Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair may ask for a break. Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous, respectful, and professional environment. Alright. The first item on the agenda is introductions. And I do believe we have a commissioner online. Commissioner Fenner, I know that there's no video showing here in the room, but I believe there's audio.

Yes. I'm here. I don't have permission to turn my video on, it seems, technically.

We we're having technical issues with the video function, but we can hear you audibly. Mhmm.

I mean, Zoom doesn't allow me to turn the video on to show my face. Okay.

I think that's gonna be okay. Would you mind just doing a brief introduction?

There I am. Kane Fetter from Central Kitsap.

Thank you, Kane.

Ryan Wixon, Central Kitsap.

Kathy Meisenberg, North Kitsap.

Ashley Hall, South Kitsap. Tammy Bowen, North Kitsap.

Caleb Nelson, South Kitsap.

Danielle Douthat, South Kitsap.

David Lee, North Kitsap.

Thank you, commissioners. The next item on our agenda is our meeting protocol. Please silence all electronic devices during the meeting. If you're attending in person, please refrain from having conversations with other attendees or staff during the meeting. If you wish to provide comments, please wait until the general public comment period. We offer four methods for public comment. In person attendees, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, and you'll be called upon. Please approach the podium and speak clearly into the microphone. Virtual attendees, use the raise hand button at the bottom of the Zoom window at the appropriate time. Your name will be called, and your microphone will be unmuted.

Call in attendees, press 9 on your phone keypad to signal that you wish to comment. Last four digits of your phone number will be announced, and you will be connected. You may need to press 6 to unmute your line. Written comments, testimony, may be submitted to staff or emailed to cjewel@kidsapp.gov by 2PM on the day prior to the meeting. Please include the meeting date, your name, and the agenda item or subject you are addressing.

Submitted comments will be entered into the record at the appropriate time. For all speakers today, please state your name and the general area in which you live. Comments are normally limited to two minutes for the general public comment and three minutes for public hearing comments. This the time limits may be adjusted by the chair when appropriate. Alright. And we are now moving into adopting the agenda for this evening. Do I hear a motion to adopt the agenda?

I move to adopt the agenda for the April 21 meeting.

I second.

Alright. There any corrections or additions to the agenda? Alright. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the agenda as presented, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. I heard commissioner Fenner as an aye. Thank you. All in favor? And the motion will carry. Motion passes. And next, we're moving on to the adoption of the minutes.

And do I hear

a motion to adopt the meeting minutes from the 04/07/2026 meeting?

I'll move to approve the adoption of the minutes from fourseventwenty six.

Do I hear a second?

I second.

All right. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes from our previous meeting? Alrighty. Hearing none, all those in favor of adopting the meeting minutes from our previous meeting, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Alright. It looks all are in favor, and the motion will carry. It passes. And next up, it's gonna bring us to our first general public comment period. Do we have anyone in the room that is wishing to speak?

Alright. Seeing none, I'm going to look online. Do I have anyone online that wishes to speak during our first general public comment period? Okay. I see none. Alright. I'd like to open to the room one last time. No? Alright. Seeing there's no more speakers, I will be closing the first general public comment period. Next up, we do have a briefing on the comprehensive plan remand by Garrett Ballou, our long range planner. Garrett, please.

Alright. Thank you,

commissioners. I know you can't see it, but I'm gonna go ahead and share for those online. Okay. So good evening. Garrett Ballou, long range planner with DCD.

This this evening, we've got a briefing on the state of the complete comprehensive plan remand process, where we are right now, kind of an overview of the entire process from the start to this point, and, the proposed adjustments that we have, made and that we're going forward with as we move towards the public hearing with the board that is scheduled for, next month on the eleventh. So we're now on that first slide, the timeline that you have before you. And this slide just goes over, a brief, recap of where we are in the process. And so, initially, the comprehensive plan was adopt adopted, the 2024 plan in December 2024. It was then appealed in January and February 2024 or, excuse me, 2025 and in oh, sorry.

Oops.

Apologies. Making sure the slides are okay online. There we go. Okay. Yeah.

So 08/08/2025, the growth management hearings board issued its decision in order regarding the comprehensive plan update. And in that order, they remanded our plan. So, essentially, they identified several areas and and several issues with the comprehensive plan as it was adopted back in 2024. And so DCD had to go and and evaluate their concerns and their issues and make adjustments accordingly to address those. Also involved in this is the Puget Sound Regional Council, which is the organization responsible for certifying our comprehensive plans.

And so, kind of alongside this remand from the growth management hearings board, we're also addressing concerns that were brought up and raised by the, PSRC, regarding the comprehensive plan. So, initially, the the deadline for compliance with the growth management hearings board was in February, but they granted us an extension until 06/30/2026, so coming up here in a couple of months. And that is where it stands today. That is our compliance deadline. So it gave us some additional months to, take a look at, the the items that we needed to take a to to address within the comprehensive plan, and that's what this presentation is is going over here.

So, this next slide on slide three, it goes into the specifics of what the growth management hearings board was remanding our plan on. So specifically, the land capacity analysis, which is essentially a series of, calculations that all play together for an estimation or an assumption of how much land we have within the county for development and for housing and and employment and these types of uses. And that's what guides our our assumptions for the county moving forward in the future. So when we're thinking about things like how how much housing we can provide or how much housing the land that we actually have can support, those are the the the numbers that we're looking at. So, again, these are all assumptions.

There's nothing in this that's saying that a certain parcel has to be built to a certain density or anything like that. These are assumptions that are being made based on what we see on the ground, in a variety of these other calculations and factors that go into it, as a part of our regular comprehensive plan updates. So the one of the primary issues identified by the hearings board was that our land capacity analysis failed to identify sufficient land capacity for housing of all income groups, specifically those within zero to 80% of the area median income. So that was, a primary concern was addressing that. I I, excuse me.

Additionally, they also, revealed that our land use element did not identify multimodal emergency and evacuation routes. So that's something that we addressed, through some additional language. And in the land use element, they were also looking for additional tools to reduce wildfire risks and to protect the public in regards to, emergencies like wildfire. And so first off, taking a look at that initial point that, land capacity for housing and and our plan not showing that we had sufficient land capacity. To to understand where we were coming at with this, before the the remand, when it came to identifying sufficient land capacity for housing in our previous comprehensive plans, these are prior to 2024.

It was always, that we were trying to show and and we were showing that we were making progress towards the goals and and the the target set for the county for, housing and making sure that we were accommodating for these income groups and having the housing there. So we're we're provided with a target that that we we strive to achieve. And so in the past, the the comprehensive plan and the land capacity analysis didn't always show that that target was being met right on the nose or that it was being exceeded, but that we were making progress towards it and still allow or, excuse me, still showing that we do have capacity for these areas, but not necessarily meeting that goal right right on the dot or exceeding it. And as long as we had some, measures and policies in place to work toward those goals, that was always sufficient in previous comprehensive plan updates. But that wasn't the case this go around.

