Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, Planning Commission. This is, executive executive secretary, Garrett Jackson. The chair and vice then vice chair for the Planning Commission are absent. So Planning Commission per Planning Commission bylaws section 2C, do I hear a motion to appoint an interim chair?

Yes. This is Commissioner Browning. I move for Nick Wofford to act as Interim Chair.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, seeing none, motion passes. Thank you, Interim Chair Wofford.

Oh, gee. After I point it out. Call to order the 01/26/2026 Bremerton regular planning commission meeting. First item on the agenda is roll call to confirm we have a quorum.

Commissioner Peterson is excused. Commissioner Brownie? Here. Present. Commissioner Wafford? Here. Commissioner Powell? Present. Commissioner Kirk Sell?

Here.

And commissioner Doring is attending online. We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller hasn't attended yet.

Next item is approval of the agenda as presented. Do I hear or see any objections? K. Hearing and seeing none, we'll approve the agenda. Okay. Next up is approval of the December minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of 12/15/2025?

Commissioner Powell, I move to approve the minutes from December.

I wasn't here in December. That's okay. Commissioner Browning, I approve the I move to approve the minutes of December.

Okay. We have a motion to approve the minutes from 12/15/2025. Motion by Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Browning. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I do we okay. Motion passes or the agenda is approved.

Commissioner Doring has her hand raised. I also approve. I'm on the ferry. Thank you.

Thank you. Hey. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing. The joint city of Bremerton and Washington State Department of Ecology public hearing, is on zoning code amendments, shoreline master program, the critical area ordinance, and landscape standards. Presenting is mister Garrett Jackson, planning manager with the city of Bremerton. Mister Jackson.

All right. Thank you, Chair Wafford. All right. Planning Commission. It has been a long and winding road.

We have been looking at the Critical Area Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program and Landscaping since September. So thank you for your patience while we've gone through this process. Joining us via Zoom tonight is Matthew Evinger from the Department of Ecology representing this joint public hearing. The orders of the day are with the Planning Commission to hold a open record public hearing, consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony and provide a recommendation to the city council to approve zoning code amendments or deny or approve modifications. So I'll go through a brief review of how we got to today before moving on.

This image here notes that we had public workshops in September, October, November and then December. We had Department of Commerce review that has begun, CEPA review, CEPA determination, which bring excuse me brings us to the joint, hearing that we have tonight with the Department of Ecology and the remaining steps of working with the city council at a study session and future public hearing before final adoption of these code standards. We've looked at these policy, sections sections from from the the state previously that require the city to plan for critical areas and shorelines. The Growth Management Act requires that the city identify, designate and protect critical areas, that we ensure no net loss of critical areas, and that we incorporate best available science. Our own comprehensive plan has policies, to super excuse me, support our urban forest, maintain the city tree canopy, and protect critical areas and shorelines.

And at the planning commission suggestion, we're just highlighting once again, the Planning Commission had questions about whether you how to figure out if you have critical areas on your personal property. And so at the Planning Commission's request, we set up this website on the city's webpage for critical areas including how to use the Kitsap County parcel search to determine if there's critical areas on your own personal property. We also have the Shoreline Master Program webpage that's listing the documents that are under review for the Planning Commission and noting that there is a public comment period that extends to the twenty eighth, so beyond this hearing date. So if anyone joins us this evening and would like to provide comment to the Department of Ecology on the proposal, feel free to do so by the specified date. Moving into the Shoreline Master Program.

So there are a number of changes proposed to the Shoreline Master Program. Most of these are included in the Facet SMP gap analysis. So Facet is our paid consultant expert. They provided a document that's on our city webpage that notes changes that need to occur in our SMP. It's available online in our SMP webpage or in the October Planning Commission packet.

We'll be updating the SMP to note cultural resource improvements. So how do we coordinate with tribal entities better to ensure that cultural resources are respected and planned for, updating definition section, shoreline maps and we'll go over a little more detail into that in a minute, allowed uses. So with the comprehensive plan update, there were more uses that were allowed in the low density residential zone and that has been added to the shoreline master program so that the density doesn't change in the low density residential zone but the allowed uses are updated to reflect what's allowed in the zoning code occurred with the comprehensive plan update. And some small stuff like updating the code for consistency with new zones in the downtown sub area plan. Some zones in the downtown sub area plan changed names.

