Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Vice Chair Tift, we have a quorum of the commission with Chair Wofford excused. We have a quorum. Mic on, Chair.

Sorry. Can you start over? You got it?

I would start over again just so that it's recorded adequately.

Call to order the regular meeting of the Bremen Planning Commission for October 20th, 2025. First item on the agenda is a roll call. Could I please have a roll call? yes vice chair tift we have a quorum of the planning commission with only chair wofford he has an excused absence and therefore still we have a quorum confirmed okay thank you very much next up is approval of the agenda for this evening's meeting and i would like to um propose an amendment to the agenda to ensure consistency with the current city council practices and to focus discussion on items appearing on tonight's agenda i move to revise the agenda by removing item 5a call to the public call to the public is intended for items not on the agenda and removing this item will not restrict the public from commenting on items presented later in tonight's workshop DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON REMOVING ITEM 5A FROM OUR AGENDA?

I OBJECT TO THAT. YOU CANNOT PAUSE. YOU CANNOT PAUSE. IT IS AN ILLEGAL ACT.

i just walked in i please sir i just walked in are you eliminating the call to the public sir i'm not addressing you please have a seat when right now we're talking about the agenda for this evening's meeting how many we need all we need is a as a an approval or um a majority to do this you object uh i mean they don't anymore Okay, so do we have a consensus to remove item 5A from the agenda? Okay, having consensus from the Planning Commission, we'll move then to item 5B. and public workshop presenting with Mr. Garrett Jackson. Oh, I'm sorry. We need to do approval of the minutes. Excuse me. So let's move now to approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Is there a motion to the minutes as presented?

This is Commissioner Peterson. I'll move to approve the minutes. Commissioner Miller, I'll second.

All right.

have a call for the question please and this is without modification yes okay we have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from september 15 2025 that motion was made by commissioner peterson and seconded by commissioner miller all those in favor aye aye any opposed motion carries unanimously

okay next i'd like to move to our public meeting and go to agenda item 5b which is a public workshop on zoning code amendments and critical area ordinances shoreline master plan and landscaping standards presented by mr garrett jackson

