Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Calling to order the November 17th, 2025 Bremerton Regular Planning Commission meeting. First on the agenda is a roll call to confirm we have a quorum.

And Chair Wofford, I can confirm we have a quorum. All commissioners are in attendance.

Okay. Thank you, Director. Next up is an election of officers for 2026. Are there any nominations for chair of the Planning Commission for 2026?

This is Vice Chair Tift and I make a nomination for Mr. Mike Miller, Commissioner Miller to serve as chair for 2026.

Thank you. Are there any other nominations?

Is there a second for that motion? Thank you. And is there any other motions for chair? So seeing that there's no other motions for chair, I will just call for all in favor for Mike Miller to serve as chair for the 2026 Planning Commission. And you can just say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2026?

This is Commissioner Doering. I nominate Commissioner Powell.

Are there any other nominations? Well, do I hear a second first?

THIS IS VICE CHAIR TIFT. I NOMINATE COMMISSIONER PETERSON, SORRY, AS AN ALTERNATIVE ALSO FOR VICE CHAIR.

DO I HEAR ANY SECOND FOR MR. POWELL AS NOMINEE? DO I HEAR A SECOND FOR MR. PETERSON?

I SECOND.

mr peterson's nomination okay are there any other nominations so we have a motion on the floor to appoint commissioner eric peterson to be vice chair of the planning commission for 2026 and is there an all in favor of this would you like me to do a roll call vote oh

All in favor say aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Congratulations to the officers for next year. Next up is approval of the agenda. Do we have any amending motions for the agenda?

This is Vice Chair Tift. I would like to make an amendment to the agenda to ensure consistency with current city council practices and to focus discussion on items appearing on tonight's agenda. I move to revise the agenda by removing item 6A, 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 I hear a second?

Commissioner Browning, I second the motion.

Discussion? Call for the vote.

We can do an all in favor if the commission wants to. So there's a motion on the floor to amend the agenda to remove item 6A. That motion was made by Vice Chair Tift and it was seconded by Commissioner Browning. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

All in favor of approving the agenda as amended? Take a verbalize. Aye. So approved.

Thank you.

Next up is approval of the October minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of October 20, 2025? Oh, come on.

OK, Vice Chair Tift, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Browning, I second the motion.

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor to approve the meeting minutes from October 20th, 2025. That motion was made by Commissioner Tift and seconded by Commissioner Browning. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

The public workshop tonight is on zoning code amendments, critical area ordinance, shoreline master program, and landscaping. Presenting is Mr. Garrett Jackson, planning manager with the City of Bremerton. Mr. Jackson.