We're updating those names to reflect the new downtown sub area plan that's been adopted by the council. And then there's some new suggestions that the Planning Commission didn't see, in December and these are proposed revisions by the Sequamish Tribe. In the Planning Commission packet in the legislative markup for the SMP, you'll see those specific legislative markup items in red and we'll go into some of those now. So once again, included in your packet, red in the SMP legislative markup. And the proposed alterations were in general goals.

The Suquamish tribe would like to see that areas where salmon congregate to spawn or hold should receive special consideration for avoidance. So if you are developing adjacent to a land where salmon spawn, you should take particular measures to avoid impacting that critical area. General policies reiterate a dedication to no net loss. So there were some provisions in the SMP that read that to avoid a significant impact. And there was a proposal to change that to no net loss instead, which is more in line with state requirements that we plan for no net loss.

It's just a slight changing of the words to ensure we're in line with state recommendations. That new boating facilities should not be located in areas that require routine dredging for maintenance. This seemed like a very common sense recommendation that we could easily incorporate into the SMP. There are areas that are mapped as aquatic conservancy in SMP that are mapped accordingly to avoid constant dredging for boating facilities. This is just underscoring that existing wording that we have in the SMP.

Once again, kind of underscoring existing code that if you are subdividing a property that only a single shared dock be permitted. So say you have a subdivision of one property into nine lots, those nine lots should have one shared dock rather than each individual lot having their own dock. That's already in the code. Once again, just clarifying that language to make sure that that's clear per the suggestion of the Squamish tribe. Noting the importance of pocket estuaries and permit requirements including a mapping tool.

So in the SMP, we provide a link to a mapping tool from NOAA and then include pocket estuaries as a critical area to consider. You'll see here in the adjacent image a pocket estuary serves as nurseries for juvenile salmon that leave their homes and river leave their home rivers. This explanation once again provided by NOAA. And that we encourage vegetation in potential shoreline armoring projects. The Suquamish tribe noted that they had specific implementation of shoreline armoring bulkheads that incorporated vegetation and that they'd like people to consider that when they're planning out potential bulkheads on their property.

Moving over to SMP mapping. So all of our maps have been updated. So as you look through the legislative markup, each map that we have has been crossed out in favor of a new map that's provided to show two things. One, a change in name from single family residential shoreline designation to low density residential shoreline designation. And once again, none of those actual designation lines have changed.

It's just the name and it's meant to reflect those increased residential uses in the low density residential zone that we updated with the comprehensive plan update. And then the second change to all the maps is just providing greater detail. You'll see the map on the far left is fairly blank and the updated map just to the right shows clear parcel lines. There's been subdivisions, road renamings. We've captured all of that with this new SMP mapping update.

And then the two maps on the right show a corrected discrepancy. So in 2017, we updated map e in the downtown sub area plan to have a multifamily shoreline designation. We failed at that time to update map d. If you 'll see in the very lower hand corner of map D, there's a red dashed area that shows where that commercial designation still exists. It was just a discrepancy at the time we're correcting that with this SMP update.

Moving on to the critical areas ordinance. We have a best available science document that's available on our Critical Areas Shoreline Master Program web pages. This is created by our consultant and subject matter expert, FACET, and they provide best science for long range climate planning, wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, including site potential tree height for riparian buffers. These are all of the critical areas that we regulate as a city. So moving on to a summary of the changes that are proposed.

Once again, Facet, our subject matter expert, has provided a gap analysis that shows areas where our code needed improvement. That's once again available online and in the October planning commission packet. Proposed increased buffers for riparian areas known as or for streams. You'll see a table here to the right where previously we had a 150 foot buffer for fish bearing streams and a either 50 or 35 foot buffer for other streams. That has been updated to be 200 feet for fish bearing streams and 100 feet feet for all other stream types.

This is to protect riparian areas, so areas adjacent to streams. You'll see a small image of that on the screen also that these buffers are being proposed by and large to protect salmon habitat. This could affect pollutants getting into streams or having too short of a buffer may lead to temperature rising in streams. So best available science proposes that the city implement site potential tree height. So the height of a tree next to a stream would dictate the buffer width.

But many jurisdictions, including the city of Bremerton, are proposing instead a 200 foot buffer in a more standardized approach to site potential tree height. That is a departure from best available science. It is also the method adopted by all other Kitsap jurisdictions. Stream buffer reductions. So in another departure from best available science, the city's proposing a 25% reduction potentially for stream buffer widths, which is not to be any less in any situation than 75 feet.

Once again, this is in sync with our other Kitsap jurisdictions. The Port GambleSkallam tribe provided some comments that this should only be available to existing development. We'll go over that later. But the idea is that if you have an intact parcel that's completely forested and that buffer is completely forested, that it should stay intact that way. But if you have existing development that is in need of some flexibility, then a potential 25% reduction would be available.