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION. WE HAVE OUR SPECIAL ALCS VERSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THREE SEPARATE ITEMS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS. THESE ARE NOT ONE PACKAGE. THESE WILL BE DECIDED UPON SEPARATELY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AFTER THAT CITY COUNCIL. THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE, WE HAVE SOME DOCUMENTS TODAY, A PUBLISHED GAP ANALYSIS AND BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE DOCUMENTS. THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE CREATED FROM OUR CONSULTANT AND WE'RE PUBLISHING THOSE IN ORDER TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC ON KIND OF THE BOOK ENDS OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE WITH THE CAO UPDATE. AND SIMILARLY FOR THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM WE PUBLISHED ANOTHER GAP ANALYSIS THAT IS PREPARED BY OUR CONSULTANT THAT IDENTIFIES THE ITEMS THAT ARE SUBJECT FOR AMENDMENT WITH THE SMP UPDATE. And lastly, kind of the meat and potatoes items of this meeting, the landscaping code. So we do have legislative markup for the Planning Commission to consider potential zoning code amendments to the landscaping section. Now, that being said, nothing is decided here tonight. We're just getting direction from the Planning Commission and for a future public workshop. So going right into the orders of the day, the Planning Commission should consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on proposed updates for a future public workshop. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE A TIMELINE OF FUTURE MEETINGS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE. WE HAD A PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP IN SEPTEMBER AND WE'RE HAVING AN ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP TONIGHT. WE HAVE ADDITIONAL STEPS ON THOSE DATES THAT ARE TO BE DETERMINED. AT SOME POINT WE'LL SEND THESE ITEMS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR REVIEW, SEPA REVIEW, AND A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING. BUT IN NOVEMBER YOU SHOULD BUT IN NOVEMBER YOU SHOULD BUT IN NOVEMBER YOU SHOULD EXPECT AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC EXPECT AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC EXPECT AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC WORKSHOP TO WORK ON THESE ITEMS. WORKSHOP TO WORK ON THESE ITEMS. So with the past, the September public workshop, we already discussed the policy background that requires the critical areas and shoreline SMP updates. So we won't read those out in their entirety, but we did have the slide here for posterity's sake in case anyone's curious about the statutory requirements. And also in September, we reviewed sections of our comprehensive plan that support preservation of natural areas and expansion of the urban tree canopy. SO MOVING RIGHT INTO THE CAO UPDATE, FACET, THEY ARE OUR CONSULTANT THAT'S ASSISTING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THEY ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO CRITICAL AREAS UPDATES. WE PUBLISHED A GAP ANALYSIS AND WERE SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT. SO IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE IS LISTENING, THAT GAP ANALYSIS IS AVAILABLE AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET. AND THE PUBLISHED BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE DOCUMENT ALSO SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT. SO THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ACTS AS KIND OF A REFERENCE TO THAT GAP ANALYSIS. GAP ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES AREAS OF THE CODE THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED. THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ADDRESSES THOSE CODE UPDATES AND BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE THAT APPLIES TO THEM. NO LEGISLATIVE MARKUP IS PROVIDED TODAY. THIS IS JUST THE TOPICS AND THESE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PUBLISHED THAT WE'RE SEEKING FEEDBACK ON. So at the September 15th workshop, we talked about the need for increased tribal notification, that we would need to update our definition section for consistency between the CAO and SMP, that there be a update to the process for the public agency exception. ADDING POTENTIAL FINES FOR TREE REMOVAL IN CRITICAL AREAS AND CRITICAL AREA BUFFERS WITHOUT PERMIT APPROVAL. CRITICAL AQUIFERS AND HAVING AN EXEMPTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, MUCH LIKE OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO. AND THOSE ARE ALL WRAPPED INTO THE GAP ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY FACET AS ATTACHMENT B TO YOUR PACKET. ADDITIONAL ITEMS ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT GAP ANALYSIS. AND WE'LL PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE MARKUP AT THE NEXT WORKSHOP THAT ADDRESSES EACH ITEM FOR THAT GAP ANALYSIS. BUT SOME EXAMPLES THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED ON THE 15TH AN EXEMPTION FOR VOLUNTARY RESTORATION. IF YOU'RE A PROPERTY OWNER AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME NATIVE VEGETATION TO YOUR BUFFER, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN EXEMPTION TO DO THAT AND NOT TAKE YOU THROUGH AN ELONGATED PROCESS. THIS IS IN STEP WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS. WE HAVE A CURRENT MAINTENANCE BOND. for work that needs to be done in your critical area buffer. If you have to install native vegetation, our current maintenance bond for after that's installed is a three-year period, whereas best available science requires at least five years for a maintenance bond and monitoring period. So the gap analysis, that's another example of items that they are suggesting we update our code with. For our bonding length, instead of three years, it'd be five. There's several tweaks to wetland classification and development standards. An example of that, currently for a type 4 wetland, you can reduce the buffer width down to forty feet with some enhancement measures whereas best available science uh... says that fifty feet is the minimum required for filtering out pollutants between a type four wetland and uh... the out outside of the buffer area so these are small tweaks all all in the gap analysis for the public to explore uh... but that's another example of an item uh... for making the minimum buffer 50 feet for a Type 4 wetland. And then once again, for fish and habitat conservation areas, expand habitat, which we've