And so we are taking another look and identifying some areas that really should have been addressed previously when we're talking about land capacity analysis. So that's just a little bit of a background, for why we're looking at this for the the the remand order here. And so first, we took a look at that land capacity analysis, and we we analyzed it looking at things that maybe we could we could adjust or that maybe should have been adjusted in the past, and and there was, maybe some oversight. We didn't adjust those for the the '24 plan. And something that jumped out at us right away was that our assumption for parcels that have already been developed.

So these are parcels that may be, ripe for redevelopment, but they do already have some level of development on them. Our assumption for those was that when redevelopment did happen, 20% of the parcel area would be utilized for roads and rights of way. And now when a parcel's already been developed, it's already got access. It already has a may perhaps a a right a road a right of way, excuse me, fronting the property. And 25% or one fifth of that parcel being used for roads and rights of way really didn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when the area's already been developed.

It's surrounded by adjacent infrastructure. And so that jumped out to us right away as being something that we could adjust in the land capacity analysis. And, you'll see throughout the the slides here that this really made a a huge impact for us. So we reduced that future roads and right of way assumption for these underutilized and redevelopable properties, from 20% down to 5%, which is much more indicative of what actually occurs during the development of these properties excuse me, the redevelopment of them. And so, again, these are areas that are already served by existing road networks.

And this this change alone revealed the capacity for 354 single family units and 1,052 multifamily units, which exceeds our capacity targets for each of those income groups, including those identified by the hearings board, as being deficient in the the comprehensive plan, from 2024. And so this next slide, it'll be on page the second page for for you all up there, with the tables. And I apologize. Those are very small on the printout. But, essentially, the table off to the left is, the the housing element table as it currently stands, and there are some numbers, off to the far right column that indicate that we have a deficit for these certain income bands for the housing.

And after we apply that reduction in the land capacity analysis from the 20% down to the 5%, those numbers go from red to black, essentially showing that we have the capacity and then some when we, take away that assumption or not take away, but reduce that assumption down. And so the table off to the, off to the right there is what we we are proposing to replace the numbers in the initial table in our remand. Another one of the items that was identified by the growth management hearings board was were the multimodal emergency and evacuation routes. Specifically, that they weren't identified in the plan, we didn't we didn't discuss tools to reduce wildfire risks and protect the public from those emergencies. And so in our amended comprehensive plan in the land use element, there are a series of additional goals, policies, and strategies that are proposed to specifically address these concerns from the growth management hearings board and discuss how the county will view this issue going forward and plan for it.

And so you'll see with that draft in the additional language that's in those, excuse me, the land use element. It it describes a series of goals, policies, and strategies specifically, regarding that issue. So those were the issues identified by the growth management hearings board. There were also a series of issues that the, Puget Sound Regional Council identified, that we essentially, it was a conditional certification report, we needed to address these items in order to get the certification from that organization. And so first and foremost, the hearings board issues needed to be resolved.

But in addition, PSRC pointed out that our land capacity analysis did not demonstrate adequate employment capacity for all of our UGA's. And so this is where a bulk of the the rest of the presentation goes over this employment capacity piece and how we, have addressed that. In addition, they were concerned that the transportation element did not include a policy for air quality standards and emission reduction. While the comprehensive plan does have a separate component, a separate chapter for climate change, with a lot of similar language, they were concerned that that language was not in the transportation element, and there were a few additional changes that that, to that that they wanted to see in there. So those have been proposed as well.

So jumping into that initial capacity for employment issue that the PSRC raised. So the issue is essentially that our comprehensive plan similar to what we were looking at with the land use, it showed numbers that were in the red on some of these tables for employment. And in the past, similarly, it was always the county was making strides to achieve the goal and was was was showing progress towards that and employing, their goals, policies, and strategies to achieve that. But now, the the hearings board or excuse me. PSRC wants to see that we are actually meeting or achieving or, excuse me, meeting or exceeding those goals.

And so, that initial change to the roads and rights of way really drove a lot of the, adjustment to employment capacity as well as the housing piece. And so that same adjustment from 20% down to 5% reveals a surplus employment capacity in the Silverdale, Central Kitsap, and Bremerton UGA's. And so with that one change alone, which which it makes sense if if our assumption is changing to allow essentially, well, not allow because these are all assumptions. But if the assumption is adjusted to where now we are assuming there will be additional area on these parcels for the structures themselves, that's also gonna drive employment, especially in these areas of the UGA that have commercial buildings and other uses where you're you're gonna see folks working and that's gonna drive the, employment there in those those areas of our UGA's. So you may have noticed on that slide, we we didn't discuss Kingston, Port Orchard, and Paulsboe.

And those UGA's, we took a closer look at. And each of our UGA's are a little bit different, so there wasn't necessarily a a one size fits all approach to identifying, some potential gaps with these. So so the next several slides go into Kingston, Port Orchard, and Paulsboe in particular and discuss, the the additional adjustments to the land capacity analysis that were made for these. Alright. So starting with Kingston, similar to what we had discussed with the roads and rights of ways for those redevelopable properties, we proposed a reduction of future roads and rights of ways for vacant properties specifically within these zones, the urban village center, commercial zone, neighborhood commercial, and in the industrial zone.

And this reduction isn't quite as steep. It's from 20% down to 10% as opposed to 20 to 5%. And the reason why this is proposed for this zone in particular is because or these zones in particular is because these areas of Kingston are are fairly dense, and there's a lot of adjacent, adjacent development surrounding the vacant parcels that we do see there on the ground. And so, an assumption of 20% of each parcel being utilized for road and right of way infrastructure still isn't quite, accurate when we're taking a look at these parcels that are surrounded by existing development, and likely already have some sort of access or they can get access without needing to develop 20% of the parcel for that. That being said, still not quite a reduction down to 5% because 10% is still necessary.

You have additional things that may need to to come into play during the construction process when you don't already have, an existing structure on the property. Along those same lines, we're proposing a reduction of the public facilities for redevelopable parcels from 20% down to 5%. So this isn't for vacant. These, again, are those redevelopable properties that already have something there. But along the same lines, though, the infrastructure is already there around these parcels.

They're already being served by excuse me. They're already being served by utilities in many cases, and assuming that 20% of that parcel is gonna be utilized for that, just isn't considerate of what's actually on the ground. So reduction there from 20% to 5%. And then the same, for vacant parcels for the same reasons, but from 20% to 10% there. And so those are some of the changes proposed specifically to these zones.

Again, these are all only within the UGA's, county the urban growth areas. And so the next slide gets into a concept, that is utilized within the land capacity analysis, which is called floor area ratio. And, essentially, it's it's a ratio of the total square footage of a building to the size of the actual parcel, the piece of land that it sits on. So in the slide, I've got an example, with a building that's on a parcel. And in the example, it's a one to one ratio, so it's a floor area ratio of one.

And there are a couple of different examples in which that could be met. So in the first, you see off to the left, there's a single story structure that completely covers the entire footprint of the parcel. Obviously, that's not something we would really see in practice, but that's an example of how it could meet that floor area ratio of one to one. I also, it could be the footprint of the structure could cover half of the parcel, and then it could be a two story building. Again, as long as the total square footage equals, the the footprint of the parcel, that would also achieve that.