okay commissioners we're going to try something a little different today and we're going to be presenting uh from our staff desk here there we go turn them on right button right button Alright, we are here to present on three separate items for your consideration. The critical area ordinance, shoreline master program, and landscaping code. Draft legislative markup for each is provided in your packet as a separate attachment. Orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony and provide direction on the proposed updates for a future public workshop. Got a breakdown here of the process that we have accomplished thus far and what's left to go. The Planning Commission had its first workshop on these items in September and another workshop in October where we presented legislative markup on the proposed landscape code amendments, which leads us to tonight where we have legislative markup for the landscape code critical area ordinance and SMP. At the end of the workshop, should the Planning Commission be comfortable, we would like to proceed with environmental review to the Department of Commerce and SEPA environmental review. That doesn't mean that we can't make additional changes to the code. It just gets that process going. And then we are hoping for a Planning Commission workshop in December on the 15th that would be limited to providing the Planning Commission with updates on public comment that we have received and also providing the public with an additional comment period at that workshop. all leading to a potential public hearing on these items on January 26, 2026. Where all the way up to that time, we can be taking public comment and making adjustments to the code to present to the planning commission on the CAO, SMP and landscape code. We then proceed to city council study sessions and an eventual city council public hearing dates for those yet to be determined. At both the September and October Planning Commission workshops, we covered the policy background from the state of Washington that requires these code updates. Both the Growth Management Act and RCWs requiring no net loss, best available science, and provisions for shorelines of the state of Washington. And our own comprehensive plan we also covered that has policies for maintaining and improving the city tree canopy and the protection of critical areas. Moving into that critical area ordinance update. In October, we provided the Planning Commission with a gap analysis from our consultant, Facet, who is an expert in critical areas, both the environmental portion and what's required by statute. And that included... Tribal notification updates, updates to our definitions, public agency exception, fines for potential tree removal in critical areas, an exemption for single-family homes in critical aquifers. Altering, excuse me, updating our three-year bond to a five-year bond to be consistent with best available science. wetland classification and development standards and also expanding wildlife habitat corridor evaluation to sites that are Excuse me to areas off-site for connectivity So those are items that we discussed with the critical area ordinance gap analysis at the last meeting. All of those items are up for the planning commission to discuss. But these are items that we'd like to draw your particular attention to, including the potential fines for tree removal. So these potential fines would be in addition to existing code that requires replanting of trees. So the proposed code would suggest that if you remove a tree without permits within a critical area or its buffer, then there could be a maximum fine of $9,000 per tree. That's consistent with the city of Shoreline. And trees that are less than eight inches in diameter, if you remove a tree without permits in a critical area or its buffer, then that would be $700 per tree. So we wanted to make sure that that decision got in front of the Planning Commission and the public. And then moving on to wetland and stream classification. So you'll see on the image on the right, there's a lot of strikethrough. And that's for wetland classification. We got a comment from a commissioner that it seemed like we were removing more of our code than maybe is necessary. That being said, we were recommended from our consultant that we could remove this language and instead reference the Washington State Wetland Rating System of Western Washington. As that is continuously updated, perhaps our code should just reference that document to avoid future update. So it's for the Planning Commission to decide which path is better. Should we have that language in our code, which we could update, that may be required future update later as a reference for people looking through our code. Because it might be handy if you're looking for information on wetlands to have it in one source. Or we could, as suggested here, strike through those sections and instead reference that source document so that we're always in compliance. So that would be some direction we're hoping for from the Planning Commission. And stream buffer reductions. So as we've discussed site potential tree height in the past with the planning commission and decided to institute that 200 foot buffer for fish bearing streams, we're proposing a 25% reduction possible uh if you can demonstrate no net loss we wanted to make sure that that was up front in front of the planning commission because that would be a departure from best available science we are required to follow best available science unless we may have a finding on how we are departing from it other jurisdictions may have more than a 25% reduction. Staff is recommending a 25% maximum reduction, and if you need more than that, then you would do a reasonable use exception. But that 25% reduction is what's being proposed with the code tonight. Non-conforming structures. So there's a section cited here in the code, 21.4.160, where we're noting that if you are remodeling or reconstructing a structure, you're allowed to do that and not provide additional critical area analysis as long as new construction does not further intrude into the critical area or buffer. and there is also some language for a single family home exemption for limited expansion in the same code section now this would allow for some limited expansion as it says and we've already gotten some initial feedback from the suquamish tribe on this subject that it should not be labeled as an exemption that this should undergo full critical area analysis and that there might be an opportunity to expand a single family home, but it should not be exempt from the critical area ordinance. So I wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission was aware of that. Regarding the Shoreline Master Program, Once again, FACET submitted a gap analysis that's available in the October packet where we talk about updates related to cultural resources, definitions, shoreline mapping, allowed uses, and to update