Additional items for the critical area update include increased tribal notification that's in several code sections updating definitions, public agency exceptions so that's changing the permitting type from a type three hearings examiner decision to a type two administrative decision tree removal and potential fines. So the Planning Commission has gone over this point numerous times and settled on a $5,000 fine for trees removed without permits within a critical area or its buffer. A $5,000 fine for a significant tree, $1,000 fine for a non significant tree, and no fine for a tree that is removed that's four inches or less in diameter at a four foot height, but that they still need to provide mitigation planting. There are provisions for single family home exemptions within critical aquifers. That's also in line with our other Kitsap jurisdictions.

Some nonconforming provisions for existing single family homes, and updated language to respond to comments received which we'll go into now. As noted in the packet, all the updated legislative markup is color coded in the packet to denote which agency requested the change. In green in the legislative markup are revisions from the Washington State Department of Ecology. There's some changes to critical area ordinance definitions, best practices for development in the vicinity of wetlands, and updating references to state guidance documents. From the Department of Fish and Wildlife whose revisions are noted in purple, updating existing definitions, adding definitions for ecosystem functions, ecosystem values, streams, and watershed, and revisions to language regulating stream habitat.

From our own consultant facet, there were some requested language to reference the shoreline master program and monitoring periods. The Sequamish tribe, once again shown in red just as in the SMP, update criteria for site plans, adding more information to site plans and reports, preference to leave habitat stumps when removing trees from critical areas, wildlife that any fencing that be put in in critical areas have wildlife passage areas. And requested coordination in stream typing disputes. So if there's ever a stream typing dispute on a property, the Squamish tribe be involved in that dispute process. And the Port Gamble Sklallum tribe revisions are shown in orange.

We're lucky enough tonight to have Port Gamble Skalum Tribe biologist Marla Powers here joining us. That home expansion should be limited to the side opposite of a critical area. The previous code would have provided for lateral expansions but the revised code would only allow for expansions in critical areas opposite Revisions to bonding requirements which is really helpful, adding some that if monitoring period needs to be extended that we can request an updated quote on the expense of installing those materials so that we essentially stay in pace with inflation if it's a long monitoring period. Noting that stream buffer reductions are only applicable to sites with existing development. So as we discussed before, that was a comment from the Skalim tribe that properties where the buffer is intact and has no development in it, that buffer should not be reduced.

It should stay intact. There is always the potential for a reasonable use exception. So if a property is, you say, fully forested, you do have a right to develop that property through a reasonable use exception, but that would be the process prescribed instead of this prescriptive buffer reduction. We did receive an additional comment from the Department of Fish and Wildlife this afternoon noting that their previous comments, they included those in full. The planning commissioners have a copy of this comment before them.

And we were able to make one final change that the planning commission can either accept or not, but that stormwater management facilities be allowed in the outer 25% of a stream buffer. The Department of Fish and Wildlife asked for this to be struck, that we should not allow for storm water management facilities within the outer 25% of a stream buffer because this can lead to pollution entering into that critical area. So the code has been updated to strike this. The Planning Commission can debate on whether that's appropriate. Landscaping.

Our landscaping requirements. First, we just wanted to note that we had gone over the difficulties of implementing a landscaping code with the Planning Commission previously. That it's difficult to have excess potentially vegetation around a home or structure as there can be, fire safety hazards. The image at the top of the screen is provided by the National Fire Protection Association where they outline a number of zones that you should use to protect your home from vegetation being too close to your home to protect it from wildfires. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources has guidance for wildlife urban interface that limit how close forested areas can be to homes, and that trees and landscaping must consider overhead electrical lines, underground utilities, effects on neighboring properties, and other factors when determining what's appropriate on a site by site basis.

And the costs associated with developing new housing and business should also be considered when drafting new landscape code. A synopsis of what we have before us in the legislative markup that's provided in attachment C. The intent section of the landscaping code is proposed for revision to reflect what the landscaping code actually regulates. There was a lot of excess information in that intent that we went through with the Planning Commission to have a more honed intent section that reflected what the landscaping code really regulates. That landscaping be required when remodel or change of use is valued at 50% or structure value of a property.