And then in the other example, the footprint just covers 25% of the lot, but it's a four story structure. And so that's that's a a good way to visualize what we're talking about with floor area ratio. And so the floor area ratio for the urban village center zone in Kingston in the comprehensive plan was point three two. So that would mean if you had a 10,000 square foot lot, and the floor area ratio is point three two, for a building to, achieve a a floor area ratio of point three two, it would be a 3,200 square foot building because you would take that point three two times the 10,000 square feet for the lot, and that would be that 3,200 square feet for the building. And so we're proposing to adjust our assumption there from point three two, which is really pretty low for an area like this in in more of a downtown area where you're expecting higher density.

And we're proposing bumping that to point six zero, which is consistent with some of our other comparable zones throughout the county. And the reasoning for that is that Kingston has now been identified as a countywide growth center. And in the coming years and coming decades, it's expected to support higher density development. Something to keep in mind throughout all of this discussion is that these are all assumptions for the land capacity analysis. None of this changes development code requirements or anything.

So it's if somebody were to come in on a vacant parcel in Kingston and propose building something or a a business of some kind, there's no requirement here for them to meet anything. It's just an assumption that in the future, this area would densify because due in part to that countywide growth center designation there. So now we've got taking a look at the proposed adjustments to the urban commercial center zone. Again, a different zone, but still in Kingston. And we're proposing the same adjustment to the floor area ratio.

It was at point three two, proposing bumping that up to point six zero. And also reducing our employment density assumption from 500 to 400 square feet per employee. And that's that employment density assumption is something that, oftentimes runs with that floor area ratio essentially saying there will be more, density in this area, more employees. So, well, it would be fewer square feet per employee than if you're looking at it, in that way. And so, the assumption was 500 square feet per employee, and this proposal is dropping that to 400 square feet per employee as densification continues into the future here.

And, again, that's all coming back to that countywide growth center designation. And so when you take all of those, adjustments to Kingston and compound those, it reveals a surplus employment capacity of 82. So, essentially, that's saying this

was

the goal we were were given the target. And now that we've made these adjustments, we're we have capacity for 82 additional jobs beyond the actual target amount, so a surplus there. So the next slide, which is slide 12 for you guys on the sheet, is the Port Orchard proposed adjustments. And so this is just one slide here, and it's a reduction to the, employment density assumption from 500 down to 400 square feet per employee. And this this range, you might be wondering where do where do we get these ranges from in these numbers?

And it all comes from what's called the buildable lands report, which was last done in in 2021. And that's essentially it's a snapshot in time taking a look at what we have on the ground, but it also provides us a a great baseline to extrapolate off of for future development and and trends that we could see. And so within that buildable lands report, it advises that a value excuse me. At the lower end of of the range that's provided for for these, for these adjustments, which is 300 to 600 in this case, be selected if growth is primarily expected to include similar uses as those like restaurants, medical office space, and small retail use. But then it it it also advises if you're expecting a lot of big box stores, think about, like, Walmarts, Costco, those kinds of things.

That's when you'd be looking at a higher range on there, which which is essentially referring to, you know, if you have a a big warehouse store, you know, you might have a lot of employees, but the square foot square footage per employee there is gonna be much more than than something like a smaller restaurant or something like that or a medical office building. And so that's that's where that comes into play. And so taking a look at this area in the UGA and Port Orchard, a lot of these parcels are smaller, and they have these existing uses, the restaurants, medical, office space, those types of things already. We continue that to we excuse me. We expect that trend to continue here in the future.

And, also, we we don't have a ton of those really large parcels that would support additional, like, larger retail operations. And so for those reasons, we're proposing that adjustment or reduction down to 400 square feet per employee, and that change reveals additional surplus employment capacity of 95. And, the final couple of slides here, the final slide is, regarding Paulsbo in particular. And so Paulsbo was a little bit, unique because there was just one zone that we were taking a look at, and it's the light industrial zone. In the light industrial zone, it runs along Highway 3 there in Paulsbo, and there are 12 parcels within this zone.

A lot of them have have businesses already on them. Actually, all but one have been developed. You've got, like a wireless facility. It's just like a CenturyLink building. There's some, like heavy equipment retail, some some other types of, retail there. There's like, those agricultural tunnels. There's a there's a place that sells those. So those are the types of uses we're looking at here. In recent years, the last ten years or so, a lot of these have developed. In particular, there's a storage facility that that's just been, built there a couple years ago.

And so these are parcels that are generally developing or continuing to develop. And, again, there's just one parcel in that zone that has not developed at this time. And so the proposals that we have for land capacity analysis in this particular zone is a reduction of public facilities from 20% to 5%. And again, that goes back to these these parcels, all the surrounding parcels are developed at this time, and they have access. This parcel that is yet to develop that we are assuming will develop in the future, it it has access as well.

So 20% of that parcel for, public facilities is not accurate when you look at what would actually occur, if the parcel were to develop. And then we also have a reduction of unavailable lands from 20% to 5%. And this this is another factor that that that goes into our calculations for the land capacity analysis. And, essentially, what this is, it's it's, a factor that goes in saying, you know, some of these properties just aren't gonna develop for one reason or then another. There could be critical area concerns.

The the property owner could just not want to develop for whatever reason. And so that's something that factors into this this entire web of calculations that we have, when we're taking a look at these assumptions. We've also proposing an increase in that floor area ratio from 0.2 to 0.25, which would impact, or wouldn't impact, but it's an assumption for that last parcel that hasn't yet to develop and an increase in employment density assumption from 969 to 900 square feet, per employee. And so with those adjustments together, it would reveal an additional, one job or capacity for one job beyond the, the target. And so then the next slide, similar to what we saw earlier, it's the slide from the the '24 comprehensive plan compared to the table that would be in the revised amended comprehensive plan, showing the differences and that when we we take a look at those adjustments, we are achieving a surplus capacity for employment in all of those categories for those UGA's.

So that's the employment capacity and the land capacity portion of this. Additionally, PSRC had identified, issues with the transportation element and that we did not include a policy to ensure air quality standards are met. And again, there were there was language within our climate change chapter. We're proposing adding that language into our transportation chapter and also goals, policies, and strategies, to protect public health and the environment through reduction of air pollutants and emissions caused by, vehicular, transportation modes. And so, those are essentially the adjustments that we're making.

I know that it's a very it's very technical, a lot of what we're doing here with the remand. But we're we're addressing the concerns of the growth management hearings board and PSRC running those projects alongside each other. And, again, that is coming up on its deadline with, the growth management hearings board on June 30. And so this is all going to go forward to a hearing a public hearing on the May 11. And these, the all of these documents, the ordinance with the adjustments to those chapters will all be posted, here for for public review on on Monday, the twenty seventh.

So, you know, that was that was a lot of information. I know, Ryan, you were at the Central Kitsap meeting, so you've you've seen it a couple of times now. But is there any questions on any of this? I know that it's a it's a lot for sure.

Yeah. Do any of our commissioners have questions? Kathy, please.