the code for consistency with new zones in the downtown sub area plan. So those are all items that we've already previously provided to the Planning Commission. We now have that legislative markup available to denote those changes. We did have one commissioner note that there was a limited number of pages that was provided. And if the commission would rather see the Shoreline Master Program in its entirety rather than the select pages that we'll be revising, please let us know. That would be easy to accommodate. And once again, we wanted to draw your attention to a couple of items. With every new development, applicants are required to submit a vegetation management plan. So that shows staff where your critical area buffer is located and what vegetation is located inside of that buffer. This is standard practice that we have already in the code, but there are some items here for further consideration. So documenting existing vegetation with development. So currently, our code There's some confusion that only existing native vegetation needs to be documented. But it doesn't matter if your cedar tree is from the Pacific Northwest or Lebanon. It's still a tree that should be documented in your shoreline buffer. So we have this provision that existing vegetation should be noted in your vegetation management plan that you submit with your application. but that that wouldn't include the protection for noxious weeds as determined by Kitsap County. There's an additional provision for clarification not to remove native vegetation. So in this code section here, BSMP 7020B, the current language reads that removal of noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting garden crops, pruning and replacing planting of ornamental vegetation, or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and appearance of such areas as they existed prior to adoption of this code. There's been some confusion over whether that means that as native vegetation starts to grow and potentially obstruct someone's view that that means that you can cut that tree down to a condition that was there at the time you're permitting. It's not the intent of the Shoreline Master Program to remove native vegetation in that manner and so there's this exception, this strikethrough that's suggested here to remove or indigenous native species so that if you are a native tree that you're not being cut down to enhance someone's view. There's a proposed update to map D. So there is a discrepancy. In 2017, which is quite some time ago, the city got a letter of approval from the Department of Ecology on the shoreline updates of that time. Map E, as you'll see here in the center of the screen, shows that update where there's a shoreline designation of commercial that was transitioned to multifamily. Map D, which was intended to show the Manette area, also inadvertently shows the area of downtown that was altered, that went from commercial to multifamily. So this discrepancy should be updated so that Map D shows the area that is a commercial shoreline designation as multifamily so that we are concurrent with the shoreline approval of 2017. Landscaping code 2050. Okay, it was in October that we had the legislative markup for the landscaping code and we had some comments from the commissioners at that time. Clarification on project valuation methodology. So the wording was a little unclear on how that methodology for assessing when landscaping is triggered. And specifically about how the Kitsap County Assessor, whether that's the land or structures or both. So we updated that code section to respond to Commissioner comments. Options for bonding. There was a question from a commissioner about, should we include other types of bonding or alternatives to bonding with a project? So typically, if there's new development that triggers landscaping, in some instances, we'll allow for bonding. Rather than installing those improvements for a certificate of occupancy, you can bond for those landscape improvements. And the commissioner was wondering if there are alternatives to bonding. And there are. There's such thing as a cash deposit that you can work with a bank or deposit in lieu of funds, or a letter of credit that you can work with a bank on. In both of those instances, you need to work with the city on a contract. It goes through our legal department, and that's how our current bonding works. You submit a bonding form to the city, it's reviewed by the city attorney, and then it's released for that bond. We suggest not adding in these additional types or alternatives to bonding as our existing language allows for, quote, a bond or other acceptable assurance device. So it's not that we would not allow a cash deposit or a letter of credit potentially, but that it would be outside of our current review process with the city attorney and that could complicate things. So the city is well versed on how to accomplish bonding. These other alternatives, while we are open to them, including them in our code may over complicate the bonding process. Additionally, I've spoken with the director of the finance department and he does not recommend any options that would jeopardize the city's bond rating. So there are some larger cities that might provide like co-signing on bonds that puts kind of the city's name on the line and credit rating on the line. And the director of finance does not recommend any option that would jeopardize our bond rating. As was sent out earlier today to the Planning Commission, the Kitsap Building Association provided feedback on the landscaping thresholds. So currently, under the draft code, increased landscaping would be triggered when a project was either $250,000 or more in value or the value of the project exceeded 25% of the assessed value as determined by the Kitsap County Assessor of the property and structures on the property. So the Kitsap Building Association instead recommends removing the dollar amount entirely, and that's the $250,000, and increasing that threshold to 50% of the valuation of the property. So the Planning Commission has a discussion that's needed on, initially there was a potential triggering of landscaping with a change of use. That was the original proposal from the Planning Commission. And then the Planning Commission asked for a revised threshold, not change of use, but a dollar amount and percentage amount. And that's where we came up with that $250,000 and 25%. So the Planning Commission will have to discuss on whether you want that lower threshold at $250,000 and a 25% valuation. or the the proposal from the kids at building association which is removal of that dollar amount and a 50 property valuation So we're happy to work through those individually, but once again, the orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on the proposed updates for a future workshop, and letting staff know if we can proceed with that environmental permitting with the Department of Commerce and SEPA.

