBA) provides a model tenant protection ordinance within the framework of Washington State law. This is summarized in the table below. 31 Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris. 32 "Reducing poverty without community displacement: Indicators of inclusive prosperity in U.S. neighborhoods." Brookings. September 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/research/reducing-poverty-without-community- displacement-ind icators-of-i ncl usive-prosperity-in-u-s-neig hborhoods/ 33 "Whatever Happened to the Starter Home?" The New York Times. September 2022. https://www. nVtimes.com/2022/09/25/upshot/starter-home-prices.html Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 41 Local Tenant Protection Option Other Considerations and Notes 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. 3.1.2 - Other Anti -Displacement Strategiep 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://bu rienwa.civicweb. net/fi lepro/documents/33975/?preview=76250 35 City of Kenmore, Washington, Ordinance No. 22-0545." March 2022. https://kenmore.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/1 18191/?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 me r-I aws-this-yea r-h a res-what-th a v-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. https://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.piercecountywa.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.sightiine.org/2021 /08/23/how-can-cities-move-the-need le -on -community -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://n I i hc.org/oor/zip?cod e=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 41 "Homelessness — Common Questions & Answers." Washington State Department of Commerce. January 2019. https://www.skagitcounty.net/HumanServices/Documents/Housing/Homelessness%20FAQs`/`2001-2019.i)df 49 "Homelessness is a Housing Problem." Greg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern. https://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 e2 "Homelessness research: A guide for economists (and friends)." 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/Sl 051137718302109 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. i .. ja)� . 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. .sa _ f J 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://i)arkincireform.orci/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 — Disposition Policv 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. Figure 20. City owned property at the Tremont and Pottery Roundabout 1.3.4— 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. Legend City -Owned Parcels Other Parcels Figure 21. City owned property off of Mitchell Avenue 60111mpact of Slope on Housing Development Costs." Portland State University. 2010. httr)s://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/7k5p88yv4l m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkfO5.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 Summarx, Port Orchard has had an MFTE program in place since 2016, which is codified under Chapter 3.48 POMC, and which provides three types of exemptions. The "Type 1" program is a 12-year exemption available to properties zoned for multifamily or mixed -use near transit or ferry and requires 20 percent of units to be rented at affordable rates based on HUDs fair market rent. The "Type 2" program is an 8-year exemption available to abandoned or underutilized properties within local centers of importance which are encouraged to redevelop. The "Type 3" program is an 8-year exemption available to properties within local centers of importance and zoned for multifamily or mixed -use with requirements for denser, "urban" style development: a minimum density of 50 units per acre and at least 50 percent structured parking, shopfronts equal to 40 percent of all building footprints, or additional height purchased through the city's transfer of development rights program. A total of four projects totaling 332 units (including 20 affordable units) have been built using Port Orchard's MFTE program, and four more projects totaling 427 more units (including 45 affordable units) are currently in progress. For a full summary of Port Orchard's MFTE program, see Section 5 of the Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report in the Appendix. Port Orchard's method of setting subsidized rents in MFTE projects at 10 percent below HUD fair market rents is unusual, as most jurisdictions in Washington rent subsidized MFTE units to families earning between 80 and 115 percent of HUD's MFI for their area, and cap the rent at 30 percent of the household's income, adjusted for household size. 64 However, Port Orchard's system meets legal state requirements and, based on a preliminary analysis, seems to result in rents which are lower than those based on the larger Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD MFI. 5.1.2 — Recommendations Port Orchard has seen an increase in proposed downtown residential -commercial mixed -use projects in recent years. Since these types of projects would be eligible for MFTE funding, it is important to revisit and potentially update some aspects of the program to balance the benefit 62 This concept is very complex and more information can be found in Commerce's "What is Tax Shift?" guidesheet here https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/9ig7p2ebm467dd pmb1 c5u3d4ei22cs1 n as well as starting on p. 37 of Commerce's MFTE guidebook here: https:Hdeptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/i'5o8One5e1740mmh6uO5gr'kO47g3cw 63 The JLARC audit's findings can be found at: https://leq.wa.gov/ilarc/taxReports/2019/MFTE/f ii/default.html 64 Following HUD's definition of a "cost -burdened" household Port Orchard Housing Action Plan — June 2023 Page 63 and foregone tax revenue of affordable units to ensure the program's goals are being met and to address recent changes in the program allowed under state law.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. 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. POW 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'/2 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 GFCs 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.weaIthmanagement.com/finance-lend ing/banks-focus-cra-dollars-affordable-housinq 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.washin,qtonhousinginitiative.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." httr)s://storage.googleapis.com/[)roudcity/portorchardwa/uploads/2021 /07/FI NAL-ADOPTED-Downtown-Subarea- Plan-and-Regs-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 under state law.'$• 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. httr)s://www.commerce.wa.ciov/building- infrastructu re/housing/housing-trust-fund/ 78 "Washington state's condo law changes could ease restrictions." Spokane Journal of Business, November 2021. https://www.spokane'ournal.com/special-report/washington-states-condo-law-changes-could-ease-restrictions/ 79 "As Gen X and Boomers Age, They Confront Living Alone." The New York Times. November 2022. https://www.nVtimes.com/2022/11/27/us/living-alone-aging.html 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. Lead Cos DepartmentPriorit .. 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 Page 72 Priorit Lead Cos # Description Y Department Time t Method 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 Page 73 Monitoring will be a key role of the new Housing Coordinator staff position. Even so, integrating monitoring into existing work and activities could help preserve limited staff time. Monitoring the HAP implementation could be merged into: • DCD's annual or monthly reports to the City Council • Monitoring of population growth and development permits • Comprehensive plan monitoring • Buildable lands reports Potential performance metrics based on the HAP Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report are listed below. Greater housing diversity with a greater variety of housing types accessible to a greater variety of incomes, for both rental and homeownership opportunities Slow down and stabilize the rise in housing prices Refine regulatory standards to reduce barriers to housing development Number of duplex, triplex, fourplex, ADUs, 10-20% of new housing units are in and small apartment units permitted projects with 2-20 units Number of mixed -use and urban style One development every two years apartment with structured parking permitted Home price increases Rental price increases Vacancy rate Overall housing production Housing diversity Adopt new financial tools Affordable housing production for cost - to support and promote burdened low-income households (80% development of affordable AMI and below) housing i MFTE program participation Figure 25. Monitoring matrix Annual median home price increases are lower than regional, state, or national increases Annual median rental price increases are lower than regional, state, or national increases Rental unit vacancy rates reach 6-8% Average annual production rate within ± 20% of that needed to meet the Comprehensive Plan 20-year target 10-20% of new housing units are in projects with 2-20 units Average annual production rate within ± 20% of that needed to meet the Comprehensive Plan income -based 20-year targets 25-50 new affordable units per year added from MFTE projects 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.aov/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..............................................................................................................................1 Section1 - Community Profile...............................................................................................3 Section 2 - Housing Inventory and Production Trends........................................................3 Section3 - Cost Trends........................................................................................................32 Section 4 - Housing and Service Needs..............................................................................37 Section 5 - Housing Funding and Monetary Tools.............................................................43 Section 6 - Housing Policies................................................................................................48 Section 7 - Land Capacity Analysis.....................................................................................65 Appendix A - Kitsap County Impact Fee Comparison........................................................65 Appendix B - Comprehensive Plan Policies........................................................................69 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 ca O 15,000 n O o_ 10,000 5,000 � Population ■ 1960 1970 1980 Annual Growth Rate 1990 2000 2010 2020 2044 6% 5% au 4% Of 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 10% 90°i° 80% 11% 13% 14% 70% 11 % ■ 65 and older 12%12%60% 12% ■ 55 to 64 50% 12% 13% ■ 45 to 54 40% 26 °/° ■ 35 to 44 30% 22% ■ 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 N 10% CO o 4,000 8% :3 3,000 ca 0 6% 2CU 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 Type otal Households Port Orchard Total 5,517 Percent 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 8. 