You'll see on the right a letter from the Kitsap Building Association that requested revision of an earlier draft to what it is in place currently, which the Planning Commission agreed with in previous workshops and that's that 50% or more of assessed value. Alternative street tree requirements and alternative landscaping interior requirements. We'll get into that more. Drought resistant tree incentives that if your trees that you're planting are drought resistant, that we should have an incentive. The incentive that's proposed is that the trees that are installed be of a slightly smaller size, thereby potentially saving applicants money if they choose drought resistant species.

Other items for the update include critical root zone the tree's critical root zone be protected to ensure the health of the tree, consistency with storm water requirements, implementation of landscaping plan so that the city may request request that the project landscape architect provide a letter to the city prior to certificate of occupancy saying that the landscaping has been installed per plan, removing landscaping requirements adjacent to public parks. We've gone over this with the Planning Commission that screening a property from a park may defeat the purpose of the property owner and serves no purpose for the park. That was taken to Tim Barker, the director of the parks department who agreed with this code change. Root control barriers. So to ensure that tree roots don't affect the sidewalk or other public infrastructure, that a root barrier be installed within five feet of public infrastructure.

Just delving slightly deeper into incentivizing larger trees, so those alternative street tree requirements. Right now, we require one street tree per 25 linear feet. We're proposing to change that to one per 50 feet if it's a larger, fast growing tree variety. So right now, you can essentially plant a tree that at mature height is six feet and that's needed at times if there's overhead electrical lines or other infrastructure issues, but we're providing an incentive for larger trees, both street trees and interior trees, that if you plant those larger fast growing trees that you can provide less trees. Once again, the orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide a recommendation to the city council to approve zoning code amendments or deny or approve with modification.

Prior to providing or calling for public comment, I would like to note that Commissioner Peterson passed along a note saying that he was glad to see the Port Gamble Sklalum tried comments on tighter buffer requirements and that he agrees with councilor Mokler's suggestion that wetland delineation should not be provided by a developer and that there should be a third party consultant from the city that delineates all wetlands and it should not be private development that does that. We haven't gotten any such comment from council member Mochler that I'm aware of, but I wanted to share your fellow planning commissioner's comments.

Mr. Jackson, does that conclude your comments?

It does. Thank you.

K. Does anybody in the audience have any comments on this past presentation? Well, as you state your name for the record, please limit your comments to three minutes or less. And please come to the podium. You'll be recognized. So There

we go. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. My name is Marla Powers. I am an environmental planner for the Port Gamble Skollum tribe. And I wanted to thank mister Jackson for taking the time to reach out to the tribe and again for taking the time to meet with me on January 14 for a speed read and comment of the CAO. Many of my comments have been carefully considered and included, and they're very similar and in alignment with what the Suquamish tribe also provided, but I did wanna add a few things.

It's not clear to me if the planning commission received the full comments that the tribe provided to you or just the comments that Gary included in the draft. And the comments I want to talk more about are fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or streams based on best available science. There are two important facts I wanted to reiterate. One is that a riparian management zone is included as best available science to protect the critical habitat itself, not as a buffer that can be reduced with development but as a critical area itself. And also that buffer widths are based on-site potential tree height which mister Jackson went over.

And for the city of Bremerton, it included 100 to approximately 235 feet around depending on where you're measuring the site potential tree height in the city of Bremerton. And I wanted to say that the increase of a type f to 200 feet is appreciated. Thank you. And, the type n p and n s increased to 100 feet, but that's still far short of what the best available science says. These 200 foot buffers do provide four things for the salmon habitat.

One is stream morphology to allow the stream to meander and move the way it needs to and slows it down so it's not so fast. Two, provides wood recruitment that creates a habitat for salmon to hide. That's usually where insects can hang around and where juveniles can feed on their way back down. It decreases stream temperature which has become a new pollutant in water. When temperatures exceed a certain, number, the fish have a higher mortality rate.

So keeping a 200 foot buffer will keep the stream temperatures down. And finally, pollution removal, and that's the only one of the four that need only 100 feet to reduce the most amount of the pollution in the stream. So keep thinking about a 200 foot buffer because it's really important for salmon habitat. Two other, final questions is, has the city of Bremerton received any of the following? A memo from Faucette that states that the specific deviation from best available science and their scientific reasonings as meeting or exceeding the best available science been received.

And two, a memo or letter from state agencies. We just heard Fish and Wildlife provided more comments stating that their proposed changes have been appropriately addressed, with their comments. And finally, preservation of existing mature trees and vegetation is the most important thing that can be done to protect fragile salmon habitat, and restoration is the next step. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the public that has a comment?

We have a couple people online. If you are online and you would like to speak, please raise your hand now. I am not seeing any hands raised.