Does anyone in the public have comments on this public workshop? We ask that you state your name for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes or less. Timer system will be used so that everyone is treated equally. Please come up to the podium and wait to be recognized if you, okay. That open up public testimony, sir. And the lights are in front of you.

Hello. okay um just start over okay uh my name is jamie clef i'm the government affairs director with the kitsap building association um big thank you to to staff and uh the commission for reaching out for our comments um our comments are that we thought that the 250 000 threshold would be too restrictive um it would uh uh most projects uh exceed well from the builders that i've talked to most of the projects exceed over 250 000 and so we felt that that would be best removed as well as the threshold increased from 25 to 50 percent um we are here to answer any questions and uh thank you thank you for your time any questions

commissioner browning uh thank you jamie for your comment i um i'm just my question is i get the 50 for the psip or the landscape bonding but um i i'm kind of stuck on is it combined building and land or is it just is it both or is it um just building that's kind of where i'm at with that but that's my question this is commissioner doering it's my question as well

So staff's happy to answer that or we can wait till the end of public comment.

Sorry. Let's hear the next comment.

Excuse me. Excuse me. No, no, no. You're rude. So are you. That's what I think. I'm not here to argue though. What you guys got going on here.

Excuse me, sir.

For me listening doesn't seem correct.

Sir.

What?

Would you please state your name for the record?

Mr. Higgins.

Thank you. Can you get up to the microphone so we all can hear you?

I'll step up closer. Thank you. What you guys got going on here, the way I'm listening to things, I don't think it's right. Nothing that this council, you don't follow through. You don't pay the people. It's on another name or another check. Come on, guys. Get it together. Let's be righteous. Honestly. Honestly.

Okay, thank you.

We have one virtual attendee. I would ask them to raise their hands now if they would like to make a public statement. All right, I am not seeing them raise their hand.

All right.

i mean you come back up to the microphone please and did you hear the the two questions or the question the question was about if it was the scale of the project if it was about the entire uh property yeah i guess that was my question i believe it's the scale of the project correct so you're saying it's just the cost of the project i believe so yes well i'll defer to city style okay

So if the cost of the project proposed exceeds either $250,000 or 25% of the assessed value of the land and structures combined.

Okay, cool. Thank you.

Any other comments? So what's the general feeling here? So we can give some guidance to staff.

i do appreciate the um the 50 the valuation increase for the project i think that's a good move um i think it supports development in the city overall i think um the way it's worded now is is not as efficient i think 50 would be a good good threshold

Mr. Peterson. I personally was thinking that we shouldn't scrap the dollar threshold altogether but maybe just raising it perhaps to half a million. What if there's a quite a large project that doesn't quite trip the assessed value threshold but is well over well anyway I think there's big big projects that that could ESCAPE THIS LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT WITHOUT THAT $500,000 THRESHOLD. I THOUGHT MAYBE WE COULD KEEP THAT AND RAISE UP THE ASSESSED VALUE THRESHOLD TO 35%. THAT'S WHAT I HAD IN MY NOTES.

Yeah, this is Commissioner Miller. And the purpose behind this is when we reduced the need for parking for many of the building types that we allow to be, or that could be developed in the city. The idea behind this proposal, was to trigger the need for landscaping as was stated by change of use and there are examples around the city where a change of use has happened to a lot of the commercial properties that we have within the city where they morphed from maybe a retail use to an office use or a medical use or some other thing like that without doing any exterior landscape improvements to the already existing parking lots. And we talk about Bremerton being a Tree City USA, and we talk about the idea of climate change and tree canopy and those sorts of things. But we need to take some action so that when developers do come into the city and propose to take an empty shell of a building and remake it into something nicer and better, that the exterior parking area, is what I'm mostly concerned about, also gets its share of that development money. So we morphed from the idea of a change of use to dollars and percentages. And I think the debate could be that we raise the dollar amount a little bit. I don't think a half a million is low enough because I think that, you know, if it was 300,000 or 350,000, it would capture more projects. But really the idea behind it is to capture as much landscaping within the parking lots and on the streetscape as we can. And I think that is a benefit to everybody in the city, not just the developer, but all of the public and the people that are going to visit those locations.

you and i have a comment commissioner powell um i think uh maybe i agree with commissioner miller how we got here um but i'm wondering if we could bifurcate out a low density residential We're trying to encourage housing. We're trying to encourage middle housing. And every time there's yet another, you know, restriction and and cost, it makes it less affordable. So I would wonder if we could do the 50%. of the assessed value as it applies to low density residential and keep commercial as we had it last week, last month rather.

Other comments? This is Commissioner Doering. So essentially we're focusing more on the aesthetics of the piece, you would say, Garrett?

so for the landscaping code comment that was provided by the kba that would apply to non-critical areas so this is you know for forestetics and also for the expansion of the urban tree canopy so those are the primary reasons for the landscaping code whereas critical areas is more stringent does that answer your question copy understand

any further discussion um okay I I tend to support anything that encourages more development within Bremerton and particularly housing of course but I I'm not in favor of anything overly restrictive so I guess I'm more aligned with the proposals from the KPA at 50 percent and without a dollar threshold. And I recognize Commissioner Miller's comment. I think one of the items that we've discussed before is the old Kmart parking lot, which is a vast, it's a good place to, you know, there's no trees whatsoever there except along the Wheaton Way. And it is a vast open area, you know. the way it is now it's ripe potentially for other development in the parking lot and that's what i i think was similar to what has happened a little bit to the north in the area around florida floor and decor and and so forth that was an open parking lot at one time and it's filled in nicely so i'm not sure what what impact that would have if someone tried to develop that area that we're talking about along long wheaton way the old now it's the department of social health services but it is a it is a blank palette for sure and tell me what would this do i mean if someone tried to develop a put a you know a restaurant in that parking lot you're saying that there would need to be a landscaping around that restaurant