Thank you for your presentation. It was great. I just have a couple questions for you. Were the elements to the comprehensive plan, the utilities, and the transportation aside from the growth management hearings board making a recommendation about the air quality, were those three elements approved? I understand that the comprehensive plan, you know, is pushed back and you're you're going through all of this, but were those elements approved?

So everything that everything in 2024 was approved and adopted in our in our comprehensive plan. So the the comprehensive plan in '24 is is adopted currently. It's just that there was then an appeal period that those appeals went to the growth management hearings board. The growth management hearings board then identified that there were some issues that would need to be addressed. So is that what is

that your question? That's the question that I have. But that just leads me into the next question, which is do you have to do any type of amendments to those elements with these calculation changes from the

Yes.

Analysis?

Yeah. So the land use element, the transportation element, and the housing element will all be amended as part of this. And so a lot of the work is is changing the numbers within certain tables within those. So they're just gonna be adjustments to those numbers and those tables were in the presentation. But also the goals, policies, and strategies will be really, there's additions to those.

Nothing is being removed or or really edited or anything. There's just additional language, additional goals, policies and strategies specifically to address the wildfire evacuation routes, the greenhouse gas emissions and some other a couple of other smaller pieces as well regarding housing and employment relating to this. So yes, there will be some amendments as a part of this update.

Okay. And then can you explain how you came up with the calculation of dropping 20% down to the 5%?

Yeah. And so essentially, when we first looked at this, we took a look at all the calculations that play into the the numbers that go into the tables and the plans. And we were we were saying, okay, what is there that we can just take a look at and see is this really indicative of of what our assumption should be? And that one jumped out right away as something that's been in there for previous comprehensive plan updates and maybe made sense fifteen, twenty, twenty five years ago. But now that we've had more and more development and we're expecting additional growth in our urban growth areas, having 20% of a parcel being assumed to be additional roads just doesn't make sense when there's already development on that parcel in all of our UGA's.

And so that was an easy one for us to take a look at and say, doesn't make sense. This would be much more it would be better suited to be a lower number and 5% is more indicative of what we actually see. So so there was a a process of analyzing this and and seeing what what can we do, and that's one that just jumped out at the beginning.

So it's an internal decision from twenty to five?

Yes.

Okay. And then the last question I have is, are any of these changes that are being adjusted that you presented today related to the future wise litigation?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I have Commissioner Fender online. Commissioner Fender, please.

Yes. Is my connection okay?

Yes. It is.

Okay. Question about quantifying the land used for certain income brackets. You have to determine what lands, what sites are appropriate for one or another income bracket. How do you determine a site is appropriate for 80% AMI, 100% AMI if is it just based on zoning?

So zoning would factor into it. It would, I think, really come back to to density and allowing for for higher density development. It wasn't necessarily a part of this to that we looked at specific areas and actual projects that are underway or anything like that. We we took a look at, you know, when we when we change these adjustments and numbers, how do they impact certain types of of development within our UGA? So I know that's not quite answering your question, but I think it comes down to density in a lot of cases and and how much density is obviously in, a rural residential area, which would be outside of the UGA and outside of the scope of the project.

But you wouldn't be expecting to see, you know, larger apartment complexes or or necessarily lots of duplexes, townhomes, those types of developments. So

yes. Yes. I think what it boils down to is just a general increase in capacity across the board.

Well, I would say that if I could follow-up a site in a close end desirable location would rent for higher than a location in a tertiary spot far further from services and such that would be less desirable, all things equal, assuming it's the same level of finish and car parking access and all all things equal. Right? And so I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding how you determine the amount of land in the county that's useful for development appropriate for or that's going to lease for or sell for 80% of area median income or 60% of AMI. Pick a figure. You say it's complicated, but is there is there a formula to it?

How how do you explain it? Hey,

Kane. This is this is Rafe, director of community development. Yes. So for we'll use Urban High for example. The the state will say that in Urban High, typical development is multifamily.

And typical people who live or rent in multifamily are in the zero to 80% AMI. We that that only drives the numbers for how we calculate who potentially would live there. In Washington State, however, we permit to code. So you you are completely right. While while we say that Urban High typically has multifamily, that doesn't prevent a developer from coming in and putting up townhomes with gold plated toilets, and now it's completely unaffordable to the 080% AMI.

But the way we we develop our comp plan goes off of state requirements for what is the most common use of those different zones and what AMI is attached to those. So so I hope I've explained it, but you you are absolutely correct that when the permit comes in, we don't force zero to 80% AMI. That's just based on this what the state says is typical in those areas when we develop our comp plan.

Okay. So you're not creating the metrics. You're given the metrics for how to quantify how much of the land based on the density would reasonably be developed for a certain AMI that's that's given to you?

That's correct. So we will we know that urban high is is we attribute a certain percentage of urban high to a zero to 80% AMI, for example, because a certain percentage of that is typically multifamily. So when we go that we need say we need additional capacity for the zero to 80% AMI, one of the options we could do is rezone from, say, urban medium to urban high. The other we have other options at our disposal, but that is one of them. And and that is all metrics provided by the growth management board.

Okay. So the assertion then was we have insufficient land for certain certain AMIs. Did we adjust zoning to accommodate, or did we decide that, no, in fact, we had the calculations correct the first time?

We did not have to adjust zones because when we when we looked at, say, as Garrett explained, when we looked at those those areas that are redevelopable and we were blocking off 20% of that land and then reduced that to five, now say a 300 unit multifamily could develop on that extra 15% and now create, say, a 350 unit multifamily place so that that bumped us up by 50 housing units, if that makes sense.

Okay. So by changing the density, that naturally changed what allocation is available to that AMI group then? You nailed it. Thank you.

Do I have any other commissioners that have a question, please?

One part that I saw that you had sent to us is the draft text revisions, and it was part of your slides. But I'm curious about the wildfire and specifically that first page in there, the land use goal 10. I understand that these are assumptions and these are things to keep up with obviously, PSRCs qualification. But is there a thought then in introducing, like, the Wildland urban interface code into building code, accepting it into Kitsap County code? Or what's what's the what's that thought?

Yes. So as part of this we have been in the that wildfire section as well. It's looking at adopting some or all of that wildland urban interface code once that's available. At this time, it's not out quite yet. But part of the order from growth management hearings board was that we needed to include that discussion their comprehensive plan and those goals, policies and strategies.

Okay. Is there okay. I guess with the rest of this then essentially some of this remand stuff could also turn into building code change. Same with employment capacity or housing capacity or or no.

I don't see that.

Not not no. I don't I don't see that. I I this yeah. This one is just strictly comprehensive plan, update language, goals, policy, strategies, and also updating those tables with the land capacity analysis. No no part of this is is code. It's just comp plan.

I guess effectively trying to still meet that, correct? Or is it And just a

there no zoning changes, so that wouldn't drive any changes to building code. No zone changes.

I guess as far as like density or building height allowances or some of these things that can get to this to achieve where this analysis is going, is there a thought that that to keep up with that? Or how do you check that going forward?

Those are already in place.

You've got

During the '24 comp plan, we raised density limits and heights. So those we didn't have to make any other adjustments to those in order to achieve our capacity goals.