Hey. Seeing and hearing no other comments from the public, we'll close the public testimony and go to the commissioners for any feedback or comment.

Sorry. Nick?

No. Mister Garrett.

I'm sorry. I I did mean to meant to I did mean to add that we got a comment in from council member Anna Mokler today at like about a quarter to five and those comments are also in front of the commissioners in hard copy. I just wanted to make sure it was on the record that the comments contained a discussion between herself and Diane Manning where Diane Manning I mean, this is a summary, notes that we should protect mature trees when they don't present a danger to people or property. Species of trees, native or not, need to be appropriate per location and that she generally supports protections of wetlands in critical areas. And then there was a message sent out from council member Mockler to District 6 members noting that natural vegetate or native vegetation or naturalized drought tolerant plants should be required in landscaping code.

Some notes about things that should be required on deed transfers. So any deed that's transferred should have vegetation requirements in the city of Bremerton. There should be a tree canopy assessment, preservation of trees, and there's a number of other very specific recommendations. I recommend that the Planning Commission accept accept these comments, but they may be better addressed at the city council level. Council member Mockler will be able to speak to her city council members about any revisions that she may see fit.

I know that miss Marla Powers from the, Sklallum tribe, there was a number of comments that were made that may take closer study and may be more appropriate to incorporate process. Those are that that's all I had to say before, planning commissioner deliberation.

Thank you, miss Jackson. Any, additional feedback from commissioners? No?

I actually have a

question. And it's a little bit related to the Port Gamble, Skollum Tribe requested revisions. One was noting expansion single family homes within critical buffer should not be should be limited to the site opposite of the critical area, but then when I look at the where the change was made, I see that it is it says that existing single family dwelling may be exempt from additional criteria permitting provided no such exemption has been previously granted and all the following criteria are demonstrated, and then the expansion is located on the opposite side of the critical area buffer. In that situation, then a person would then be able to apply for the critical area permitting for expansion on the side of the critical area. It's on page 12.

Just a moment.

In, 20 dot fourteen dot January.

So I I I've, navigated to the appropriate code section. Is the question

I just wanted to ask if my reading of the code is correct that you could if you wanted to expand on the side of the critical area buffer, you would have you could do it if you were approved through critical area permitting.

No. So it's it it reads specifically expansion is located on the development side opposite of the critical area or buffer. So, the side of the structure that's opposite the critical area, you could expand the structure in that direction.

Right.

Is is then there's

on the other side, you would then need to get a critical area permit?

No. You could not, expand your home on the other side closest to the critical area. On the the side that's on the opposite side of the critical area, you could expand the home. On the side of the critical area, you could not expand a home.

So no home on a critical area can expand toward the critical area?

If it's in the buffer. Right.

Okay. So that's 200 feet from a salmon spawning stream?

Correct. So if your if your home is located in that 200 foot buffer, this is a provision to allow you for an expansion but no closer to that critical area. You could potentially expand on the opposite side, but that would be not a further intrusion into that critical area buffer.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Of course. I

had one and maybe you can expand on it. I kinda heard it like a train going by. The something about the critical area mitigations. The private sector can't come up with solutions, but it has to be prescribed by government agency.

So and that's that's comment from commissioner Peterson and he's not here to expound on that. He relayed that that was from council member Mokler, but I don't think we have comments from council member Mokler saying that. So that is a fellow commissioner's proposal. It is not in the code before you today. I personally don't think that it would be appropriate.

You should give a property owner the opportunity, to troubleshoot, on their property. And that being said, we are writing into the code our current practice of if there is a critical area report, we share that with, tribal entities and with, state agencies, to ensure that that critical area report is appropriate. So they have biologists that are available for at no cost that are that as a service to the city to ensure that we're implementing our critical area code correctly and we appreciate that, technical assistance. In that manner, I think that we remove the possibility that a developer may have some nefarious plan to skirt our critical area ordinance as we include other third parties in the approval process.

Okay. Thanks, Garrett.

Commissioner Bernie, I just wanted to say I appreciate the Squam Tribe's biologist comments. I think that the 200 foot buffer is a good start and I think it should be incorporated into city code.

Hey.

Can I have more questions on the 200 foot buffer then? So when you look at the chart, you see the 200 foot buffer for part f. That's for salmon spawning streams, which I cannot find it right now. Then the other parts are non salmon spawning streams.

I am having a hard time hearing you if you don't mind speaking into the microphone. Sorry. The

200 foot buffer is for the salmon spawning streams and the lower buffers are for non salmon spawning streams?