talked about for riparian areas, expanding stream buffers. But there's a suggestion that we have our habitat corridor evaluation include offsite connectivity. So when a habitat management plan is required, Have that biologist that's writing that plan consider habitat connectivity from not just on your site, but offsite. What's the best way that you can provide your mitigation so that wildlife corridors are maintained throughout an area, not just your individual property? A best available science document that I referenced earlier is available as attachment C. Per RCW 3070A172, best available science is required when you're making changes that are substantive in your critical area ordinance. AND SIMILAR TO THAT, HB 1181 REQUIRES THAT LONG RANGE PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE INCLUDE, EXCUSE ME, THAT LONG RANGE PLANNING INCLUDE CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH OUR CAO UPDATE TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTREME HEAT, SEA LEVEL RISE, WILDFIRES AND SMOKE AND CHANGING CONDITIONS FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS THAT COME WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. That is outlined in the best available science document from Facet. And how that pertains to wetlands, critical aquifers, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, specific also to riparian buffers and site potential tree height, which we discussed at the September workshop. So all of those items that we referenced for code changes in September are now available IN THIS BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE DOCUMENT PROVIDED FROM OUR CONSULTANT FACET. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, ONCE AGAIN, THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT FACET HAS PROVIDED THEIR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OUR SMP UPDATE. WE PUBLISHED THAT GAP ANALYSIS DOCUMENT, AND THIS IS LARGELY TO ADDRESS THINGS THAT WE UPDATED WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. WHICH WILL GET INTO SOME SPECIFICS. BUT ONCE AGAIN, NO LEGISLATIVE MARKUP IS PROVIDED. THAT LEGISLATIVE MARKUP IS IN PROCESS AND EXPECTED TO PUBLISH IN NOVEMBER AT THE SAME TIME AS THE CAO. SO THIS IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUBLISH THESE FACET CREATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC TO CONSIDER. SO AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE SO AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE SEPTEMBER WORKSHOP, CULTURAL SEPTEMBER WORKSHOP, CULTURAL RESOURCES SECTION NEED TO BE RESOURCES SECTION NEED TO BE UPDATED. UPDATED. WE HAD COMMENTS DURING THE WE HAD COMMENTS DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY WOULD LIKE BETTER THEY WOULD LIKE BETTER COORDINATION TO PROTECT CULTURAL COORDINATION TO PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES. RESOURCES. UPDATE THE DEFINITION SECTION UPDATE THE DEFINITION SECTION ONCE AGAIN TO BE CONSISTENT ONCE AGAIN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CAO. SHORELINE MAPS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THERE IS CURRENTLY A SHORELINE DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL JUST SIMPLY CHANGING THE NAME TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO REFLECT ADDED HOUSING TYPES THAT WERE UPDATED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND ALLOWED USES. THAT LENDS ITSELF TO THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL, THAT WE WOULD BE UPDATING THE ALLOWED USES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL SHORELINE JURISDICTION DESIGNATIONS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. AS FAR AS UPDATES FOR TODAY, THERE'S ONE SMALL CLERICAL ERROR, EXCUSE ME, NOT ERROR, BUT UPDATE THAT WE'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE SMP. THERE'S THE NAME OF A ZONE IN THE DOWNTOWN SUB AREA PLAN THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. THE MR1, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE EXISTED IN THE OLD SUB AREA PLAN THAT HAS NOW BEEN SUPPLANTED WITH THE UPDATED SUB AREA WHICH NOW HAS THE MIXED SUB AREA WHICH NOW HAS THE MIXED USE ZONE. USE ZONE. SO IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE SO IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF CLERICAL UPDATES THAT WILL BE OF CLERICAL UPDATES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR OUR SMP TO CONFORM REQUIRED FOR OUR SMP TO CONFORM WITH THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ADOPTED. DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ADOPTED. MOVING INTO LANDSCAPING. MOVING INTO LANDSCAPING. SO BMC 2050. PER OUR DISCUSSION AT THE LAST WORKSHOP, WE HAVE SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE TO UPDATE THE INTENT SECTION. EXPANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. WE HAD TALKED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE LAST WORKSHOP ABOUT HOW DO WE ADD LANDSCAPING SOONER DURING THE PROJECT PROCESS. And then strategies to expand the urban tree canopy and drought resistant species. So those are all items that are in our comprehensive plan for expanding the urban tree canopy. And we're trying to get at strategies on how to do that in the zoning code. So just to have a quick synopsis of what we'll be covering, items for update include the intent section, as we had mentioned, expand requirements for additional landscaping, alternative street tree requirements, alternative interior landscaping requirements, drought resistant tree incentives, and some other items that we won't go into very deeply in this IN THIS WORKSHOP, BUT WE HAVE THE CODE SECTIONS AVAILABLE BELOW. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE, WE TALKED ABOUT PROTECTING THE ROOTS OF TREES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. WE HAVE DRAFT CODE AVAILABLE FOR THAT. CONSISTENCY WITH BMC 1504 STORM WATER. THE STORM WATER CODE HAS SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAINING EXISTING VEGETATION THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR LANDSCAPING SECTION CONFORMED WITH THAT. IMPLEMENTATION OF LANDSCAPING PLAN. SOMETIMES WE HAVE TROUBLE GETTING CODE CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLANS FROM DEVELOPERS. THIS IS JUST AN ADDED PROCESS WHERE WE CAN ASK FOR A LETTER FROM THE LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT FOR A PROJECT THAT THE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN INSTALLED PER PLAN. REMOVE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS REMOVE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO PARKS. ADJACENT TO PARKS. SO AT THE LAST WORKSHOP WE HAD SO AT THE LAST WORKSHOP WE HAD TALKED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TALKED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE HAD AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE HAD CONFERRED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF CONFERRED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT along trails and parks that didn't seem to fit anymore, particularly with eyes on the street. You know, the more eyes you have on a public park, the safer that it might be, and that you might move purchased property next to a park in order to see and enjoy that park. So that's proposed for removal. AND ROOT CONTROL BARRIER. YOU'LL SEE HERE IN THE ADJACENT IMAGE A PICTURE OF ROOT CONTROL BARRIER SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. THAT ROOT CONTROL BARRIER BE INSTALLED WITHIN FIVE FEET OF PUBLIC SIDEWALK OR OTHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROTECT IT FROM DAMAGE THAT MIGHT BE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS. SO AS DISCUSSED AT THE SEPTEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP, THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE AND THE STORM WATER CODE PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT THE TEXT BELOW IN ORANGE SEEK TO ACHIEVE. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S THESE TEXTS THAT ARE IN THE ORANGE THAT DON'T NECESSARILY FIT IN THE LANDSCAPING CODE. PROTECTION OF CRITICAL AREAS AND STORM WATER AREN'T REGULATED BY THE LANDSCAPING CODE. and so why have them in the intent section the critical areas ordinance will continue to uh... require and protect native vegetation in critical areas and their buffers but that's not something that the landscaping code has ever done as far as ENSURING THAT YOU, I MEAN, AT THIS POINT WE DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PLANT HYDRANGES OR ROSES OR A BOXWOOD. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE LANDSCAPING CODE HAS REGULATED TO DATE AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INDICATED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE INTERESTED IN DOING. SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THOSE SECTIONS FROM THE INTENT to address items that the landscaping section does address. So the potential revised language would be the intent of this chapter is to establish landscaping standards that contribute to a quality urban environment by requiring the retention of existing, excuse me, encouraging the retention of existing vegetation, expansion of urban tree canopy throughout landscaping and street trees, USED OF DROUGHT RESISTANT VEGETATION, SCREENING AREAS OF LOW VISUAL INTEREST AND BUFFERING POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENTS AND TO COMPLEMENT DEVELOPMENT SITES WITH LANDSCAPING. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FEEDBACK ON THE INTENT. WE FEEL THAT THAT IS WHAT THE LANDSCAPING SECTION HAS HISTORICALLY REGULATED AND IS A MORE APPROPRIATE INTENT SECTION. EXPAND REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. SO WE HAD TALKED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING AND THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN POTENTIALLY PROVIDING OR REQUIRING LANDSCAPING WITH A CHANGE OF USE. SO IF A BUILDING CHANGES USE FROM ONE OCCUPANCY TYPE TO ANOTHER, THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO BRING YOUR SITE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPING CODE. We had a discussion with the Planning Commission at the time, and we were directed to instead require conformance with the landscaping code when you make a certain level of improvement at your site. So if you have enough dollars to invest in your site for a remodel or an expansion of your building, that that is a more equitable point in time to require updating your site for landscape code conformance. And that's pretty typical for other sections of our code, that when you invest in your site, that you bring your site into conformance. And we have two general areas that are proposed in the code on how that might change. That if your remodel or expansion of your existing site, the director may modify landscaping code in some ways and in others the director may waive standards if they meet other criteria so just to modify the standards the director can modify standards of the landscaping code when sufficient street trees and interior trees are provided and to fit the scope and scale of a project so and this is because there are some BUILDINGS IN THE CITY OF BREMMERTON THAT TAKE UP THE ENTIRE PROPERTY SO STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPING CODE WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PARCELS WHERE THE BUILDING IS A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THAT LOT AND THAT'S THE MOST EXTREME EXAMPLE BUT THERE SHOULD BE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE LANDSCAPE THAT'S SPECIFIC TO YOUR PROJECT AND YOUR SITE So if you're a remodel of an existing site, the director may waive standards if the project valuation does not exceed 25% of the assessed value per the Kitsap County Assessor's Office. That's pretty typical for triggering improvements on your site. I know that frontage improvements are triggered in the same way if 25% of the site assessed value is exceeded. or $250,000, whichever is less. So I've bolded that $250,000 to make sure that it's very prominent in the discussion. It seems like a reasonable number, but reasonable is decided as a community. So we'd really like to get feedback from the public, from the Kitsap Building Association, from the Planning Commission on those two yard marks. 25% of the assessed value or $250,000, whichever is less. And that maintenance and repair. So you have an air conditioning unit on top of your building and it breaks and you need to replace it. So if you replace it with a new air conditioning unit and you already had one, it's not an expansion, we're proposing that the director would be able to waive those standards. in improvements related to damage by fire or similar events not intentionally caused by the owner this is also pretty standard language for our non-conformities and also for other triggers in the code that require upgrades that if if something if your building catches on fire and build and you need to make repairs that that shouldn't be something where we kind of pile on with additional requirements So moving into incentivizing larger trees specific to street trees. And I've got a very cartoonish, potentially laughable image here up on the screen that is somewhat to scale, that shows a site with frontage that's 100 feet of frontage on a street. So your property has fronts on a street, 100 feet of frontage. On the top example, you have our existing code, which requires one street tree per 25 linear feet. So for 100 feet, that'd be four street trees. As an example of how we might want to incentivize larger trees, this is a fairly to scale where the smaller street trees are a crabapple variety that's in our approved street tree list. They grow to a mature height of six feet and no taller. And so you could potentially satisfy our street tree requirement with some smaller street trees, which we're proposing to maintain. IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT, THERE COULD BE OVERHEAD UTILITIES, THERE COULD BE OTHER SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE A SMALLER STREET TREE. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE CODE, BUT TO AUGMENT IT WITH INCENTIVES. SO THE SITE BELOW SHOWS THE SAME 100 FOOT OF FRONTAGE AND TWO STREET TREES THAT ARE A MINIMUM OF 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. AND NOW WE'LL GET INTO THE LANGUAGE OF IT. SO LIKE I SAID, THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING CODE SECTION WHERE ONE STREET TREE IS PROVIDED PER 25 LINEAR FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE AND THE EXISTING CODE REQUIRES THAT THE FRONTYARD SETBACK AREA INCLUDE GROUND COVER, SHRUBS AND TREES. So to incentivize larger trees, we propose an additional section where one street tree may be provided for every 50 linear feet of street frontage, and that the front yard setback area may be lawn and street trees. Ongoing costs associated with maintenance are very important to commercial and multifamily development projects. It is an incentive to not require shrubs and ground cover and to provide a simple lawn in place of those. And that if we get a larger street tree that the planning commission might consider allowing that incentive. BUT THAT THOSE TREES WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM MATURE HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AND THAT THEY HAVE A GROWTH RATE OF AT LEAST TWO FEET PER YEAR. SO NOT ONLY WILL WE GET LARGER TREES, IT WILL BE AT A FAST GROWTH RATE AND WE'LL SEE THOSE RETURNS ON A FASTER TIME SCALE. but that they must also be on the approved street tree list from the city of Bremerton. This street tree list has already been vetted through the public process and our public works department for trees that essentially behave with streets and utilities. So if we are trying to incentivize larger trees that work well in an urban environment, it makes sense to have those be on the approved street tree list. INCENTIVIZING LARGER TREES, INTERIOR TREES, SO TREES AND PARKING LOTS. AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS ALL SUPPOSED TO GET AT THE EXPANDING THE URBAN TREE CANOPY. HOW CAN WE DO THAT? THE EXISTING CODE REQUIRES ONE STREET TREE PER TEN PARKING SPACES. AND ONCE AGAIN, REQUIRES A MIX OF GROUND COVER, SHRUBS AND TREES. to incentivize. And once again, we're planning on maintaining those existing code sections. but to incentivize larger trees, that we require one interior tree per 3,000 square feet of parking slash drive area. So you calculate all of the square footage for your driveway and parking areas, and one street tree would be required per 3,000 square feet, which is very close, as it turns out, to that one street tree per 10 parking spaces number. However, by moving to a square footage amount, you encourage the development to shrink down those impervious surface areas and provide more landscaping area instead. and having an additional reduction that's available for the number of street trees that you provide in your parking area if you can demonstrate that the mature tree height covers one third of your parking and driving area. Landscape areas would include trees, but could instead of Ground cover and shrubs could be barked or rocked instead. Once again, it's that trade-off for long-term maintenance. How can we incentivize larger trees? And one way we can incentivize that is through long-term maintenance of these sites. Once again, mature tree height would have to be at least 30 feet, a growth rate of two feet per year. So we have faster returns on those trees and that it be on the approved street tree list. DROUGHT RESISTANT TREE INCENTIVES. SO WE NOTICED THAT KITSAP COUNTY HAD SOME INCENTIVES FOR DROUGHT RESISTANT TREES AND WE MODELED OUR PROPOSAL OFF OF THE EXISTING COUNTY CODE. It's good to see what other jurisdictions in Kitsap are doing. And it's always a good idea, if you can, to have similar requirements across jurisdictions in the same county. So you're not reinventing the wheel every time you're coming out with regulation updates. So we would encourage drought resistant vegetation by our normal standard that's proposed for a caliper of a deciduous tree is two inches. So the trunk would need to be two inches wide at a caliper at the point of installation. You incentivize drought resistant trees by making that requirement less, an inch and a half for a drought tolerant species. So it's incentivized because a smaller tree costs less. So you would be assisting with that development by requiring a smaller tree that has a smaller price point in exchange for a drought tolerant species. And for evergreen trees, our base requirement is proposed to be six feet in height. Or if it's a drought-tolerant species, that would be lowered to four feet. So both the deciduous and evergreen tree, inch and a half and four feet marks, are consistent with Kitsap County. And those are the reasons for those final numbers. So just to recap the meat and potatoes portion, I know that we've published those facet documents for the public to consider, but the substantive portion of this meeting is the legislative markup provided for the landscaping section, which includes a revised intent, expanding the requirements for additional landscaping, ALTERNATIVE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING, DROUGHT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING, DROUGHT RESISTANT TREE INCENTIVES AND RESISTANT TREE INCENTIVES AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WENT OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WENT THROUGH PREVIOUSLY. THROUGH PREVIOUSLY. ORDERS OF THE DAY ARE FOR THE ORDERS OF THE DAY ARE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, RECEIVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PROVIDE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE PROPOSED UPD