Got you. Okay. Thank you.

Do you have any other commissioners with comments or questions? Please.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned about the reduction of the road but it from 20 to 5% and that it'll give us enough resources to make the improvements with sidewalks and waste you know, storm water drainage. Is that a I'm wondering if we're manipulating the numbers to meet the requirements to get the SRC. You know, are we making realistic changes? Are we going to have adequate resources?

Yeah. So that all of these adjustments, including the 20% to 5%, none of these are are codes or development regulations. So they're all assumptions in that, let's say there's a complicated redevelopment project where they're completely, they've got one one structure that's older and it's sitting there, then they come in. They want to do it at a larger apartment building. It requires frontage improvements, sidewalks, the whole nine yards.

And that that there's a potential that could be more than 5%. And that's that's totally fine that that this doesn't impact that at all. It's more of, an assumption and an average. So the assumption is that in in a lot of these parcels that already have, structures on them and that are that are redeveloping, if they already have access and they don't require a, you know, a huge overhaul there, even if they do have additional redevelopment to the roads and and the rights of way that that serve them, it still wouldn't likely be 20% of the entire parcel. And and 5% is is the number that we landed on based on what what we see on the ground.

And also, just the fact that that 20% really was not indicative of I mean, maybe for some vacant parcels, it would make more sense. But when you've got a parcel that's already been developed, didn't make sense for us there.

Yes. And I would just add that since roads are already on that parcel, we wouldn't need to develop new roads for that parcel to redevelop. And that's why the reduction from 20% to 5%.

Any other questions or comments? I I have a question also around the 5% reduction. Curious. In my in my experience working in a little bit more, like, urban areas, doing development in urban areas, talking to planners in those areas. I've never seen I've never seen that percentage be less than 15%.

And curious even on redevelopable lands, you know, do is there a possibility that you'll turn this in at 5% and they'll reject it on the remand? Do is there a chance that they would reject it on that? Just because that's almost it it's I even looked across our entire state. The next closest is 12%, and that's in Eastern Washington. So I was just and that's because they have an exception. I was just you know what I mean? It's pretty drastic for the entire be the lowest in the entire state.

So there is so we have we have our adoption on the thirtieth and then that notice of adoption sent out to the the growth management hearings board. And then they have a period of time where they review it and then they let us know if there are any concerns or additional items that we need to address. So that's something that we would know about at that time and would take a look. And then we have would have a period to rebut essentially.

Jim, do you have some? Yes. Just want to make sure I'm understanding your question. So you were thinking that it's more like 15% that would be reduced?

That's been my experience at this the the smallest or the lowest percentage I've ever seen in pretty urban areas is 15 ten, fifteen. And then I've seen one exception in Eastern Washington at 12%. And so I'm in agreement with you that I do think that we're pretty developed, and I don't think it would take 20%. And I feel like that's just not good planning. My concern is you've done all this work, and you've done a ton of work. Is there a chance that at 5% because it would be technically the lowest in the entire state of Washington, is there a chance that would get rejected? I would hate to see your hard work be kicked back to you. So just what's the viability here of this number? So that's just my question.

Is that a redevelopment reduction or for new property?

Yes. Redevelopment. New development is always 20 to 25 in my experience, but redevelopment is yes, usually higher. Just There's always

a chance that it could be rejected. We looked at our individual urban growth areas, and they're quite small, and they're quite densely developed now with roads already in place. And so we just felt like an additional reduction of another 20% of that property to redevelop something that's already has roads on it. It just didn't make sense to us. But there's always a chance of it being

pulled back. I'm in total agreement with you. I I think that that's an exorbitant number. It's just the kind of I don't like saying industry standard because it's across municipalities, but kind of industry standard just in my experience. So just truly a curiosity and yeah.

And I I may have missed it, but sorry to interrupt. But Garrett and Jim did run these numbers, all of this brief through the Puget Sound Regional Council. Okay. And they they they can't then give our give the blessing until the hearing's board, but they said what they looked at, they would support.

Okay.

So it it has gone through that process. We kinda gave them a heads up. This is what we're gonna do. Do you do you see any holes or problems in that? And they they they gave you the blessing.

No. That that sounds great. Thank you. Just truly a just an anomaly, my curiosity. Thank you so much.

But that's really good feedback because that's the first we'd heard of, like, that other jurisdictions are using much bigger numbers for redevelopment and not just development.

Yeah. Absolutely. Especially just like your more urban areas that are more dense and pretty developed. But, yeah, thank you. This has been a big undertaking, and I tell you guys put a lot of work into it. So thank you so much for your hard work. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you. Alright. Thank you so much, Garrett. And next item on our agenda is a work study on the Silverdale Center Plan by Mr. Jim Rogers, our DCD long range planner. Mr. Rogers, take us away.

Alright. Thank you. So let's see if I can get things to share here properly. That come across? All right.

Very good. So this is not the first time that you've seen the Silverdale Center plan come to you, but this is, we are adding some additional information here for you. We have an update that we're at about the 90% draft mark, maybe a little bit more than that, but, I'll try to walk you through real quickly what's in the new plan. So on Page two there, you can see the contents. So we'll talk a little bit about the draft plan contents.

I'll talk a little bit about the goals and policies and how they're organized. And then look at some of the implementation priorities towards the end of the plan and then finally, next steps. And then at the midpoint, we'll take a break and see if you have any comments on the plan itself before we jump into design guidelines, do a quick overview there and then look at how we're thinking about consolidating design districts and look at some of the differences between standards versus guidelines. That can be confusing sometimes. And then next steps on design guidelines going forward.

Jim, can you speak up a little bit?

I can get closer to the microphone.

Thank you.

Sorry. So looking at schedule, we are towards the end of the schedule time frame now, where we're looking at getting close to a final plan and getting close to some design guidelines for you to look at. I probably should add another arrow to this that carries us into the summer and then final adoption in the winter. So what's been updated from the previous draft? We have an expanded vision section to incorporate key area concepts and in transportation and public space priorities and integration of the community and stakeholder feedback.

We've had quite an extensive feedback process on this front with the public and stakeholders. Update the goals and policies highlighting catalytic projects and implementation priorities. And it has a refreshed look and feel featuring a more graphic visual format with the standalone chapters. I would be surprised if anyone had gotten through the 135 pages that we gave you to read, but at the end of this, hopefully, you've got some comments on how it's structured, if nothing else, and we look forward to comments from you going forward. So in the contents, we have some introductory chapters that provide an executive summary, outline the plan's background and purpose and describe the planning process, including our community engagement efforts.

And then chapters three and four establish a framework for the regional centers evolution, outlining the vision and area specific concepts, summarizing transportation and infrastructure initiatives and opportunities, and providing a background on existing conditions to inform those goals and policies going forward. And then on the next page, I think we're on Page six now of packet, Chapters five through seven provide an overview of the existing conditions to inform future goals and policies along with actionable guidance to support county decision making in coordination with private developers and partner agencies. These chapters present goals and policies to guide that growth and development and public space improvements, as well as an implementation framework that outlines priorities, timelines, and responsibilities for advancing those, actions in in the back of the plan. And then finally, glossary and reference section, for key planning terms and definitions, list of acronyms because we live in acronym world, and, figure index, with sources and references to other plans and studies cited throughout the plan. So looking at the goals and policies organization, each each area, there are five areas, has a vision statement, for that particular, topic area.