Yes. So I'm happy to provide a couple of points of clarification. Okay. One, landscaping already doesn't apply to single family homes. So when we're developing individuals in single family homes, it wouldn't apply. And secondly, in this instance, I think it's important to remember that what we're proposing is for remodel. So if you're remodeling those existing structures, then there's a trigger for that remodel to have new landscaping. you're talking about a new structure there that is already going to require in the current code landscaping so just a point of clarification that any new development new development is going to require landscaping what we're focusing here is on if you're remodeling existing facilities what should that percentage or dollar amount be to expand landscaping

So newer stuff is already grandfathered in into the new construction with the trees, correct?

Right. If you have an existing building and you're not remodeling it, you can maintain your current conditions as is. It's only when you go to make improvements to your structure or your property that at that time we're considering whether to trigger landscape requirements to expand the urban tree canopy.

Thank you. And that includes just internal remodeling. That would trigger it.

It's improvements to your site in general. So if you're investing that amount in your site or your building, then that's what would be triggering landscape conformance. That fits the scope of your proposal. So that's another item that we discussed at the last workshop. We wouldn't necessarily be looking for full conformance. We'd be primarily focusing on those internal trees and street trees. Other comments?

yeah sure not on that item uh commissioner miller again um just uh going back to the original i think i made the proposal of change of use as a trigger There are two really great examples. One was just mentioned. That's the old Kmart site up on Wheaton Way. The other one is the old QFC site that is now occupied by Virginia Mason Franciscan. They went ahead and landscaped that site very nicely. And it's an asset as you drive down Kitsap Way where the developers for The Wheaton Way project didn't do any landscaping at all, zero. They didn't even restripe the parking lot, I don't think. So I think that two changes of use in buildings, the idea of a change of use could trigger a lot of different code aspects, one of them being landscaping. So maybe that's still the right way to go. Maybe a change of use should be the trigger and not dollars and percentage. I don't know. But that was the original idea.

Mr. Garrett? Yeah, I just want to share that with the QFC building, that that was elective. That they chose to install that landscape. I just wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was aware.

You're right. It was elective. I was actually involved in that. And Just to tell a story, I called the city and said, you know, we want to potentially develop this. And they said, well, you wouldn't need to do any landscaping. And I was actually kind of shocked that that's what they said. And that is actually sort of the genesis of where my thoughts on this are born. That and the idea that we need to beautify our city and increase our tree canopy for all the right reasons, the reasons that we've talked about.

Eric? This is Commissioner Peterson. We might have already covered this, but if a developer is going to go past one of these thresholds and the landscaping requirements kick in, Garrett, you were talking about the required updates would be proportional to what they're doing. So if they go $1 over that dollar threshold, well how does that proportionality work if they're doing an upgrade that's you know not that big it's just barely two hundred and fifty one thousand dollars how much landscaping might that require them to do

And we'd be looking for street trees and interior trees. I mean, that's what's meeting the urban tree canopy provisions. And that's likely what we'd be focused on. The example that I gave at the previous workshop was that some buildings in the city of Bremerton take up 100% of your parcel. And so it's really going to be dependent on individual sites what you're able to landscape so that's where that flexibility comes from is in some instances there would be zero landscaping that you could put in if it's a hundred percent of your site is a building so we'd really want that flexibility to work with individual applicants but we would be focusing on street trees and internal trees

I have one more comment. Commissioner Powell, I think I'd stay away from any dollar dollar amount. You know what was 250,000 in. In 2020 is 325,000 now and so you put it in a code and it's a year for now. It's already changed.

Yeah, this is Commissioner Doering. I second that only because the affordability piece kind of goes away. And with inflation, you don't want to, like they mentioned in the letter as well, you want to make sure that incentivizes people to make Bremerton green.

OK.

Director? So what I was going to propose is that we've heard kind of general support for increasing the tree canopy. I think all of you, consensus is you want an increase. Maybe we could take a look at how we write the percentages, get good clarity about when it is applicable so that you're clear on that. And when we come back for workshop in December, explain that a little bit better. and show how those two and give you a menu of options that you can direct us to. I don't think any of this would preclude us from starting the environmental process. If we start with a very low dollar amount and you increase it, we've already studied the quote unquote worst case scenario and that it could be modified from this point forward. So we'd still be able to move forward with our process of doing environmental review and review with the state agencies that are necessary. Are you okay with that approach?