Jose Camacho, Friends of Smith's Cove. Without a legislative markup, it's impossible for the public to assess what's going on here as my sign indicates well first of all there is no reason why the changes to the shoreline manage management act required shoreline master program could not have been done during the comp planning It wasn't done for a reason, and today that reason is manifesting. So without a legislative markup, the rigging that Andrew Spencer is responsible for, for the Evergreen Point, for all we know, could be continued now because they have a particular gift of hiding a little Trojan horse. This goes to the credibility of this presentation and to the eventual plan. If you put a tiny bit of verbiage in a tone. This is not something that's discernible to the public. So we don't know if that is what is occurring right now or not. For that reason, I'm going to adopt and incorporate All of my objections and comments during the previous comp planning process to this hearing today. And one of those objections is that Jack Paul should not be up here. He's conflicted every which way but Sunday. Sir.

Yes. That has nothing to do.

You are incorrect. That has to do with the legitimacy of this body at this moment. This is a constitutional precept. And this should be adhered to. He doesn't belong here. He never has. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We are talking about the shoreline master plan. Are we not?

We are talking about the landscaping standards.

I do believe you brought it up, though, the shoreline master plan.

Do you have comments on our landscaping standards that could please state your name? You'll have three minutes to speak to the workshop that you just heard.

Well, I heard Shoreline Master Plan said, so I came up here to talk about Shoreline Master Plan because you were talking about it.

There's no legislative market.

So I have a question for Garrett.

No, you should address your question to the planning commission.

i just want to know from about garrett that i want to know whether or not he used his best available science when he created the map e that was used to isolate and spot zone multi-millionaire market rate and luxury apartment developer wesley larson iii's shoreline parcel from the 2021 shoreline master plan and um if you are doing updating the shoreline master plan which i heard something about that um i want What you need to do, the guidelines for a shoreline master plan is to enhance the protections and never take them away. And the protections were taken away in the 2021 through a deceptive rig by the DCD for to favor one developer in spot zoning and until that is repealed until it goes back to its pre um protected state we cannot go forward with the shoreline master plan you can't and we cannot trust you to actually do anything else for a man i'd like to say he mentioned facet

Please address your comments to the commission.

He mentioned Facet, Facet Environmental Consultant. And Facet Environmental Consultant was called Watershed Environmental Consulting Group. At the time, Garrett Jackson, under the direction of Andrea Spencer, spent two years between 2019 and 2021 coming up with the MAP-EE deception and interrupted buffer scheme to slip the elimination of Shoreline Management Act protection Elimination of Shoreline Management Act protections passed the 2021 City Council and Department of Ecology rep through how he talked. It took him less than a minute. Map E, minor change, and that was it. Shoreline Management Act protections were eliminated. And that meant our neighborhood was eliminated. the public's right protections under the Shoreline Managing Act were eliminated. And that watershed group is FACET. They're now FACET group. You paid $100,000 to watershed in order to rig the 2021 shoreline master plan program. And I want to know how much are they being paid now?

Okay, thank you very much for your comments. Do we have any other comments from the public on tonight's workshop? Hearing none, I'll close the public comment period of this workshop and open it to the commissioners.

Hi, this is Commissioner Peterson. I liked the balance that staff got with that $250,000 instead of a change of use for landscaping requirements to set in. I liked that balance that you found. I think we all want these vacant buildings we have in town to get used for stuff. Let's build housing, let's build businesses. We don't want to discourage investment in our buildings and having them be used, but we also want to have our landscaping be upgraded too. So I thought that that seemed like a commonsensical, pretty decent balance. I don't know about anybody else, but I like that. I like the idea that we might have some penalties for unpermitted tree removal in critical areas. The reports saying that maybe we need to increase some wetland buffers, that sounds pretty good. Those are quite big reports, and I'm sure we'll have a lot to talk about them in our upcoming meetings. But I was pretty happy with what I saw in those. Thank you. Okay.