And then it has, goals, policies, and strategies for each of those. And then, we have some catalytic type actions or projects that are highlighted in each of those sections. And you'll see those repeated in the actions table at the end of the plan. And so this was what that implementation plan looks like in the end. It's a table highlighted here are some of the near term priorities, which are urban design standards and redevelopment code, explore initiatives to help with redevelopment, including a multifamily tax exemption program, prioritize collaborations and partnerships with the businesses and property owners, particularly the anchor institutions and regional agencies and community organizations, explore additional funding for key transportation projects, conduct a parking study, so now they're one of those near term priorities, collaborate with Kitsap Transit a little bit more on their circulator routes and how they're going to change going forward, Explore a complete streets policy for the Silverdale Centre and coordinate with parks and public spaces with storm water facilities.

There's already a lot of that going on, but that's kind of a low hanging fruit to provide more public space when we're building stormwater facilities. And then finally, creating a wayfinding framework for the center. And those are just some of the near term priorities. There are midterm priorities that go out, you know, six to ten years, and then longer term ten years plus in this in this document. And so for next steps, we're going to bring this 90% draft out to the public.

We should have it posted on our website by the end of this week. And we plan to have an open house again in Silverdale and bring this and the preliminary design standards in the May. And so again, we're going to be updating those design standards. I'll get into that a little bit more on the next part of the but and outline a redevelopment code framework to address challenges faced by constrained sites that may not meet the development requirements and again, create a way finding framework for the center. So before we jump into design standards, any questions on how the plan is structured or if you've had a chance to breeze through with any comments that you might have?

Just one, and I feel like I'm a broken record for saying it because I think you know what I might say.

Okay.

Outline redevelopment code framework. Something I think would be really helpful is an overhaul of our storm water code in the urban area. I know that we're doing a community pond up on top of Buckland Hill and Tracy Boulevard, but when you do redevelopment, it's pretty expensive regarding stormwater. So could an example of that be something like when you're looking at challenges faced by constrained sites that might not meet development requirements, could could a property owner, for example, in Old Town, Silverdale, have some sort of like a would the county consider like a credit based system for stormwater where if you show, I've got a 3,200 square foot building in Old Town and it's cost prohibitive to put an underground vault in because there's no room on first stormwater facilities? Is that something that you guys are exploring the idea of or is that am I in no man's land with that thought?

No. Everything's on the table. So yeah.

I know we're not coco,

We've but heard that comment from multiple people. So that's certainly something that we want to explore.

Thanks, Jim.

Yeah. Thank you.

I have a quick question for you, Jim. If my memory serves me right, this was, like, maybe three of the no. Maybe, like, two Silverdale Center presentations ago.

Okay.

You I think you had shown us an example of a city in Washington that uses the complete streets model.

Correct.

Will you remind me of the name of that city?

Well, there there are several. I mean, most jurisdictions around us have a complete streets ordinance. Yeah. Pierce County does. I think one of some of the examples were, gosh, I wanna say it was Lake City, but

Was it Bothell?

North King Sound. Sounds like Bothell.

Yeah. Bothell was probably one of them.

Have there been and this is just I I really don't have a lot of experience just with, the Complete Streets concept. Mhmm. How has there been anything similar? I know Silverdale is kinda unique. We're just a unique county. But is there anything similar to Silverdale where you'd almost, have to retrofit complete streets into you know what I mean, and redesign where you have like a successful example that's

Yeah. I'm not sure I have an example regionally here somewhere close by. Yeah. But we do have almost all, if not all, of the Complete Streets concepts are already in code and our road standards and other places in our goals and policies. We already have a lot of that, but we need to package it up into an ordinance.

And we also are looking at adding a standard for level of stress. And that is one of the things that is going to take it a little bit up level it a little bit. I would say that we wouldn't necessarily go back and revisit roads that have just recently been rebuilt construction. But anything going forward that's not in design yet, we certainly would look at these new standards and level of stress, whatever that standard turns out to be. That would be one of those standards we try to get adopted.

Yeah, absolutely. I was just curious if any other like neighboring municipalities, just how that went for them to try to kind of do a retrofit of that and like if we've leaned on any of those neighboring municipalities just to what went well and maybe what they would have done differently or yeah. I'm just very new to this particular piece.

Yeah. It's a good point. We I guess we didn't explore a whole lot, know, any struggles they had with those changes. But I know that most jurisdictions do have complete streets policies if not ordinances.

Yeah. No, that's great. Thank you so much. You bet. Any of my fellow commissioners have any questions or comments at this period? All right. I think we're ready All for

right. So moving forward, thinking about design districts, and I will caveat this with we are just at the head scratching stage at this point. So we're just getting started. We're still looking at concepts. Some of the observations that our consultants made when looking at our current design districts is that the individual districts create kind of an island effect rather than a cohesive holistic design outcomes for the regional center.

And maintaining separate standards for each district introduced redundancy, fragmentation and inefficiency. And when you're looking at standards versus guidelines, they were somewhat inconsistently used and defined. And then a lot of thought, it was obvious that a lot of thought went into developing those design guidelines and direction overall, but some of the standards were subjective or unclear. And so we could benefit from that being clear and more consistent language and also updated visioning and make sure we're aligned with the new regional center plan going forward and the new concepts and goals coming out of that plan. So then when we're looking at rethinking what these design districts might look like, how they might lay out on the ground, You've got our current one there.

I'm Slide 12 here, in case you're following along in a hard copy. So we go from the current to an initial proposed approach in the center there where we had some like a downtown center kind of in the middle along Silverdale Way, which included part of the mall side, part of the Clear Creek side. And then around that kind of a downtown general and then a downtown transition area outside of that. And then of course, across the walk away areas out on the outside of the center and and then several overlays. That didn't help simplify it too much.

So we went back to the drawing board and looked at another approach, which you'll see on the right side here, which kind of combines the bulk of this downtown core area into one district. And then a transition urban transition area just outside of that and Old Town outside of that. And then you've got the Medical District, which is kind of its own animal. And we're not sure if the Medical District should be its own district or should it just be kind of an overlay with some additional requirements there. And then also looking at the, Clear Creek area as an overlay to this district as well for environmental protections and things like that.

So again, this could morph into something different, but this is kind of where we are today. We have not taken this out to the design community yet to get their thoughts. And so if you have suggestions of groups or individuals that we should talk to, that's why we're coming to you now is to get those suggestions. Again, this is all conceptual. This is gonna morph into something different than what I'm showing you today.

I'm pretty sure because this is kind of a preliminary we're still in the thought process. We're still scratching our heads on this. And so, looking at the next page, you can kind of see we're looking at trying to make it more compact area and kind of define that urban core a little bit. The current standards refer to the Silverdale Downtown kind of generally. The document essentially applies this label to all the districts collectively creating ambiguity and how each district relates to the other the overall framework.