So it's it's so just to clarify, it's fish fish bearing doesn't have to be a salmon spawning stream. And I know that it's just a nomenclature thing. But that's correct, that a fish bearing stream would have a 200 foot buffer and non fish bearing would be 100.

And that makes sense to me given that we want to protect the fish. But I'm not clear on what we're protecting if it doesn't have fish in it.

So we've got we've had comments received that those 100 foot buffers, the reason those are important are are, at least to my understanding, twofold. One, they keep pollutants from entering into the stream. And just because it's non fish bearing stream at one point doesn't mean that it doesn't connect to a fish bearing stream later and that it helps regulate the temperature of that non fish bearing stream. Increased temperatures would also affect downstream temperatures, which make it less habitable for fish. I'm not a biologist, but that's conversationally my understanding.

Commissioner Powell, I had one more comment, it kind of went by a little fast, so I maybe didn't grasp all of it. But it was about storm treatment facilities cannot be in a buffer. And often those facilities are, you know, they have waterfowl and wetland characteristics and, you know, it's a, you know, a pond and it seems to me it and granted I I think the rationale is that if there was a spill or a breach or something like that, that it would get into the, you know, repairing system. But I think even if it's above the buffer, you know, if there's a breach or an accident, it will eventually get there anyway. So to me, it would be compatible with a buffer and it would enhance the buffer, would think, not being a scientist, but just a you know, from an aesthetic standpoint.

I don't know if there's any discussion about that, the rationale behind that.

So this, this proposed revision from DFW is specific to streams, stream buffers. So as far as wetlands or other buffers, those are different requirements. This is specific to streams. And once again, it's to prevent pollution from entering into streams that may be collected from stormwater. Now that's the rationale used by DFW.

This is for the planning commission to consider. It is a departure from best available science. There's that best available science about having that 200 foot, 100 foot buffer that we're using instead of site potential tree height. So any reduction past that isn't supported by DFW but conceivably, would be another place on a site to put storm water. Now, we are with every buffer increase, we are limiting more and more the developable area that the city has for housing and jobs.

Update from the state for riparian buffers, for stream buffers. And we are proposing some departures from best available science. If it turns out that there is no other solution for storm water, then an applicant could conceivably file for a reasonable use exception. So there is a potential path forward but that they would need to be convincing the Suquamish tribe, Port Gamble, Skollum tribe, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology that there is no other scenario that's not workable for the site. So these strictures are being put in place to protect fish, and that can be in conflict with other goals of the city.

It's for the planning commission to consider.

Any other comments? Going, going, gone. Okay. Alright. Does anybody wanna make a a motion? There's two motions, and I don't see any modifications that we're making to the any of the attachments a, b, or c. So I would say motion a is the one if anybody needs a copy to read.

Tara Kirksell, I move to recommend the city council adopt the zoning code amendments to title 20 of the Bremerton Municipal Code as shown in attachment a, b, and c, and based upon the staff reported findings and conclusions presented in attachment d.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Mr. Powell, I will second the motion.

Okay. There's a motion on the floor. It's been properly second. So the question, Commissioner Browning.

Commissioner Browning.

Commissioner Doering.

Oh, you say that?

Oh, here.

Second the question.

No. Did yay or nay?

Just yay.

Yeah. Sorry.

Yay.

Yay. Okay. Sorry. It went out for a second.

It's okay. Thank you. Commissioner Powell?

Yea.

Commissioner Kirk Sell?

Yea.

And Chair Wafford?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Okay. So that concludes the public meeting. We're now into the business meeting. First item is a chair report. And since I'm just interim chair, I'll, make a public comment of please vote.

She asked if she could I know there's only one item on the agenda for city of Bremerton, but it's important that everybody votes. So next item would be commissioner's report. Anybody on the commission? Oh, I'm sorry. Wanna welcome our newest commissioner.

Thank you. I'm glad to join you. And, you know what? I we had a new commissioner on the health board, and I also forgot to I was just ready to go. Yeah. So I understand.

Thank you for being here, Tara. Yeah. We appreciate it. Welcome

aboard, Tara. Thank

you. Thank you.

How about the director's report?

The director has no report other than to welcome Commissioner Kirksell to the Planning Commission.

Any old business? Any under new business, we have no applications received for the comprehensive plan amendments amendments in 2025. The city will present the commission for options for comp plan amendments at a public workshop in February. And thank you, everybody. And the next regular meeting of the planning commission will be held on 02/23/2026. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.