Other comments from commissioners? Commissioner Powell.

Thanks. Commissioner Powell, about the 25%, the one clarification I saw is it said for the site. And the assessor's maps generally are the site means land. So it has land plus improvements. So I think what you're after is really land and improvements, not just the land. So maybe there's some rewording there. It says not site, but the development or the project or land and improvements.

OK. Other comments?

That's Commissioner Browning. I wanted to echo Peterson's comments. I just wanted to say that I appreciated the modification made to Section 2.6, the public agency exception. Moving the Type 3, the judicial, quasi-judicial approval to the Type 2 administrative decision, I think that's a good thing for developing transit in our city and other public development.

Okay, thank you. Other comments? So this is Vice Chair Tift. One of the things I noted was the comment about native vegetation and what is native vegetation. That's particularly in the, I guess, in the critical ordinance areas. But there are things that have been invasive that have become almost now native, like the Himalaya blackberry, which is technically an invasive species. But you'll find it on a lot of shoreline areas. And so removal of that, are you saying that that counts as native vegetation?

Himalayan blackberry is not native vegetation and would need to be removed. If you're in a critical area or it's buffer, if you're developing. If you're developing.

OK. Well, I happened to stop by on the way here to the Bermuda Nursery and asked if they had native vegetation in their inventory. And the answer was yes. That was a positive thing, because I observed some of it. So that was certainly something that was valuable to my own education, I guess, on what constitutes native vegetation. So I think that, as you mentioned in your presentation, for single-family homes, roses and dahlias and you know Japanese maple which you know some of those sorts of things are still permitted and would be a part of this the landscaping standards the other thing is and I guess I we didn't hear anyone from the KBA but does this increase the cost of a development and i don't know the answer to that does this ordinance increase the cost for a developer the street trees and in the various things that we've implied here and in our interest in promoting more housing in our in our city that might increase cost are of some concern to me. So could you share, Derek, if you got an answer?

I think there's opportunities for price reductions, particularly with the incentives, providing less street trees, potentially less interior landscaping in exchange for larger tree varieties. But with the revision to expand when landscaping is required, that would likely add costs to remodels. So if it's a new project, new development for housing, that's going to trigger landscape requirements as it is. So it's only in the case where there's existing development that would be remodeled where you might be, you would be adding potential costs to that project. Does that answer your question? Yes, yes.

Mr. Peterson.

hi this is commissioner peterson i had one quick question about um invasive species like ivy is is ivy allowed as one of the landscaping choices probably not i hope not i think there's a move to maybe ban the sale of really really harmful invasives like ivy and if if we're already discouraging that then you know we don't maybe don't need to say so right up in the intent of of of our section. But I just genuinely don't know the answer to that.

Yeah, Kitsap County maintains a list of noxious weeds, which we consult when we're approving landscaping plans and that they wouldn't include noxious weeds for general landscaping as particularly, I mean, neither in critical areas or general landscaping, but right. All right.

I have a question, Garrett. So when they did the report, sorry, when he mentioned the cost, you're saying that the goal was to maintain it at a low barrier entry for the developers coming in?

I think the goal is to have healthy critical areas. When we're talking about the CAO or SMP is to have healthy critical areas. If we can provide incentives in those code sections so we can meet our ends more efficiently, then that's the way to do it is through incentives. But as far as the landscaping section, once again, it's not for the developer. It's to see what we want to see, which would be the expanded urban tree canopy. And how do we accomplish the expanded urban tree canopy? The proposal is to provide some incentives so that development will want to have larger trees that grow faster. I believe, does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Yes, Commissioner Miller. I think anything we can do to expand our tree canopy is a positive, and I think the developers that come into the city already know that providing robust landscaping for their developments, providing street trees, will enhance not only their development but the neighborhood that they're in and they're developing in and would make their developments more appealing to those who might want to live, work, or purchase goods from that development. So I think the more we can do, the better. We've already taken a swipe at how much parking is required for new development and I think I mentioned at that time that I thought the trade off, a reasonable trade off for doing that and reducing the cost of overall development was to enhance the requirements for landscaping, which I think we're doing. I am curious about what, if any, requirements there are for the city to provide landscaping in city engineering projects, so mostly roads. And the examples that I would use are the channelization islands, I guess, that are at 11th and Kitsap Way or the roundabout that was just done on the west side of the bridge, Manette Bridge, where there is no landscaping within those environments. And I think that if there were landscaping, not only would it enhance the landscape, the visual aspect of the streetscape, but also probably be a safer environment for vehicles because the landscaping is gonna be a much more visible barrier than a low concrete pad. So I'm curious whether the code requires the city to do anything like that, or is there any other ordinance that requires the city to do that, and if not, why not?