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% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% W 63% Port Orchard Kitsap County Washington ■ Renter -occupied ■ Owner -occupied 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. HouseholderRace of One Race Ownership HouseholdsHouseholds 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 household'. 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% AMW Housing Unit Size 3 bedrooms 41% 2 adrooms 27% 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 Housing Unit Size ■ 1 person HH ■ 2 person HH ■ 0-1 bedroom ■ 2-3 bedrooms 3 person HH ■ 4+ person HH ■ 4+ bedrooms 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% � 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% F 10% 10% 0% 0% Owners Renters 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 increased 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. $71,719 $75,600 $59,325 $97,524 ■ 2010 ■ 2020 $44,074 $46,209 $78,969 $70,268 00' Port Orchard Port Orchard Port Orchard Kitsap County (All Households) (Ownership Households)(Renter Households) $77,006 $67,548 Washington 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% 0Kitsap County 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% O O O O� � O N O to W W b4 W W (V O O V _ _�e _�e ia4 !R W r N O O O O O O Y -se _�e 44 N M L lD ll1 O lfl O rW to W tH W W r- CDN L!1 44 b4 W b4 Figure 15. Household Income in the Past 12 Months, 2020. Source: 2020 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table B19001 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% AMI 50-80% AM I 30-50% AM ■ 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 i 1,400 ` L 00-- 1,200 v 1,000 \ 800 600 400 200 O`l 05 OR Oh OHO 01 00 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 (LEHD) 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 lillidamo 0 mijoi 6\Ge,5 \°R, oe5 e�� sae\°R, �� to G • �a o'� � a'` �� � �� a a J �e� a��� �'� ��, G°� • °tea\ ac��� rep ���Z� °��5� �, e��� ��J� ■ 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 nkEmployed in Selection Area, Live Outside Live in Selection Area, Employed Outside Bremerton r• Navy 30-0 6.,540 Port orchard; 4,396 Parkwood EaE, Port Orchard ;- 51815 southeast 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.' 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.kitsapgov.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." https://www.kitsapeda.oro/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% =15% 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% 5% 12% 90% 14% 80% 20% ■ 2010 or later 70% ■ 2000-2009 60% ■ 1990-1999 ■ 1980-1989 50% ■ 1970-1979 40% ■ 1960-1969 18% ■ 1950-1959 10% 30% ■ 1940-1949 5% 7% ■ 1939 or earlier 20% 7% 10% 0% Port Orchard Kitsap County 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 20 600 500 400 300 200 100 Single -Family Duplex Triplex / 4-Plex ■ 5+ Unit Multifamily 1 11113r 1 1 _91r,1111 O� Off' O� OHO O� �O �O �O 4O 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 1500 1000 500 0 2022 2023 2024 Permitting Initiated, Timeline Uncertain ■ Mixed -Use Development ■ 5+ Unit Apartment 4-Plex Townhouse Single Family & Townhouse Single Family 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% AM 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. • .,. 1 342401-4-016-2001 & CMU 1.0 acres 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. T_ IT _ ALLEY `�. J, :g s� Staff report the development fits the neighborhood well and it is a good example of infill. The developer ¢, i j { suggested more friendly paperwork and inspection _ scheduling (the City just recently launched online �- +E'- _ - 0WIGH7 AVE.'-- VE' -rya - 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. 6' 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. t �S t ;I I i- �I I I i 1 _'ii.' ---� 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 i level of structured parking on the ground floor. The developer requested a reduction of 66 parking spaces to Q 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. 640 Bay Street This a City -owned property that was intended to be sold _ to a private developer, though the project has been on hold for at least four years. This early concept proposed to include 44 units on five levels and about 12,000 square -1, feet of commercial space. Parking is proposed off site. It would include a rooftop garden and a vacation of Fredrick -� ---------__ Q 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) CU $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, 2072-2022. Source: Zillow, CoStar. $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 c $1,200 a $1,000 m $800 n3 $600 $400 $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 1 $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 $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 $300 Median Household $200 Income ($71) $96 1� $100 $50 $_ N 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 MFR 180 SFR Under Construction SFR Sold (West) 160 140 120 100 80 Ln ID r\ 00 0� O N M LO 10 r\ 00 Or O N O O O O O — — — — — — N CV 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 Figure 37. Impact Fees per Unit by Housing Type. Source: Kitsap County and Municipalities of Kitsap 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 0 1,400 N >. -0 1,200 0 1,000 Z N 800 D 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 $102,500. The following table outlines the 2022 Bremerton -Silverdale MSA HUD income limits for low, very low, and extremely low-income households making 80 percent, 50 percent, and 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), respectively. Household Extremely Low (30%) 21,600 24,700 27,800 30,850 33,350 37,190 41,910 46,630 Very Low Income (50%) 36,050 41,200 46,350 51,450 55,600 59,700 63,800 67,950 Low Income (80%) 57,650 65,850 74,100 82,300 88,900 95,500 102,100 108,650 Figure 39. HUD FY2022Income Limits ($), 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 M A&L Renter occupied Owner Occupied 65% 75% 50% 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% AMI L 60 465 50-80% AMI 1& 465 520 30-50% AMI 130 < 30% AMI 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.kitsapaov.com/hs/Pages/HH-Point-in-Time.aspxx 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 15 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- Efforaspx 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 202111). 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 m8ot882gbtzafwzlofkf05.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. Type 1 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 z- 4>- y v � = r e J II -- I �--j I — J r i F ' fiUs _ r ^i ll I c I � i Type 2 Tax Exemption Redevelopment O City I omt 1, 111> A— vu I I �11111111 Figure 45. Parcels 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 f LlJ I1EH 11 AN, - .. 4* r� T i I C Type 3 Tax Exemption Multifamily -Zoned Properties in Centers l� City Limits —uirxxk PetM1' U'xG154Cen1Tm Ab¢MmeMtType 3 Tex AbaMmeM Map T2 SJ2tl mxtl 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. Goal/ 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••20.32.015) Detached House P Residential Zones 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 trip lex/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) 5,000 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 •• - 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% 80i 80i 80i 75i 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 •• • 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 JJJFMMU F_BPMU CMU and Mixed Use Zones DMU GMU CC CH IF Detached • - -00------ Backyard Cottage -00------ Cottage CourtDuplex: 000------ Back -to -Back Attached House -00------ • - 0000-0--- - . 0000000-O Shopfront . - 0000-00-O Mixed Use ShopfrontManufactured --000-0-O or Mobile Home Park Accessory Buil. . OOOOOOOOO 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. Use Types (POMC 20.39.040) Commercial and Mixed -Use Zones 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 NMU I BPMU I CMU DMU GMU CC CH IF Lot Size (square feet) DetachedMinimum House (street vehicle EMMENEENE Detached House (alley vehicle EMMENEENE Duplex: Side -by - •-•MMMMMMMMM Side Duplex:• Back 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 ------ • • - 111 :11 :11 ----- Port Orchard Housing Action Plan - Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Analysis Report Page 56 StandardsDimensional •O -am— 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- Back 60 60 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, (10 (30 (30 (10 (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 greater. 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 POMC 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. 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. RCW TopicYear 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. RL., f, Figure 56. Location of the federal Opportunity Zones in Port Orchard 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 L Greenbelt (GB) Net 71.74 Single Famili;jj Unit lapacity 36 Multifamily Unit ..capacitfo Populati 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) 49.76 661 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 Kitsap County $4,229.84 $2,294.91 $2,294.91 $2,564.90 $2,294.91 $1,754.93 $1,619.94 $2,564.90 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 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $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 County $1,455.66 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 $839.81 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. Mousing Goal/ tiemenz 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 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 7L7n11 hat land use and zoning regulations Some variety of housing types are being seen in n and enhance existing single-family recent years, but not enough to meet all market ial 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 Housinq 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..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 — Stakeholder Interview Summary..................................................................................... 2 3.0 — Housing Survey Summary.............................................................................................. 