Any comments?

I'm seeing head nods.

Any shaking of heads, nodding?

I have one question, Mr. Powell. So this pertains, what we're talking about right now, to critical areas ordinance, right? No. Oh, OK.

This is the landscaping. Everywhere. Yeah.

OK.

by everywhere we mean commercial landscaping so it isn't applicable so the landscape standards don't apply to single-family residential development this applies to commercial development the the conversions of the qfcs to an emergency medical clinic the conversion of an old will old lows into a wilco and you have these giant parking lots that we want more landscaping, we want more tree cover because we want to address the heat island effect, et cetera. That's the purpose of this code.

hi this is Commissioner Peterson I guess I might want a little bit of clarity on when Garrett you're you're talking about just street trees and interior trees those requirements getting kicking in when they pass one of these thresholds I'm curious about how much that costs you know we we want this redevelopment to happen badly we want people to come in we want the builders to come in we're open for business here in Bremerton but we also want our street trees I'm I suspect that builders get scared about you know requirements kicking in holy moly how much is this going to cost and now you're you're saying that we're mostly going to focus on street trees and interior trees um i guess i'm curious about um What does that cost? Maybe that's not that costly. Maybe we don't need to raise our thresholds at all if we're just focusing on a pretty not that costly thing. So I just, I don't know how much that costs. So I'm curious.

We can work on that. No, we can look into it and provide you with the best information we have available. We are not private developers, but we can reach out.

I just want to get some kind of good balance where we get the trees we want, but we also get the development we want. I think that's what we all want. And I'm just curious. I just really have no idea what that costs.

I completely understand. And there are costs to... think about. I mean, there is the cost of the development and then there's the cost of urban heat islands and pollution, which street trees, interior trees are supposed to address also, which are maybe harder to put a dollar amount to, but just wanted to make sure those are all items in our comp plan that the Planning Commission City Council can wait.

Just as a matter of clarification, it was brought up that the old QFC Apparently the regulations existed when that was modernized, if you will. No landscaping improvements had to be made. Is that correct?

Correct. Interior remodels at this point in time don't require landscaping.

And what was the requirement at that time?

Anything? There wasn't a requirement. It was elective. So they chose to make those improvements.

without divulging anything that's confidential. Mr. Miller, do you know how much the landscaping, I mean, the improvements over, would it have triggered the 25% or the 50%?

Yeah, without a doubt, that improvement, basically 35,000 square feet of emergency room in clinics would have triggered It's millions of dollars of development that was an adaptive reuse and change of use for those buildings. And again, when we talk about money, I don't want to penalize somebody who owns a building and has a grocery store or an office or a restaurant in that building and they want to remodel it and all of a sudden now they've got to landscape their parking lot. That's not the point here. The point is when somebody comes in and they change the use of a building, this is where I think we should probably refocus, if you want. When you go in and you make a change of use application, and you go from a grocery store or a hardware store to a state office building, which they did up on Wheaton Way, then that should be the trigger for upgrading not just the building, and the mechanical systems and the fire systems if they make those code triggers, but also for landscaping. And that gets you out from under the idea of a 25% or a 50% or some number. And I don't think it's outside the Thinking of developers that when they come in and they make that change of use that they don't need to do landscaping I was shocked when I was told we didn't need to for QFC So that's that is my point that was why I started this conversation several months ago, and I maybe it's time to move back to that whole idea of change of use and

So here's what I think we could do. We could do some research about what other jurisdictions do, how they trigger these things, and show you that research. Do they do it on a percentage or a dollar amount or just a straight up change of use? And then we can do more research to figure out this notion of balance and proportionality of how much you're changing the building and how what that trigger looks like and how much landscaping you're required to do and we can get additional data together for about what the development costs are to do this kind of landscaping in the parking lot so that's kind of our work items that we can bring back to you if i'm seeing head nods so we'll work on that piece any other comments

it'd be nice not to have a concrete jungle here so thank you yes i can i can add to that seattle has something called the green factor and often in seattle you build lot line to lot line just building after building and so you i With the green factor, the landscape gets elevated up to the roofs. And so you have green roofs and trees on roofs and planting on roofs. And that helps the environment. And it's one way to address the concrete jungle when you build lot line to lot line.