And the downtown currently does not operate as a cohesive, compact and walkable center as defined by PSRC regional framework or the vision or goals of the new Silverdale Center plan. So the proposed approach is to simplify the overall framework by shifting away from the downtown designation and instead focusing on the regional center as a system with interconnected districts. And this framework emphasizes each district's intended urban character, its function, and its relationship between the districts while still supporting a cohesive and integrated whole. So some of the conditions or considerations and recommendations when we're rethinking these design districts to consolidate it. We were hoping to get down to like three or four districts, but that's obviously pretty I don't think that's going to happen.

Why do we want to do that? Because we want to simplify the requirements by grouping areas with similar desired development patterns, function and adjacency. We want to improve connectivity and relationships between the areas, align with the regional center plan update, the goals for housing and development, and support a more cohesive urban design framework and development pattern overall. And we want to streamline that framework, update and reorganize the overall document framework to align with updated regional center plan vision and goals. And that is to improve clarity and usability of the document, distinguish what should be codified in the standards and what remains as design guidance, and then create more predictable and efficient development review process.

So the clarity clarifying the design elements, again, looking at standards versus guidelines, clearly separate and define standards versus guidelines, and define clear form based minimum standards, establish a consistent set of site and building design requirements for all non single family development in the regional center, and eliminate redundant or unclear descriptive text. And we want to organize by key categories for standards and guidelines, building orientation and frontages, site layout, and building form and design, and then organize the standards at two different levels. So you got your districts wide or so altogether baseline requirements, and then district specific requirements. And that is to enable integration into the municipal code for consistency and ease of use and, reduce subjectivity and improve predictability and review. Also, design specific standards to focus on unique conditions rather than duplicating baseline requirements.

So just real quickly looking at some of the development design standards versus design guidelines. By definition, standards are required and guidelines are more and more flexible or can be interpreted can reinterpret the design content. The purpose of standards is to ensure consistency. Guidelines is to allow creativity. The scope of standards is you're looking at massing, bulk, height, landscaping, setbacks, and other requirements, whereas guidelines are are more for aesthetics and allowing for creativity.

Design standards have very low flexibility, whereas design standards are are very flexible. You can tell that in some of the language. Example, design standards say you will do this or must do that, whereas guidelines you say it could or should do these different things. And then enforcement standards is legally enforceable, whereas guidelines are just advisory. And then the outcome is hopefully, consistent, predictable, code compliant development.

And the design guides guidelines help give us a high quality, contextually appropriate, and visually appearing development. And so some of the things you might see in the new design guidelines, currently, there's there's just a lot of words and text and narrative, and you have to tease out the different dimensions of things. So we're hoping to put all that into tables and then provide some examples, some graphics to help make those numbers easier to find and easier to understand. So next steps on this is to take a look at these design district boundaries and bounce that off of our other departments and key stakeholders. That I'm hoping you'll give me some ideas of who those stakeholders should be.

Same thing with standards versus guidelines. And we hope to develop some key maps and diagrams and form based exhibits to put in those design standards to make it more user friendly. And then we'll continue this even after the June the end of this project. We'll continue working towards getting these put into county code and everything by the end of the year. So while we're wrapping up this project with our consultants in June, we will continue working on this to fine tune it for the rest of the year.

That's all I've got on design standards. Again, we're just still at the head scratching point on this project as far as design standards go. So any input you have that can guide us in the right direction on who to talk to, what agencies or groups we might we should be considering in developing these would be appreciated.

Thank you, Jim. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any comments or questions for Jim?

Yeah, Please.

So I love the momentum and excitement of this project. Personally, I sat on a three year project for the revitalization of Winslow 0. On Bainbridge Island. That Winslow Tomorrow project was a three year project. It was about three binders full of information, And unfortunately, I get to see it on a cabinet collecting dust.

Yeah.

It's a very difficult process, but you get to collaborate with a lot of businesses, a lot of community members. There's a lot of excitement that gets behind it through charrettes, through all sorts of presentations. And I think you're going down a great track. I don't wanna be a Debbie Downer by no means. So I completely support you in this endeavor.

With that being said, I also understand the challenges that come with this long term planning that happens. There's commissioners that change budgets, that change staffing capabilities, and staffing numbers change history, retires. So what are you planning on putting into play? Maybe this is a question for Rafe, to keep the momentum behind this project so it doesn't end up on a shelf collecting dust. I really would love to see this come to fruition, and I just, you know, I just wanna hear what you all are planning long term to ensure that this keeps moving forward to an end goal.

There's baby steps, I understand there's phases that come into play obviously, but there's a lot of collaboration that has to happen to make this project come to fruition.

Yeah, it's a great point. Last thing we want to do is create a great plan like this and just let it sit there and do nothing when we're done. And so that's one of the reasons that we put that implementation table in the back. Not only will that table tell us what we can do in the near term, but it assigns it to particular departments to make sure it gets done. And one of the things that we're developing over the next year, year and a half is an implementation plan for the entire comprehensive plan.

Now this chapter is a part of that comprehensive plan, and all of its goals and policies need to be one the new requirements out of commerce that we are having to address is, we making progress on our plans? And so we have a five year mark, it comes up in 2029, that we have to show progress on all of our policies, strategies and goals. And if we're not making progress, why aren't we? And what are we gonna do to fix that? And so we're creating an implementation plan right now as we speak to, address all the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan.

We're assigning, departments and people to advancing those. And the plan is to do annual check ins to make sure we're making progress so that we can have a good report out to commerce in 2029 to show progress on these things. And so we're hoping that that will be one of the more important things. But like you said, staffing, turnover in leadership, priorities change. All we can do is try to keep this on the front burner. And I'm hoping that, that implementation plan and that requirement from commerce will keep it alive.

Thank you.

All right. Any other mic commissioners have questions or comments

Thanks for the presentation, Jim. So on page well, there's one on page I have two questions. On page 47, you're talking about Old Town area.

Are you in the plan or the presentation?

Oh, sorry about that. The draft plan?

In the draft plan. Okay. I don't have it in front of me. Do you have a copy right here? Page 47 you said?

Yes. And I can basically read. Basically, it says large multi family buildings should reflect the design, character and scale of Old Town. So how does like how do you I like what that says because I would like that to be the case. But like what does that mean and how is that enforced or?

I think the design standards and design guidelines are what are going to get us the look and feel that we're that we have the vision for. And Old Town has its own vision that's specific to Old Town. And so we wouldn't want to change up those design guidelines too much because we want that look and feel to remain. So does that help?

Okay. I'll have to review that a little bit more. And then on Page 119, there's some like language about or incentives to include level two and three EV chargers in commercial buildings and multifamily. I'd personally like to see more of requirements for that because that's the future as much as what's going on at the national level right now. We're just going have a ton of electric cars coming online. And we can't I just feel like that's one of the only ways to get enough EV chargers out there to where we're going to need them other than just certain commercial buildings relying on government buildings to put them in

central market. You thinking that that policy needs to be stronger?

Yes. I believe that's already codified, right? EV chargers and bicycle parking on commercial permitted buildings?