6 Appendix A — Written Comments for "Other" Answers......................................................... 31 Appendix B — Housing Stories............................................................................................... 33 Appendix C — Housing Construction Comments ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 1 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." !.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. 2.5 — Transportation 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 a -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. dousing 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% ■ I live within Port Orchard city limits, west of State Route 16 ■ I live within Port Orchard city limits, east of State Route 16 ■ 1 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°i° 60% — 40% — 20% - 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1 % 0% 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 26.3% 31.6% I Owners 20.0°i° 27.6°i° 18.1 °i° 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% 2 N N � LO 00 O LLO CD O O N V> O O O N N V N V 1.0 O O O N V) V) V} 00 O Ln A i/} V} V} ■ Owners o _�e _�c _�e _�c _�c _�c _�c _�c N T 00 O L2 O O N {v N lfl CD1 O N {/T V} V) 00 O Ln 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 25% less Cost Burdened 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 3.3 — Housing Stability Question 6 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 ■ 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.I. 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 3.4 - 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: "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." 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 76 years ago; I have refinanced once. If 1 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." 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: "1 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 I 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 207 7 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) Yv Duplex or tr�io:lex 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. 60% T 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 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. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ 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 14.3% bedrooms 11.8% 10.1% 1 10.9% 8.4% _ ■ 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. 3.6 — Amenities and Features 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: Weighted Average Score > 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 (118) 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. In my price range 9 4.67 Air conditioning and heating 83% 4.28 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. The neighborhood feels safe for walking, rolling, and bicycling Enough off-street parking 72°i° 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 (117) 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. Strongly support WeightAnswer 2 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 (1 14) 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 Land Use and Zoning Concepts Average Score Percentage Support Percentage Percentage Oppose 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% 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. Weighted Policy and Program Concepts Average Score Percentage Support Percentage Unsure Percentage Oppose Hire a city housing coordinator to assist 0.66 57% 24% 19% 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. Weighted Funding Conce MM� Average Score Percentage pPort Percentage Unsure Percentage Oppose Additional funding for public transit to help 0.89 71 % 16% 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 (110) 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 (11 1) 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 (111) 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 I live alone a I live with a partner/spouse I live with children I live with multiple generations (e.g. grandparents, grandchildren) I 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 (119) • 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. kppendix B.1 . lousing 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 GREATjob 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. I 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 Renters Stories with people who volunteered to attribute their first name are listed first. Stories after that are anonymous. Incomplete answers are removed. Answers may be lightly edited for spelling or to remove offensive content. See a summary under section 3.4 of this report. Chris This city is pricing out the local workforce. These surface level allocations of below market rent in new housing developments is immoral in exchange for the tax breaks they receive. The workforce used for construction will not be local either. There's a high likelihood that new housing will be rented by navy members, further limiting workforce housing as the navy doesn't stock our grocery store shelves. Demarie There is very little options when looking for a home to rent. Also keep noticing the amount of apartments that are being built but very little is being done about making sure our roadways have the capability of supporting that amount of growth. Paul Grew up next door to where I'm at now. I've rented this home for 13 years. The owners have always paid the water/utility bill because there is 2 homes on the 1 meter. I've learned this evening that the bill hasn't been paid since September and the service is scheduled to be disconnected tomorrow. My aunt and uncle own the property. They had to move to a assisted living facility several months ago. I was led to believe that the bill would be kept current. As a disabled individual living alone I am very concerned. I will call in the morning to try and resolve this issue. Vanessa Moved out to WA Jan 2022 with husband and son. We wanted to buy a home as first time buyers but find the process a bit difficult. Renting a home is getting to be expensive with rent being $2100 for two bedroom duplexes. Anonymous I grew up here and my parents live here. My husband and I struggled to find a home to buy that was the right mix of size, location, neighborhood, future appreciation, and development risk. We continued to rent with an exceptionally good set up, but we watched the home prices skyrocket the past few years and I began to have serious concerns about being priced out of the area. This year we purchased multifamily real estate in port orchard to preserve the option to stay in the area and secure our future housing needs. Anonymous We moved here from Alaska & didn't intend to stay in our current apartment for more than one year. Due to rent and other cost increases and poor well -paying job opportunities we've been Port Orchard Housing Action Plan —Public Engagement Report Page 41 essentially trapped here for 5 years, and the situation is leading me to look elsewhere for our future. I was really excited to live in this beautiful area, and I've been sorely disappointed trying to enjoy living here. Port Orchard 2044 Comprehensive Plan Update HB1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results Background As part of Port Orchard's 2044 Comprehensive Plan update, Leland Consulting Group (LCG) was retained as part of a consultant team led by AHBL to complete an analysis of land capacity for housing, including considerations of housing by income band and capacity for Emergency Housing, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c). This memo outlines the methodology and results of this analysis, using the process outlined in the Washington Department of Commerce's guidebook "Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element" (August 2023).' Land Capacity Analysis for Permanent Units by Income Band Housing Targets Port Orchard is required to show land capacity to meet 2020-2044 targets for population and housing units based on the Washington Office of Financial Management countywide projections as allocated to jurisdictions through the Countywide Planning Policies. Figure 1 below shows Port Orchard's baseline and target housing units and population through 2044. Figure 1. Port Orchard Baseline and Target Housing Units and Jobs, 2020-2044 26,087 ■ 2020-2044 Net New ■ 2020 Baseline 11,152 M1 15,587 6,209 Housing Units Population Source: Kitsop County Regional Coordinating Council Approved Growth Targets, October 2022 The housing unit baseline and targets are further broken down by what income band those units can serve, expressed as a percentage of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI), commonly referred to as the Area Median Income (AMI). For reference, the 2024 AMI for Kitsap County is $119,700. The AMI is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and is generally higher than the Census -reported Median Household Income for a given city, 1 https://del2tofcommerce.box.com/s/ld9d5l7g509r389fOmjpowh8isjpirlh since it is based on Census -reported median family income, which excludes single -person households. This single AMI figure represents the income of the average family household in the County, and therefore reflects the average family household size in the County. The AMI is further broken down by family size and income levels are classified as extremely low income (under 30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI) and low income households (50-80% AMI), as shown in the table below: Figure 2. HUD Income Limits for Kitsap County, 2024 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person Income Limit Category household household household household household household Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) $ 25,150 $ 28,750 $ 32,350 $ 35,900 $ 38,800 $ 41,960 Very Low Income (30-50% AMI) $ 41,900 $ 47,900 $ 53,900 $ 59,850 $ 64,650 $ 69,450 Low Income (50-80-% AMI) $ 67,050 $ 76,600 $ 86,200 $ 95,750 $ 103,450 $ 111,100 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) The housing targets for households earning under 30% AMI are broken down into permanent units (i.e. standard housing units) and permanent supportive housing (PSH), defined in the Department of Commerce guidebook as "subsidized, leased housing for people who are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness and living with a disabling condition." Finally, each jurisdiction receives a housing target for emergency housing, defined in the Department of Commerce guidebook as "temporary accommodations for households who are experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of becoming homeless." Port Orchard's housing baseline and 2044 targets by income band are shown below: Figure 3. Port Orchard Existing and Target Housing Units by Income Band, 2019-2044 3,000 PSH Need (2020-2044) ■ Net New Need (2020-2044) ■ Baseline Supply (2020) 2,500 .:1 2,000 1,500 414 1,000 21051 500 619 0 ' 0 to <_ 30% > 30 to <_ 50% > 50 to :580% > 80 to <_ 100% > 100 to <_ 120% 11 _�= >120% Emergency Housing Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 2 Source: Kitsap County Regional Coordinating Council Approved Growth Targets, October 2022 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels and Pending Development The first step in the land capacity analysis is to determine which parcels could accommodate new development over the 20- year planning horizon. Port Orchard provided GIS data from their Buildable Lands Report, prepared in 2021, classifying parcels as vacant, redevelopable (based on low building to land value ratio and other considerations), partially -used (able to be subdivided under current zoning), or constant (not likely to change over the next 20 years). Working with city staff, LCG refined the set of vacant and redevelopable parcels to account for planned and proposed development, some changes in land classification, and new development which has taken place since the County assessment. The revised set of vacant and redevelopable parcels is shown below in Figure 4. Figure 4. Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in Port Orchard, 2024 Port Orchard �( LCA Parcel Classifications sincLair In/e( I Yard rf2 Legend city Port Orchard City Limits - - PortOrchardUGA Water Bodies _ I kip �I Roads State Highway h f6o MW-- - Collector / Arterial Local Road ton F ePs; Parcel Status a' g �- PARTIALLY UTILIZED a orsi sF a - UNDERUTILIZED 1 lGyo VACANT iQ om SESALMONBERRY-RD -SW BERRY LAKE ftD _C\4S�PRG i -ryl � Bethel ---� SW LICER RE y, � 1).5 1 {711 n SELIDER���� I I P I Source Kitsap County, Cdy of Port Orchard LCG Next, development which has occurred since 2020 or is planned, proposed, or under construction was totaled. These new housing units and jobs count towards the growth targets, since the baseline established by Kitsap County was for 2020. The City provided permit data and information on pipeline units and planned development. The table below in Figure 5 shows permits for single-family, duplex, and multifamily development since 2020. The western part of Port Orchard contains large tracts platted for master -planned developments. The total number of platted lots and planned/permitted development in this area is totaled in Figure 6. Note that the McCormick Village development will include single-family, middle housing (i.e. duplexes/triplexes), and ADU units. Finally, there are an additional 1,393 apartments in the pipeline in Port Orchard, either planned, proposed, or currently under construction. This totals 4,478 pending units. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 3 Figure 5. Units Built in Port Orchard (Excluding McCormick West and Stetson), 2020-2024 Type Number of Units Single Family 417 Duplex 2 Multifamily 505 Source: City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group Figure 6. Master Planned Development Expected in Port Orchard, 2020-2044 Area/Project McCormick Village Stetson Heights/Ridge McCormick West Single -Family Units Middle Housing Units ADUs 55 74 55 412 0 0 1,545 0 0 Source: City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group These pending units were allocated to the income band that they will likely serve based on Commerce guidance, city input, and market research. The majority of single-family units will serve higher -income households earning 120% AMI or above. There are 66 units of single-family housing planned in Port Orchard that are being developed by nonprofit developers and which will be sold below market rate. These units were assigned to the 80-120% AMI category. Planned middle housing units such as duplexes and triplexes are also assumed to serve middle -income households earning 80-120% AMI, and ADUs are assumed to serve lower -income households earning 0-80% AMI. This ADU assumption was made for the specific 55 ADUs being developed in McCormick Village, for which the developer has indicated in an interview that target rents are between $1,600 and $1,900 per month. These rent levels would be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the countywide AMI of $119,700. According to the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, a 1-bedroom unit at 80% AMI would rent for $1,796 and a two -bedroom for $2,156. Port Orchard has seen very little additional ADU development in recent years beyond this project, so further ADU capacity was not considered in this analysis. Further research was conducted on average rents of apartments built over the past 10 years in Port Orchard using Costar data, which found that studio and one -bedroom apartments are renting to households earning about 75% AMI, and two - and three -bedroom apartments are renting to households earning 80-130% AMI, adjusted for household size as shown in the table above in Figure 2. About 53% of Port Orchard's apartment stock are two- and three -bedroom units, and the other 47% are studio and one -bedroom units, according to Costar. Therefore, pending market -rate apartments were split between the 0-80% AMI category and the 80-120% category based on this distribution of unit size. Finally, there have been 20 units constructed since 2020 using the City's former Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program, which required affordability below 80% AMI. The total distribution of pending units by type and income band is shown below. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 4 Figure 7. Port Orchard Pending and Planned Units by Income Band Type Number of Units Income Band Single -Family (Market -Rate) 2,363 120% + Single -Family (Subsidized) 66 80-120% Middle Housing 76 80-120% Multifamily (0-1 bed) 892 0-80% Multifamily (2+ bed) 1,006 80-120% Multifamily (Subsidized) 20 0-80% ADUs 55 0-80% Source: City of Port Orchard, Costar, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 5 Critical Areas Critical area reductions were calculated using the methodology developed for Kitsap County's Buildable Lands program and used in Port Orchard's 2021 analysis. The following layers from Kitsap County's GIS database were combined and the acreage of these combined areas that overlayed vacant, redevelopable, or partially -used parcels was multiplied by 75% and then subtracted from available parcel acreage by zone: • Streams • Wetlands • Water Bodies • Hydric Soils • Areas of High Geologic Hazard Additionally, areas of moderate geologic hazard that overlayed vacant, redevelopable, or partially -used parcels were multiplied by 50% and then subtracted by available parcel acreage by zone. These critical areas and areas of moderate geologic hazard are shown below: A Port Orchard Critical Areas for LCAr 2024 Legend CI Part Orchard City Limits Port Orchard UGA Water Bodies Roads — State Highway — Collector / Arterial Local Road - 75% Reduction (Critical Areas) -�- 50% Reduction (Moderate Geohazard) _r Reduction Factors 3 SiiirinG lnlel 7 Yard City IN. T t ih __L _ tlj Port Orchard„tCG Commerce's HB 1220 guidance indicates that jurisdictions should reduce the amount of vacant and redevelopable acreage by a reasonable amount to account for land which may not be available for redevelopment due to the need for new right- of-way, public space, stormwater facilities, or other dedications, as well as a reasonable estimate of the amount of land Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 6 that will remain unavailable due to the market. The reduction percentages by zone for each of these reductions are shown below, which are unchanged from the reduction factors used in the 2021 Buildable Lands Analysis. Figure 8. Reduction Factors used in Port Orchard Land Capacity Analysis Future Roads / Public Market Factor Market Factor Zone Right of Way Facility (Vacant) (Redevelopable) Greenbelt (GB) 20% 20% 35% 35% Residential 1 (R1) 20% 20% 25% 30% Residential 2 (R2) 20% 20% 35% 35% Residential 3 (R3) 20% 20% 35% 40% Residential 4 (R4) 20% 20% 45% 50% Residential 6 (R6) 20% 20% 20% 30% Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) 20% 20% 50% 50% Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) 20% 20% 45% 50% Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) 20% 20% 45% 50% Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) 20% 20% 40% 45% Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 20% 20% 35% 40% Commercial Corridor (CC) 20% 20% 40% 45% Source: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, WA Department of Commerce Finally, an assumed split of 15% commercial uses and 85% residential uses in mixed use zones was applied to the NMU, BPMU, DMU, GMU, CMU, and CC zones due to expectations of a high share of future housing development in these zones based on the permitting pipeline and recent development trends in Port Orchard. The gross area, critical areas, unavailable lands, and net developable acres after the reductions discussed above are shown below: Figure 9. Gross and Net Developable Acreage by Zone in Port Orchard Zone GB R1 R2 R3 R4 R6 NMU BPMU DMU GMU CMU CC Gross Vacant Acres 283.41 41.42 269.85 90.58 85.13 0.00 0.41 14.88 0.76 0.76 99.03 26.42 Gross Redevelopable Acres 0.00 90.06 125.17 66.82 9.37 0.97 1.91 16.27 1.90 1.26 102.94 45.25 Unavailable Lands (Future ROW, Public Facility, Critical Areas Market Factor, Commercial Acres) 177.21 67.97 65.60 42.16 107.69 183.89 46.10 71.23 42.10 33.53 0.00 0.62 1.24 0.35 10.68 6.27 1.80 0.27 1.12 0.25 73.37 30.95 27.90 12.09 Source. City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, WA Department of Commerce Net Developable Acres 44.18 30.18 119.53 44.59 18.20 0.43 0.35 6.83 0.28 0.32 51.35 15.92 Commercial / Residential Split (MU Zones) Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 7 Density Assumptions Having established the amount of available developable acreage, the next step in the analysis is to estimate the density at which that acreage could redevelop. Following Commerce guidance, single-family zones are assumed to redevelop at the maximum allowed density in the zoning code. Housing unit density assumptions for multifamily zones are based on the density of recent development in that zone over the past five years based on City and Costar data and pipeline development. The density assumptions for housing are shown in Figure 10 below. Note that these densities are substantially similar to the assumptions used during the Buildable Lands process, with the exception of an increase in the R3 and CMU zones, which have seen recent development at higher densities than assumed in the Buildable Lands process. Figure 10. Residential Density Assumptions for Port Orchard LCA Assumed Density Zone (DU/Ac) GB 0.5 R1 7.0 R2 10.0 R3 32.0 R4 24.0 R6 8.0 N M U 16.0 BPMU 8.0 D M U 24.0 G M U 20.0 CMU 38.0 CC 4.0 Source. City of Port Orchard, CoStor, Leland Consulting Group Total Additional Land Capacity by Zone The table below in Figure 11 shows Port Orchard's total land capacity for additional single-family and multifamily units by zone on vacant, redevelopable, and partially -used parcels, a total of 4,565 units. These units will be broken down by the income band that they can serve and then added to the pending units to determine total capacity in the next steps of this analysis, discussed below. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 8 Figure 11. Additional Housing Capacity in Port Orchard on Vacant, Redevelopable, and Partially -Used Parcels Single Family Multi Family Residential Capacity Net Acres Units Units Greenbelt (GB) 44.18 22 0 Residential 1 (R1) 30.18 171 0 Residential 2 (R2) 119.53 1,073 0 Residential 3 (R3) 44.59 0 1,332 Residential 4 (R4) 18.20 0 380 Residential 6 (R6) 0.43 0 0 Subtotal 257.11 1,270 1,712 Net Residential Single Family Multi Family Mixed Use Capacity Acres Units Units Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU) 0.29 0 2 Business Professional Mixed Use (BPMU) 5.80 0 21 Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) 0.24 0 2 Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) 0.27 0 3 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) 43.65 0 1,544 Commercial Corridor (CC) 13.53 0 14 Subtotal 63.79 0 1,583 Total 320.90 1,270 3,295 Source: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Heartland, Leland Consulting Group Land Capacity by Income Band The next step in this analysis is to break down the land capacity for future units into income bands that those units could serve. Following Department of Commerce guidance, this is accomplished by first grouping zones into zone categories based on the housing types that are allowed, and then grouping those categories by the income band they can potentially serve. This classification is shown below. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 9 Figure 12. Additional Housing Capacity in Port Orchard on Vacant, Redevelopable, and Partially -Used Parcels Single Family Single -Family Zone Multifamily Multifamily Zone Residential Capacity Unit Capacity Category Unit Capacity Category Greenbelt (GB) 22 Low Density 0 Residential 1 (R1) 171 Low Density 0 Residential 2 (R2) 1,073 Moderate Density 0 Residential 3 (R3) 0 Moderate Density 1,332 Moderate Density Residential 4 (R4) 0 Low Density 380 Low -Rise Residential 6 (R6) 3 Moderate Density 0 Low -Rise Single Family Single -Family Zone Multifamily Multifamily Zone Mixed Use Capacity Unit Capacity Category Unit Capacity Category Neighborhood Mixed Use n/a n/a 2 Moderate Density (NMU) Business Professional Mixed Use n/a n/a 21 Moderate Density (BPMU) Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) n/a n/a 2 Moderate Density Gateway Mixed Use (GMU) n/a n/a 1 Low -Rise Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) n/a n/a 1,544 Low -Rise Commercial Corridor (CC) n/a n/a 14 Moderate Density Source: City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Heartland, Leland Consulting Group Next, the combined capacity in each zone category is aggregated and each category is assigned to an assumed affordability level, based on the lowest potential income level which can be served in that zone category, per Commerce guidance and supplemented with the analysis of Port Orchard's current rents discussed previously in this report. The aggregated zone capacity and assumed affordability levels are shown below. Figure 13. Additional Housing Capacity in Port Orchard on Vacant, Redevelopable, and Partially -Used Parcels HB 1220 Zone Typical Housing Types Allowed Category Low Density Detached single-family homes Moderate Density Townhomes, duplex, triplex, quadplex Low -Rise Walk-up apartments, condominiums (2-4 stories) Mid -Rise Apartments, condominiums (4+ stories) Additional Assumed Affordability Unit Capacity Level for Capacity Analysis (% AMI) 193 120% + 2,446 80-120% 1,925 0-80% 0 0-80% Source: WA Department of Commerce, City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Heartland, Leland Consulting Group Finally, pending units are added back in to the additional land capacity shown above and the total capacity and pending units are compared with the 2020-2044 aggregated housing needs for each income band from Kitsap County. The results are shown below in Figure 14. As shown, Port Orchard has sufficient capacity to meet projected housing needs at all income bands through 2044. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 10 Figure 14. Port Orchard Housing Targets by Income Band, 2020-2044 Income Band Housing Needs Aggregated Housing Needs Pending Units Remaining Needs Total Capacity Surplus 0-30% AMI PSH 414 2,848 967 1,881 1,925 44 0-30% AMI Non PSH 944 30-50% AM 810 50-80% AM 680 80-100% AM 351 696 1,148 -452 2,446 2,898 100-120% AMI 345 120% AMI + 1,399 1,399 2,363 -964 193 1,157 Total 4,943 4,943 4,478 465 4,565 4,100 Source: WA Department of Commerce, City of Port Orchard, Kitsop County, Heartland, Leland Consulting Group Land Capacity for Emergency Housing RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c) requires that, in addition to land capacity for permanent housing, jurisdictions also show sufficient land capacity for their allocations of emergency housing as part of their comprehensive plan updates. This section outlines the methodology and results of this analysis, which is based on the Emergency Housing Land Capacity Analysis Option B (assumed density method) as outlined on pp. 44-48 of the WA Department of Commerce's "Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element" (August 2023).2 The use table in Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 20.39.040 allows for "indoor emergency housing," and "indoor emergency shelter' in the NMU, CMU, DMU, CC, and CH zones. "Indoor emergency housing" is defined as "temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that are intended to address the basic health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Indoor emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or occupancy agreement." "Indoor emergency shelter" is defined as "a facility that provides a temporary indoor shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. An indoor emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Indoor emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations." Per Commerce guidance, this analysis considers parcels in the NMU, CMU, DMU, CC, and CH zones which were classified as "Vacant" or "Underutilized" in the overall land capacity analysis as detailed above. Port Orchard does not have any intensity or spacing requirements for emergency housing which would limit the number of these potential parcels that could be used. Port Orchard also does not have any emergency housing development in the pipeline. After removing critical area acreage as detailed previously, the total net area in these five zones available for emergency housing is 73.9 acres. This acreage is then multiplied by a density assumption for potential emergency shelters, measured in beds per acre. The density assumption is based on a combination of prototypes drawn from the Commerce guidebook which most closely match staff expectations for the types of potential emergency housing that could be developed in Port Orchard under current zoning. Details and densities on the prototypes used and the percentage of each prototype used in generating the average density assumption of 29 beds per acre are shown below. 2 https://deptofcommerce.box.com/s/ld9d5l7g5O9r389fOmjpowh8isipirlh Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 11 Figure 15. Density Prototypes for Port Orchard Emergency Shelter Land Capacity Analysis Name Location Context Zoning Details Beds Density Acres (beds/acre) Percentage Tri-City Union Pasco Urban Light Industrial 1 story, parking, open space 162 6.30 25 45% Gospel Mission North King County 1 story former nursing home, Shoreline Suburban Mixed Business 60 2.66 23 40% Enhanced Shelter parking, open space 3 story former hotel with The Gateway Seattle Urban Commercial 1-55 135 2.25 60 15% parking Average Density for LCA: 29 100% Source: WA Department of Commerce, City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group Applying this density assumption to the available acreage by zone results in a capacity for 2,174 beds on vacant and redevelopable parcels in zones where emergency housing is allowed in Port Orchard, as broken down below in Figure 16. Figure 16. Emergency Shelter Capacity by Zone in Port Orchard, 2020-2044 Emergency Net Beds / Shelter Bed Zone Acres Acre Capacity NMU 0.3 29 9 CMU 43.7 29 1,285 DMU 0.3 29 8 CC 13.5 29 398 CH 16.1 29 474 TOTAL 2,174 Source: WA Department of Commerce, City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard's target for emergency housing is 209 beds, as shown in the target allocations above in Figure 1. Therefore, the city has a surplus capacity of 1,965 shelter beds for the 2020-2044 planning period, as shown below in Figure 17. Figure 17. Emergency Shelter Capacity and Target in Port Orchard, 2020-2044 Total Emergency Total Emergency Shelter Need Shelter Capacity Surplus/ (Beds) (Beds) Deficit 209 2,174 1,965 Source. Kitsop County, WA Department of Commerce, City of Port Orchard, Leland Consulting Group Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I HB 1220 Land Capacity Analysis Methodology and Results DRAFT 2024-07-30 Page 12 Port Orchard 2044 Comprehensive Plan Update Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Date May 2, 2024 To Jim Fisk and Nick Bond, City of Port Orchard From Andrew Oliver and Jennifer Shuch, Leland Consulting Group CC Alex Cambell, AHBL Introduction In 2021, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) as an amendment to the state Growth Management Act (GMA). HB 1220 requires that local governments plan for housing at all income levels and assess the racially disparate impacts (RDI) of existing housing policies. Conditions that indicate that policies have racially disparate impacts can include segregation, cost burden, displacement, educational opportunities, and health disparities. According to state guidance, there are five steps to understanding and addressing racially disparate impacts: • Step 1: Engage the Community • Step 2: Gather & Analyze Data • Step 3: Evaluate Policies • Step 4: Revise Policies • Step 5: Review & Update Regulations This report accounts for both Step 2 and Step 3 — it includes a summary of findings based on data from the US Census Bureau, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other sources. These findings then inform the policy evaluations and recommendations found at the end of the report. Key Findings • Port Orchard is more diverse