OK. So we'll now... Close the yet another comment. OK, you want to turn on your microphone?

The penalty for taking down a tree. In a critical area ordinance, 8 inch 8 inches or less. You know, it seems $700 for taking down a tree that's, you know, what constitutes a tree. That could get pretty, could get out of hand pretty quickly depending on what the inspector or the evaluator determines is a tree. Is a sapling a tree or is it a, you know, something that's, it's eight inches or less. no just a minute let me finish so i i guess i'm asking what constitutes a tree and how that penalty is assessed

So really, you shouldn't be removing vegetation from your critical area buffer in general. So if you're doing that, then we would have the property owner hire a consultant to identify the impact that you've had on that critical area, and they would provide us with an inventory of trees that were removed. So a tree, I would say, is... I mean... is going to be included in any natural vegetation that is supposed to be retained in a critical area buffer so i mean a tree would be a tree and you shouldn't remove vegetation from your buffer unless you have permit permission well i would assert that there's a lot of christmas trees in some of these critical area

buffers and the neighbor goes and cuts down a Christmas tree and brings it into the house is you know it's a tree it's and it's less than eight inches likely I mean there's we could dream up different scenarios where some vegetation is removed whether it's innocently or on purpose from a critical area that could result in a penalty I'm just I know that's an extreme but I can understand a large tree, and that makes sense. But a tree of eight inches or less seems pretty severe.

I guess I just want to come back to that this is in critical area buffers. If you have trees growing in your yard and you want to cut them down, there's no impacts for that. This is when it's in a critical area buffer. So there's a difference between those two things.

But the critical area buffer is owned by the property owner, is it not? It's not owned by a third party.

Correct, but it is still, it serves a critical purpose to protect whatever the resource is. If it's a steep slopes, if it's a wetland, if it's, all manner of streams, all manner of critical areas. So there shouldn't be any vegetation removal at all from that buffer area. So there shouldn't be any vegetation. So having these fines and penalties for removal of vegetation is going to be very important. And clearly, a much smaller tree, one that's eight inches or less in caliber, still impacts when it's removed from a critical area than a very large tree. And that's why the difference between the two.

Mr. Peters. Hi. I can't remember. I don't have the critical areas ordinance, the proposal in front of us. But at breast height or four foot, I think the proposal was very clear about there was no ambiguity. There was an exact definition of inches at four foot. And an eight inch tree is, that's a, That's a pretty significant tree. Eight inches in diameter at breast height, that's going to be like a 40 foot tall tree. That's not ambiguous. You can't accidentally cut down an eight inch tree at four foot tall. But I'm really sympathetic to Mr. Tiff's thoughts that we don't want some people to accidentally violate this rule. sick even a six inch tree at breast height is is a that's a tree nobody's gonna accidentally cut a six inch tree down that's still a 25 30 foot tall tree so I I think we should have a clear definition here and but I I think we already do

Any other comments?

Did I miss that part? I thought, was it at chest height? I thought it said eight inches. Eight inches or less, as measured at four feet in height.

OK. That's a big hunk.

Yeah, I agree at that level. But or less is what I guess I'm concerned about. You could have a two inch tree for same problem. Two inch, four feet high.

I totally see what you're talking about now. I think in most arborist manuals, they do put some kind of definition. So maybe four to eight inches or something. And anything under four, does that kind of get at what you're talking about?

yeah yeah we don't we don't want people to accidentally do this so we let's let's set some lower boundary to that it's dangerous nonetheless so it's dangerous as well i think where we're at is it's critical area don't cut period and you're going to be fined we could present the planning commission with additional options for fines for trees that are

smaller look at other jurisdictions right now we have significant and non-significant we could add an additional tree diameter for something that's very much that's much smaller see what other jurisdictions do there and provide another option for you to consider

Commissioner Miller and I agree with that I think more of a spread would be a good idea I was a little shocked by the 9000 I didn't know if that was a typo or not but that's that one seems a little bit high to me I have a couple of other things that I'd like to discuss one is what about severe topping or pruning to trees that would normally kill them in order for someone to improve their view, their upland view. I don't see that really in here anywhere. So what this is saying is tree removal, but not tree modification. And I believe these penalties are only applied when the trees are removed without a permit. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So if you remove the tree and you've done it without getting a proper approval by the city, then you're liable for the penalties. So making sure that the public knows that they need to get a permit to cut down their tree or their Christmas tree is something that we would need to work on as well.