It is. Yes. Yes. Okay. And so that might help. But I think this is about providing incentives. And so we'll take a look at how we can strengthen that policy.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I have Commissioner Fender online. Commissioner Fender, please go ahead.

Yes, thanks. Jim, I love the effort. It's a big one and over expand spanning over time. The part that you're puzzling over for design guidelines for this district, the broader boundary that you've that you've drawn that includes all these components of Silverdale. I just wonder if that is too unwieldy to try and make unity and something cohesive in a Silverdale that's so discombobulated just intrinsically.

We've got all these you've got the hospital and you've got the mall and you've got Old Town and everything in between. And when you think of place making, the couple of examples you gave on the other side of the pond, think were Bothell and also Lake City Way along 125th. And those are much more cohesive their existing look and feel much smaller in scale versus Silverdale, which is all this mishmash of of uses and types. And my thought is if we're looking to create a personality in Silverdale, the overwhelming response in a couple of central meetings that I participated in was the waterfront. Right?

Everyone loves the waterfront, and that's really defining the character of Silverdale. If you point somebody to go to experience, unfortunately, it's kind of a disappointment the way it is now. It's not Poulsbo. It's not Winslow. It's it feels like it's lacking. But if I were to focus one's effort, it would it would be in that one place, you pick a place. And it seems to be old town and trying to make the rest uniform. It just seems a bit unwieldy of a task. And I think that's probably why you're puzzling over it. That's my thought.

Yeah. And thank you for your participation in those meetings. Is a big project. And that's why we've got a professional architect and designer on board to help us with this. I certainly couldn't do it myself. So yeah, the waterfront issue has come up before. And so maybe one way to think about that is maybe the waterfront should be some sort of an overlay district as well. Don't know, did you have any thoughts on that possibility? Or would that help, do you think?

When you say an overlay district, I'm just not I mean, you've already got zoning.

Right. So it would just be kind of an overlay that would provide some additional requirements if you're like on the waterfront doing developments there. And those could be like additional public amenities or something of that nature. Like for the Clear Creek area, we're proposing an overlay there for specific environmental protections for that area and how it develops. But with the base guidelines and standards for the entire area still underneath that.

That's a lot to think about. I don't have a lot something spread at the moment, but I will participate in your next presentation early May you mentioned.

Yeah. Thank you.

Please. So

Jim, is there a process that the DCD has for ADR like administrative design review. Is there codes for that?

No. We don't have a design review board or anything of that nature. No. Our our planners are pretty good at doing these reviews.

So Okay. But you're setting up the codes and standards for these districts. So if you're establishing those codes and standards for each of the districts, it would seem to me like it would be a little bit easier for an ADR process or even a design review board to look at those proposals and then have a set of standards that are already built for them to to work within. When you're asking for suggestions on design review, what exactly are you looking for?

We're looking for, I guess, the development community and stakeholders in the area that have an interest in how Silverdale looks and feels going forward. And we already have design guidelines and design districts there now. So this project is largely a reshuffle and not really creating a lot of new things, but but making it make sense, making it a little bit more holistic and trying to create a sense of place in the center rather than having it broken up into so many different island type areas.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you have any more questions or comments from the commission? I just have just a comment. So the only kind of something similar, I guess, to this that I'm aware of is Linwood has and that solely was driven out of light rail that would really drove them in the last five years. However, that's something that Linwood's always been lacking. It's like a true downtown core or something like that.

And not I wouldn't say it's like an apples to apples to Silverdale, but it's fairly developed. The Silverdale's fairly developed. And so I I'd be curious if there's anything to glean from that municipality. Maybe they'd be open. And then also Sammamish, although that's also not apples to apples, They just in the last two years, they've completely redesigned and and implemented a new city center.

So it just might be two great municipalities just to lean on or even just look a little bit further into what they did. There's very small amount in the last five to ten years in the entire state, and we are really unique. I've just always have found it to be really fruitful to lean on my those that have came before me, and and usually, they're willing to share mostly their heartache and also their wins. I don't have anything for you today as far as feedback. I'd like to kinda sit and digest a little bit maybe, and I'd love to send you some things.

But, yeah, just those are just my thoughts as maybe just because it's so recent, you know, that and they're coming out of COVID too and just this this opportunity of, you know, kind of readdressing maybe an ongoing need. Just a thought.

So you said Sammamish and was the other one Linwood?

Linwood. Yeah. Those are the two that I there's some like in Eastern Washington that's really hard to even bring those into consideration because it's not necessarily where you're going with this particular plan. But those are the closest in size and dynamics. Yes, just a thought. Thank you so very much. All right. Last call, commission. Right. Thank you so much. Oh, I'm so sorry, Kane. I apologize. Sorry. Go ahead.

I just had a thought if I could offer balance to an earlier comment about EV adoption. I participated some in state level code. Brian mentioned that it's a codified percentage for adoption in new development. My participation has been in the multifamily requirement side. And I will say that the new codes that we're anticipating, I can't recall if it's in the next year, but they're pretty ambitious requirements already.

So reference that, I would say, Jim, before you move from recommendation or incentives to something firmer as you're describing because already the state level requirements for multifamily specifically are going to be higher than what they are now. And I would offer a gentle reminder that the more requirements there are translates to a higher cost intrinsically. And in private development, just parking in general, developers want to ensure that space is filled and they can only fill if the renters or occupants have sufficient parking. And so, Bremerton, for example, has reduced its parking requirement to zero, which is not to say developers won't include parking, but developers are better sensitive than the regulators to what the requirement are. The same would apply, I would say, to electric vehicle requirements for and there are different ways to acquire it.

You can require that it just be easily adapted. So the infrastructure is in the space and things like that. The code update that we're anticipating is pretty nuanced in that regard, too. So it's worth referencing.

So is that a particular state code? Can you give me a reference to that?

It's a code I can follow-up, but it's specific to multifamily development code requirements Okay. For electric, for the electric code component of it.

I'll research that one. Thank

you. Certainly.

All right. Last and final call. All right. Thank you so much, Jim. Thank you, Garrett, both for your time this evening.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much.

And I would just ask that if you have recommendations on who these stakeholders should be that we should be talking to about, these design guidelines and design standards and how they're reshaped. Please send those to me.

Yes, sir. You got it. Alright. And this will bring us to our second and final general public comment period. Do we have any on the room wishing to speak? Seeing none, I will go online. Do we have anybody online that is wishing to speak? Alright. I am seeing none. Alright.

I will be closing the final general public comment period. And our next order of business is for the good of the order. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any comments or anything they'd like to share for the good of the order? Commissioner Bleep, please.

So I wish everybody a happy early Earth Day tomorrow and I'm so thankful to live in a county that takes a natural world into consideration when they're implementing their policies and to the board of commissioners for their Earth Day presentations and one of their past meetings and all those people who were awarded. Thanks for all your service.

Yeah. Hear hear to that. Alright. Anything else from the from the whole? Okay. There are no other items for tonight's meeting. I declare this meeting officially adjourned at 07:19PM. The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for May 5 at 05:30PM. Thank you all so much.