So I'm happy to answer your question. This is outside of the purview of the zoning code and the Planning Commission specifically looks at the zoning code. But that being said, the Public Works Department plans for capital projects for street and road improvements and they are under the same comprehensive plan that the remainder of the city is and that includes expansion of the urban tree canopy. So when they're thinking about capital projects, that should be a consideration. The right of way is a very finite space that can only fit so much. So there's a public process for each one of those capital improvements that the public can participate in and also city council committees and then going to city council. So there's available public feedback for vegetation on those capital projects, The Public Works Department will always be struggling with that finite amount of right-of-way, but they are under the comprehensive plan which requires expansion of the urban tree canopy, all things that need to be balanced.

Okay. All right, other comments from the commissioners?

Yes, Commissioner Powell. I have a question on, we're talking about the affordability. and trying to keep it neutral or even more flexible to have creative solutions. I'm concerned about the bond going from three to five years. And maybe there's just the bond itself. Bonds for small developers are really hard to come by. It's basically like going to a bank and getting credit. and they're loaning you the money five years out now. Are there other, I know there's things like standby letters of credit and things like that. Are there other vehicles, surety vehicles, and maybe even city sponsored that could allow smaller developers afford these maintenance bonds?

I can look into that. It is a best available science item. So we'll need to coordinate with Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology on an answer to that. But I think what you're asking more than that, more than three to five years, is are there other sureties that could be provided? I can look into that.

Guarantees.

okay um then i will now close this portion of our meeting if there's no one additional comments and move um move to our business meeting so chair report nick is away this evening so he didn't leave me anything to report and so other than um Because it'll come up in our in November, our next meeting and which is typically when we decide to elect our officers for the following for the following year. So if anyone is interested in being an officer being the chair of the vice chair, let Nick know. And otherwise, we'll have that election during our next meeting. So that's the extent of my report.

anything from any of the commissioners they wanted for the good of the order okay how about the director's report i'm pleased to share the last action item the planning commission took which was related to step housing design standards as well as small scale neighborhood commercial just passed with the plan with the city council the modification they made to the planning Commission's recommendation was to limit the hours of the neighborhood commercial to 9 p.m and they actually took out drinking establishment so they scoped down the amount of uses and they limited the time that was available they thought it was appropriate to kind of start small and then as we have these things grow and learn and then we can do code changes for those later if we find out to be them to be very successful, but successfully passed the city council. And then I'll note in November, we'll also bring forward a copy of the city, the planning commission's bylaws for you to take a look at. and there will probably be some recommended changes that as a result of the city attorney's office taking a look at your bylaws and to make some changes the way your bylaws are written you consider amendments and then you wait a month and then you'd vote on it so the way our schedule goes you'll probably see proposed amendments in november You won't take any action, and you'll probably vote on those in January. And thank you to Vice Chair Tift. My other note was that you will have elections in November, and we will need a new chair because Chair Wofford has already served his two terms in a row. So please, I ask all of you to consider putting your name forward to be considered for chair. And that concludes my remarks.

OK. Do we have any old business for the commission?

This is Commissioner Browning. I don't really have any old business, but I will say I think there was maybe a misstep tonight with getting rid of section five part a i do think you have to give everyone their three minutes regardless of what they're as long as it's you know within the the confines of discourse which means no threats or anything like that i do think that has to be allowed the other thing is but

Commissioner Browning, if I could, the advice from the city attorney is the planning commission is not required to have general public comment on items not on the agenda. That's the advice from the attorney's office.

Okay. Understood.

That's incorrect.

Did you have any comments here?

Well, I just said the way that it was approached, I just thought it was interesting, but I agree with the city attorney. Thank you.

All right. Is there any new business? for the commission.

Yes. So your new business is just continuation of more of what you've seen tonight, only we'll have more proposed language. So we encourage folks to take a look at the best available documents, best available science, and the gap analysis to read those documents and become very familiar with those so that you can see where the origin source is of the proposed legislative markup that you'll see at the meeting next month. So it'll still be another public workshop. It will not be a public hearing. So there'll be ample time to comment and shape what the code looks like.

Okay. Thank you. All right, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on November 17th, 2025. And with that, we are adjourned.