We can add that information to this tiered approach of removal and topping. We'll just add that as another tier probably.

I think it's important because when you do a severe prune on a tree or top trees, it tends to kill them anyway. And now we've lost the ability for that tree to hold the bank up.

Any other comments?

Okay, we're going to wait one more comment. Does the homeowner... know if they have a critical area adjacent to their property? I mean, how is that defined? Because critical areas tend to grow and expand. And if a homeowner is trying to just keep their lawn from being overrun by whatever the natural vegetation is in the critical area, where's that line of demarcation? Is that generally... The homeowner is knowledgeable of that, would you say?

That would be the homeowner's responsibility. But that being said, I believe at the initial workshop we pointed out that the public can go to the Kitsap County parcel search and research individual critical areas for their lots. So I believe that was part of the initial workshop. Okay, thanks.

And I think if I could add to that, I think at the conclusion when we work toward adoption of these regulations and once they're passed, we can probably create something on our website. So you want to remove a tree. Here's some resources to consider. First, put a link up to the critical areas layer at the Kitsap County parcel search. Get the details of what the fines and penalties are for tree removal or topping. Just get some communication out there so we can make a website for that very easily.

excellent idea andrea thank you i don't think anybody heard you try again excellent idea thank you that would make it easy anything else guys yeah one last comment um on this on that same issue uh

know going to the website is great i you know i've often thought that everybody gets an electrical utility bill from the city and i've always wondered why the city can't put tips and tricks as an something that goes along with the electrical bill so that every homeowner knows or has the ability to read that and knows what they can and can't do just a thought thank you

okay public portion of the meeting is now closed and we're going to the business meeting first item is the chair report and the only thing i have tonight is to thank mr tiff who is now moving on to the city council for his years of service on the planning commission And on that vein, we're gonna need a replacement. So anybody out in the audience that would like, or you know somebody that would like to be on the planning commission, there's a form you can use on the city website that you can apply. Any other commissioner reports?

I'm sorry. I had one more comment on one of the agenda items. I think I might be against the 25% buffer reduction if it's against best available science. I think I might argue against that, but that's another thing that we might talk about in a future meeting. And I was also curious what the tribe's feedback on that particular item might have been. The way that the board packet talked about that, it almost seemed as if the board approved of allowing those 25% reductions. And I would have been surprised if that was the case. So I had a question on that point.

So a jurisdiction is allowed to depart from best available science when it's documented. There are other jurisdictions that have gone further than that 25% reduction, even in Kitsap County. So our efforts to cap at 25% are both to, one, be similar to other jurisdictions in Kitsap County, and two, less leniency with critical area buffers than some jurisdictions. We have spoken initially to tribal entities about this issue. And I think that we should wait for their written feedback. But at the same time, I believe that they were happy to see that we were not taking this farther than some jurisdictions.

OK, then. Madam Director.

I'm noting that we will have a December meeting where we don't normally have a December meeting, but we wanted to ensure that there's plenty of opportunities for people to come and give testimony about the Shoreline Master Program and the CAO updates and the landscaping. So mostly that meeting will be held just to make sure that there's additional opportunities for public comment. So you haven't seen the end of us yet for this year, Chair Wofford. And I'll note that congratulations to Sharon. She had a beautiful baby boy at the end of October. So he's gorgeous. And we have with us tonight, who I don't know that you've actually met, Janelle Seifert. She's has been here in attendance. She's one of our staff planners and works on permits. And she's agreed to be the maven of our Zoom. So we're happy to have Janelle here for that and appreciate her help because Sharon will be out for a while with the brand new baby. So, and I just wanted to say my congratulations to Commissioner Tift where he gets promoted from Commissioner Tift to Council Member Tift. So it'll be nice to have him in that new role. So congratulations to you. That concludes my remarks.

Any old business? Any new business?

And the new business is your amendments to your bylaws. And there are proposed amendments. And pursuant to the bylaws, you have to consider changes to the bylaws in one month. And then you can't make changes to the bylaws till the following month. So in December, if these changes that have been proposed to you are agreeable to you, then we'll make those. in your new business and actually pass those amendments and it's just basically to remove the public comments on anything that isn't on the agenda because the planning commission can't do a lot about that and the recommendation from the city attorney is that you don't just have general public recognition and you see in the bylaw amendments too that we're making it clear that we're still taking public comments on any workshop item any public hearing so those are the amendments that are before you and we expect that there'll be a vote on that in december

Okay, then. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on December 15, 2025. Thank you. Meeting's adjourned.