than Kitsap County. • Households of color, particularly Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino households, are more likely to be cost -burdened than white households. In addition, renting is more common among non -white households and the cost burden for renter households is significantly higher than for owner households. Black/African American households are significantly more likely to rent than own their home. • There is a shortage of housing available for those making less than 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and those making more than 80 percent AMI. • Half of Black/African American households and nearly three quarters of Pacific Islander households in Port Orchard are classified as extremely low-income, making less than 30 percent of AMI. Just 3 percent of Black/African American households earn more than 100 percent AMI. LID LELAND CONSULTING GROUP People Places Prosperity I www.lelandconsulting.com 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 1200, Portland, Oregon 97205 1503.222.1600 Historical Context Throughout the history of the United States, a combination of laws and practices have impacted where specific groups of people live, what opportunities they have access to, and their ability to build wealth through stable housing. Unfortunately, many of these policies explicitly or implicitly benefited white residents at the expense of all others. The legacy of policies like redlining, which used racial criteria in determining which neighborhoods were suitable for government -backed loans, highway development through predominantly -Black neighborhoods, and racial covenants explicitly excluding certain groups from owning specific properties continues to impact non -white communities today. While many cities have acknowledged the harms of these policies, many of which are no longer legal, there are still policies in effect today that hold cities back from rectifying systemic harms. These can include policies that reference vague concepts like "neighborhood character," as well as those that permit only the most expensive homes to be built, thus shutting lower -income residents out of high -opportunity areas. This section contains a historic review of some of the known policies and programs that caused racially disparate impacts in Port Orchard as a starting point in understanding present-day conditions. Throughout the United States, racial covenants were used to exclude certain races and religious groups from residing in specific neighborhoods, creating exclusive areas for white, Christian residents. These deed restrictions were legally enforceable from 1927 to 1968. The map in Figure 1 below shows data on racial covenants from the University of Washington. According to this research, Port Orchard has 62 restrictive covenants, though these may not have all fallen within current city limits and some have not been mapped. Bremerton, the largest city in Kitsap County, has over 1,000 racially restrictive covenants. Figure 1. Racially Restricted Parcels in Port Orchard and Surrounding Communities Bremerton i.:' Part Orchard SE Mlle MITI Dr Source: Washington State Racial Restrictive Covenants Project. PAa nchestar State Park The combination of racially restrictive covenants and redlining impacted the ability of Black veterans to fully access homeownership loan benefits through the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill), which enabled white veterans to buy housing and build wealth in the suburbs. Racial covenants have since been declared unconstitutional, and Fair Housing laws have been put into effect. Today, Port Orchard is more diverse than Kitsap County overall, and has increased its share of households of color over the past several years. However, despite having far fewer racially restrictive covenants than Bremerton, it is less diverse today. Figure 2 shows the distribution of BIPOC populations Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 2 within the city. Some of Port Orchard's neighborhoods are more diverse than others, particularly Downtown, Bethel- Sedgewick, and the area along Sidney Ave., as shown below. Figure 2. Race and Ethnicity in Port Orchard by Census Block Group (2021) Port Orchard Race and Ethnicity, 2021 Bremerton .��LFA`�.V ALLEY RD Legend Q Port Orchard City Limits L.-jj Port Orchard UGA Roads State Highway Collector/ Arterial Local Road Water Bodies Share of BIPOC Population (by Census Block Group) 0 s-10-/ 0 10-20% 0 20-30% 30-40% - 40%+ 0 0.5 1 mi I I I I Q Gai ,off/ YS� �SENFiLEHILL bR z SC a/ SE sALMONaERRY RD, -SW BERRY LAKE RD 'j I SEDGWICK�Rf1 5� sej j Bethel � Ifi I O \ I SW LIDER RD \ I 0 SE LIbEA4" Source. US Census2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Btimutes, Kitsap County, LCG Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 3 Assessing Racially Disparate Impacts Between 2015 and 2020, Port Orchard became more diverse as its share of Hispanic/Latino and mixed -race residents grew. Data from the US Census Bureau provided by the Washington Department of Commerce shows that the city lost 500 Asian residents between 2015 and 2020, but this change is likely due to a relatively high margin of error rather than a sudden 48 percent decrease in the Asian population'. However, it does appear that the share of BIPOC residents is increasing both in Port Orchard and countywide. The population in Port Orchard went from 75 percent white to 67 percent white over the course of five years. Over the same period, Kitsap County's population went from 78 percent white to 76 percent white. Figure 3. Change in Population by Race/Ethnicity, Port Orchard and Kitsap County Port Orchard Race or Ethnic Category 2015 2020 Change American Indian and Alaska Native 51 84 33 Asian 1,068 568 -500 Black or African American 210 459 249 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 973 1,826 853 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 52 433 381 Other Race 0 0 0 Two or more races 864 1,310 446 White 9,786 9,623 -163 Total 13.004 14.303 1.299 Kitsap County 2015 2020 Change 2,644 2,378 -266 12,005 12,842 837 6,516 6,716 200 18,108 21,641 3,533 1,836 2,387 551 551 403 -148 15,182 18,093 2,911 198,599 204,485 5,886 255.441 268.945 13.504 Source: US Census Bureau, 2011-2015 and 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Table DP05), Washington Department of Commerce, 2023 Figure 4. Population by Race/Ethnicity in Port Orchard (2020) Asian 568 M(4%) Black or African American 459 (3%) 0 Hispanic or Latino (of any 1,826 race) (13%) Other Race 1,827 (13%) White 9,623 (67%) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Population Source: US Census Bureau, 2076-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Table DP05); Washington Department of Commerce, 2023. ' According to the US Census Bureau 2022 5-Year ACS (table DP05), the Asian population in Port Orchard as of 2022 is 857, with a margin of error of +-273. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 4 Figure 5. Racial Composition of Port Orchard and Kitsap County (2020) 4% 5% ■ Asian ■ Black or African American Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ■ Other Race ■ White Port Orchard Kitsap County Source: US Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Table DP05); Washington Department of Commerce, 2023. Port Orchard is home to 3,075 owner households and 2,100 renter households. Of the owner households, 25 percent are cost -burdened, with 19 percent spending between 30 percent and 50 percent on housing costs and 6 percent spending more than 50 percent on housing costs. By contrast, 49 percent of renter households in Port Orchard are rent -burdened, with 29 percent spending between 30 and 50 percent on housing costs and 20 percent spending more than 50 percent on housing costs. This sharp divide in stability between renters and owners can result in racially disparate impacts when renters are more likely to be people of color. In Port Orchard, 78 percent of Black/African American households and 67 percent of households that identify as "Other Race" are renters, compared with 35 percent of white households. In Port Orchard, people of color are more likely to be cost -burdened, including those who own their homes. Nearly one third of homeowners of color are cost -burdened, compared with just under a quarter of white homeowner households. Among Black households, half are not cost - burdened and half are severely cost -burdened, spending over 50 percent of their income on housing each month — the severely cost -burdened Black/African American households include 40 owner households and 50 renter households. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 5 Figure 6. Number of Households by Cost Burden in Port Orchard (2019) American Black or Indian or Hispanic or African Alaska Pacific Other Latino White American Asian Native Islander Race (ofanyrace) Total Owner Households Not Cost Burdened 1,875 4 120 0 25 85 145 2,254 Total Cost -Burdened 600 30 45 0 0 0 95 770 Cost -Burdened (30-50%) 475 0 45 0 0 0 70 590 Severely Cost -Burdened (>50%) 125 30 0 0 0 0 25 180 Not Calculated 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Total 2,530 35 165 0 25 85 240 3,080 Renter Households Not Cost Burdened 690 75 95 0 0 65 85 1,010 Total Cost -Burdened 680 50 30 0 115 45 114 1,034 Cost -Burdened (30-50%) 375 0 30 0 80 15 110 610 Severely Cost -Burdened (>50%) 305 50 0 0 35 30 4 424 Not Calculated 20 0 0 0 0 0 35 55 Total 1,390 125 120 0 115 110 235 2,095 Total Households 3,920 160 285 0 140 195 475 5,175 Source: US HUD, 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 9); Washington Department of Commerce, 2023 Figure 7. Port Orchard Total Housing Cost Burden by Racial & Ethnic Group, 2019 ,n 4,500 t 4,000 M c 3,500 = 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Hispanic or Latino (of Persons of color White any race) Not Calculated Not Cost -Burdened Cost -Burdened (30- 50%) Severly Cost - Burdened (>50%) Source: US HUD, 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 9); Washington Department of Commerce, 2023. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 6 Figure 8. Port Orchard Percent of All Households Experiencing Housing Cost Burden (2019) Asian I - Black or African American Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ' Other race Persons of color White Severely Cost- Cost -Burdened Not Cost - Burdened (30-50%) Burdened Not Calculated (>50%) Source: US HUD, 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 9); Washington Department of Commerce, 2023. Figure 9. Port Orchard Owner and Renter Households by Race & Ethnicity (2019) White Other Race o Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 49 Black or African American Asian 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ■ Owner ■ Renter Source: US HUD, 20 75-20 79 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 9). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 7 In Port Orchard, there is a shortage of rental units at the low end of the income spectrum. The city needs 380 units affordable to those making less than 30 percent AMI. According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Port Orchard has a surplus of 640 units affordable at 50 percent to 80 percent AMI. This data also shows a shortfall for higher -income households earning more than 80% AMI, although higher -income households are more likely to be able to afford ownership housing. Figure 10. Port Orchard Renter Households by Income Compared to Rental Units by Affordability, 2019 1,400 c 1,200 .y o 1,000 N 800 Shortfall: c -380 units Surplus: t +160 units y 600 585 530 = 400 id205 200 0 <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Households at income level Aaffordable Rental housing units to income level Surplus: +640 units 1,130 50-80% AMI Shortfall: -430 units 660 230 >80% AMI +/- The difference between number of households in the income group and the number of rental units Sources: US HUD, 2075-2079 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 15Q & US HUD, 2015-2079 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 14B). Figure 11 below shows the PSRC's displacement risk map — most of Port Orchard is considered low risk, but downtown and the Bethel and Sydney corridors have a moderate risk of displacement from new housing development or redevelopment. Downtown and the Sydney Ave. corridor area also have a higher share of BIPOC households as shown earlier in this report. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 8 Figure 11. PSRC Displacement Risk Map for Port Orchard and Surrounding Communities Port Orchard I t I I 3' PSRC Displacement Risk Categories M ray 1 s r Bremerton _ �\ ��E�F p1R.J PLLEY•RO %��;•? � _- — �`� O� I a orsf Legend -Q Q Port Orchard City Limits.o= _ SMALMONRERRV• RD . Port Orchard UGA �e .� SW-BERRY•LAKER ❑ / F, Roads c>>FSpN'Rn L State Highway J I Collector /Arterial Local Road Water Bodies yNSEodv PSRC Displacement Risk Higher I phel Moderate • � �, � �, �o16 0 Lower 1 I I A.iw•uDER.RD I SELI ()ERAa source: US Census 2027 American Community Survey 5,Year Estimates, Kitsap County, LCG Sources: PSRC Displacement Risk Map. Figure 12 below shows the PSRC's opportunity index for Port Orchard and surrounding areas. Most of Port Orchard has a low opportunity index, but the Mile Hill area has a moderate opportunity rating. Port Orchard's low opportunity index is based on low scores for economics, health, and transportation. The poor score for health opportunity also impacts the moderate opportunity neighborhoods in Port Orchard. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 9 Figure 12. PSRC Opportunity Index Map for Port Orchard and Surrounding Communities Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council Port PSRC 01 Legend Q Port Orch 4_j Port Orch Roads State Higl Collector Local Roa Water So s PSRC Oppor Very High © High 0 Moderate 0 Low 0 Very Low 0 0.5 I In Port Orchard there is a sharp racial divide in income distribution. Citywide, 42 percent of households make above 100 percent AM — this includes 52 percent of Asian households, 45 percent of white households, 32 percent of Hispanic/Latino households, 18 percent of Pacific Islander households, and less than 3 percent of Black/African American households. While just 10 percent of households make below 30 percent AMI, 50 percent of Black households and 71 percent of Pacific Islander households fall into that category. Over 80 percent of households that make more than the median income are white. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 10 Figure 13. Port Orchard Count of Households by Income and Race, 2019 Hispanic American or Indian or Black or Latino Alaska African (of any Pacific Not Income Category (% of AMI) Native Asian American race) Islander White Reported' All Number Extremely Low -Income (:530%AMI) 10 80 60 100 505 65 820 Very Low -Income (30-50%) 30 95 - 380 30 535 Low -Income (50-80%) 85 75 100 15 730 (5) 1,000 Moderate Income (80-100%) 15 - 70 - 550 5 640 Above Median Income (>100%) 150 4 155 25 1,755 91 2,180 Total for published estimates 290 159 480 140 3,920 186 5,180 Percentage Not Reported Extremely Low -Income (:530%AMI) 0% 1% 10% 7% 12% 62% 8% Very Low -Income (30-50%) 0% 6% 0% 18% 0% 71% 6% Low -Income (50-80%) 0% 9% 8% 10% 2% 73% -1% Moderate Income (80-100%) 0% 2% 0% 11% 0% 86% 1% Above Median Income (>100%) 0% 7% 0% 7% 1% 81% 4% . The category "Other (including multiple races, non -Hispanic) " is supporessed in source data(CHAS 2015-2019 Table 1) Sources: US HUD, 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 1) & US HUD, 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 8) Figure 14. Port Orchard Distribution of Households by Income and Race or Ethnicity, 2019 Asian Black or African American Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Pacific Islander White All 29% 5% 21% 52% 47% 3% 15% 32% 11% 19% 14% 45% • % ' % 19% 12% 42% Extremely Low- Very Low- Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income Income (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI) Income (:530% AMI) (30-50% AMI) (>100% AMI) Sources: US HUD, 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 7). 18% Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 11 Between 2015 and 2020, the percentage of households making above the median income decreased from 49 percent to 42 percent. This may be due to increases in the Countywide Area Median Income which has outpaced increases in household incomes in the city. This decline has disproportionately impacted Asian and Black households in Port Orchard. The share of Asian households making above the median income dropped from 69 percent in 2015 to 52 percent in 2020. Among Black households, it dropped from 53 percent in 2015 to 3 percent in 2020. While 50 Black households made above the median income in 2015, by 2020 just 4 Black households earn over 100 percent AMI. Figure 15. Port Orchard Percentage of All Households by Income Category and Race (2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019) All Hnucphnlric 2015 2020 Asian 2015 Jr 16% 16% 2020 29% Black or African American 2015 2020 Hispanic or Latino (any race) 2015 2020 ' , Other Race 2015 48% 2020 ' White 18% 8% 19% 12% 5% 11% 0% 23% 9% 21% 15% 0% 2015 18% 2020 19% Extremely Low- Very Low - Income Income (:530 % AM4 (30-50% AMI) 8% 14% 49% 42% 69% 52% 53% 47% 3% 40% 32% 48% I% 36% 48% 45% Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median (50-80°% AMI) (80-100 % AMI) Income (>100°% AMI) Sources: US HUD, 2075-2079 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (Table 7). Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 12 Policy Evaluation Based on the above analysis, there is room for improvements to policies in Port Orchard to reduce racially disparate impacts, and the data was used to inform the next steps of the racially disparate impacts assessment process — evaluating and revising policies that reinforce historical patterns of segregation, displacement, and inequitable outcomes. Taking a proactive approach in shaping policy to address these challenges will benefit all Port Orchard households as they City seeks to build a more equitable future. Based on guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Commerce, the following policy evaluation framework was used to evaluate Port Orchard's existing Housing Element policies: The policy is valid and supports meeting the identified housing needs. The policy is needed and 5 addresses identified racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion in housing. Supportive The policy can support meeting the identified housing needs but may be insufficient or does not A address racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion in housing. Approaching The policy may challenge the jurisdiction's ability to meet the identified housing needs. The policy's C benefits and burdens should be reviewed to optimize the ability to meet the policy's objectives while Challenging improving the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens imposed by the policy. The policy does not impact the jurisdiction's ability to meet the identified housing needs and has no NA influence or impact on racially disparate impacts, displacement or exclusion. Not applicable Goal/PolicyExisting Existing l Assessment .. / Policy # Goal 1. Ensure that the City's housing stock responds to changes in desired housing types based on demographic trends and population growth. Policy HS-1 Identify a sufficient amount Approaching This policy will help Consider adding of land for housing, ensure that the City has language that directly including but not limited to the capacity to increase addresses the need for government -assisted the variety of housing culturally -responsive housing, housing for low- to ensure that different housing to meet the income families, segments of the needs of households of manufactured housing, population are color. multifamily housing, group adequately served. homes, and foster care However, it does not facilities. specifically address the housing needs of racially marginalized groups. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 13 Policy HS-2 Support the development of Supportive Utilizing innovative a variety of housing types, planning techniques including apartments, and increasing townhomes, mixed -use efficiency in order to (residential and other uses) ensure that a variety of and live -work development, housing types can be small -lot and zero lot line built in the city will help single-family homes, and lower barriers for manufactured homes, as households of color and well as traditional single- increase opportunities family homes, through for more affordable innovative planning, homeownership. efficient and effective administration of land and building codes, and, where available, applicable financial assistance. Policy HS-3 Monitor official and Approaching Monitoring population Consider specifying that estimated population and and development the City will monitor housing data to ensure trends can help ensure population and zoning and development that the City is demographic data to regulations reflect market producing an adequate ensure that zoning not demand. supply of housing. only reflects market However, it would be demand, but that even more effective to regulations are monitor demographics successfully reducing along with population racial disparities citywide. to ensure that specific racial and ethnic groups are not being shut out of the city's housing market. Goal 2. Ensure that housing is affordable and available to all socioeconomic levels of Port Orchard residents. Policy HS-4 Adopt zoning and Supportive Increasing zoning development regulations flexibility to allow for a that will have the effect of variety of housing types minimizing housing costs at all affordability levels and maximizing housing will help lower the options. barriers to entry, especially if these regulations apply to historically segregated neighborhoods. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 14 Policy HS-5 Support the development of Approaching Support for the Add language to this housing and related services development of policy that specifies that are provided by housing and services for support for regional regional housing programs targeted populations housing programs and and agencies for special will help to reduce agencies that serve needs populations, housing inequity in Port communities of color. especially the homeless, Orchard. However, this children, the elderly, and goal should include people with mental or support for agencies physical disabilities. that serve communities of color. Policy HS-6 Consider reducing N/A permitting fees for development which provide affordable housing as defined by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) section 200-120-020. Policy HS-7 Consider the creation of N/A zoning and other land use incentives for the private construction of affordable and special needs housing as a percentage of units in multi -family development. Policy HS-8 Consider adopting N/A incentives for development of 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. Goal 3. Encourage the clustering of new housing developments in designated mixed -use Centers where residential uses are co -located with commercial uses. Policy HS-9 Implement minimum N/A residential density requirements in centers of local importance in order to Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 15 increase land and infrastructure efficiency. Policy HS- Encourage the development N/A 10 of vertical multi -family housing above ground floor commercial uses within centers of local importance. Policy HS- Encourage the development Approaching Ensuring that there is a Because this policy is in 11 of a mix of housing types variety of housing in service to a goal of within walking and bicycling areas that are walkable increasing housing distance of public schools, or bikeable can help to options in designated parks, transit service, and reduce inequities mixed -use centers, it is commercial centers related to access. not clear whether this applies to other walkable, bikeable neighborhoods near schools, jobs, and other amenities. Encouraging a variety of housing types in all walkable and amenity -rich neighborhoods would more directly address the racially disparate impacts of past housing policies. Goal 4. Promote the efficient provision of municipal infrastructure and services to new housing developments. Policy HS- Require that new housing N/A 12 developments occur concurrently with necessary infrastructure investments. Policy HS- Establish an orderly process N/A 13 of annexation informed by the need for infrastructure investments that will ensure levels of service to new residential areas are not diminished. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 16 Goal 5. Promote the efficient use of residential land in order to maximize development potential. Policy HS- Implement zoning and N/A 14 development regulations which encourage infill housing on empty and redevelopable parcels. Policy HS- Allow the development of Approaching Increasing the number Consider replacing the 15 residential accessory of accessory dwelling phrase "sufficient public dwelling units (ADUs) and units, both attached facilities" to more precise detached accessory dwelling and detached, will help language that does not units (DADUs) in increase housing result in the exclusion of appropriate residential areas opportunities in low- ADUs in high - with sufficient public density neighborhoods. opportunity facilities to adequately serve However, "sufficient neighborhoods. additional residents. public facilities" does not appear to be well defined, and could be used to exclude some neighborhoods from this type of gentle density. Policy HS- Consider increasing Approaching Increasing maximum Consider adding the 16 maximum housing densities housing densities can phrase "across all and implementing minimum help reduce barriers to neighborhoods" to make housing densities in entry in historically it clear that historically appropriate areas. exclusive exclusive neighborhoods neighborhoods. do not remain out of reach for households of color. Goal 6. Formulate and implement "Neighborhood innovative development regulations and character" is vague design standards that maintain and language specifically strengthen neighborhood character. called out by the Department of Commerce for allowing some neighborhoods, typically those that are lower -density, to be preserved as they are rather than open to a wider variety of Wma development types. The City should determine what makes these Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 17 neighborhoods attractive and unique and re -word this goal to reflect that, while ensuring that maintaining neighborhood character is not used to exempt these neighborhoods from necessary growth. Policy HS- The City shall identify formal Challenging While identifying formal Consider factors other 17 neighborhoods throughout neighborhoods does than building types and Port Orchard, with not necessarily have styles when boundaries based on negative impacts on characterizing building types and styles, racial disparities, neighborhoods, such as history, topography, school categorizing these those already named in locations, commercial neighborhoods by this policy (topography, development, and other building types and proximity to schools, relevant features of the styles can be a way of etc.). environment. continuing historical patterns of exclusion. Policy HS- Consider programs to N/A 18 preserve or rehabilitate neighborhoods and areas that are showing signs of deterioration due to lack of maintenance or abandonment. Policy HS- Consider commercial Challenging As noted above, Consider utilizing more 19 building design standards "neighborhood precise language to that establish and protect character" is vague and ensure that this policy neighborhood character. typically used to does not entrench past preserve a historically patterns of segregation entrenched rather than and allows for forward -looking view of multifamily housing a city's identity. throughout city Requiring that new neighborhoods. commercial buildings (potentially including multifamily or mixed - use housing) conform to these standards is a barrier to future growth and to remedying historical patterns of racial and economic segregation. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 18 Policy HS- Seek federal, state, and N/A 20 other funding for the renovation and maintenance of existing housing stock Policy HS- Provide information and Challenging The preservation of Ensure that this policy 21 assistance to property historical and cultural does not direct city owners of historically resources is not directly resources to the significant housing to at odds with reducing preservation of entire encourage preservation of racial exclusion. neighborhoods that seek these cultural resources. However, the exclusion from zoning designation of low- reforms. density neighborhoods as historic districts has been used in cities throughout the country to preempt zoning reforms that would allow a wider variety of housing. Goal 7. Improve the time associated with processing and approving proposed development while ensuring housing and design standards are suitable for maintaining an efficient, attractive, and safe housing supply. Policy HS- Streamlining the permitting N/A 22 process for development by implementing policies and procedures that reduce the length of time involved in plan approval. Goal 8. Provide on -going support to Rather than referencing homeowners to preserve, maintain, and vague goals like "quality improve their properties in order to and character of enhance the quality and character of neighborhoods" consider neighborhoods and the overall City. more specific language. This could include "to help people stay in their homes and neighborhoods and increase resident health and safety." Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 19 Policy HS- Consider developing N/A 23 programs that encourage and assist property owners to improve the quality and aesthetics of their housing units. Goal 9. Ensure that future residential development protects and maintains natural ecosystems and critical areas, including wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitats. Policy HS- Consider developing and Supportive Allowing flexible 24 implementing flexible development standards development standards for will help preserve housing being proposed in critical areas without the vicinity of critical areas limiting housing to meet both the goals of growth. housing targets and environmental protections. Policy HS- Encourage energy efficient N/A 25 housing types that conserve non-renewable energy and help minimize impact on air quality and climate. Policy HS- Prioritize residential growth Approaching It is best practice to Consider adding a clause 26 in centers of local prioritize residential to the end of this policy importance. growth in the areas best that acknowledges that suited for density, like all neighborhoods will mixed -use centers of have to accommodate local importance that some level of growth. have access to transit, jobs, schools, and other services. However, the City should ensure that these are not the only places where residential growth can occur. Goal 10. Monitor population growth rates to ensure that the City is accommodating its share of regional growth as allocated in the Countywide Planning Policies. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 20 Policy HS- If the City's growth rate falls N/A 27 below 2.1 percent annual growth, the rate at which the City would need to grow at in order to hit its 2036 growth target, the city should consider adopting reasonable measures such as reducing adopted transportation levels of service, impact fees, or accelerating growth related projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Policy HS- If the City's growth rate N/A 28 increases from the 2.5 percent growth rate experienced from 2013- 2015, the City should consider adopting reasonable measures including increasing transportation level of service standards, impact fees, or delaying projects within the City's Capital Improvement Program. Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan I Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis Page 21