Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the July 21st, 2026 meeting of the Kitsap County Planning Commission. Thank you for your participation. Before we begin this evening's proceedings, I'd like to remind everyone that this is an official meeting of the Kitsap County Planning Commission conducted in accordance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and Robert's Rules of Order. We ask that all attendees remain respectful throughout the proceedings. Please refrain from cheering, clapping, calling out, displaying signs, or any behavior that may make it difficult for others to hear or follow the discussion. Such behavior can also be intimidating to those who may wish to express differing opinions. These proceedings are intended to provide a fair and orderly opportunity for all voices to be heard on the record. If disruptions occur, any planning commissioner may call for order and the chair may ask for a break. Disruptive individuals may be asked to leave the meeting room. Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous, respectful, and professional environment. The first item on our agenda this evening is going to be introductions, and I will start online with you, Commissioner Vliet.

Dave Vliet, North Kitsap.

Thank you. Commissioner Fenner.

Dan Fenner, Central Kitsap.

Thank you. Kathy Meisenberg, North Kitsap.

Ashley Hall, South Kitsap.

Danielle Douthit, South Kitsap.

All right. And 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. For our in-person attendees, please raise your hand if you wish to speak and you will be called upon. Please approach the podium and speak clearly into the microphone. For our virtual attendees, please 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. Our call-in attendees, press star nine on your phone keypad to signal that you wish to comment. The last four digits of your phone number will be announced and you will be connected. You may need to press star six to unmute your line. For written comments or testimony, written comments may be submitted to staff or emailed to cjewel at kidsap.gov by 2 p.m. on the day prior to the meeting. Please include the meeting date, your name, and the agenda item and or subject you are addressing. Submitted comments will be entered into the record at the appropriate time. For all of our speakers this evening, please state your name and the general area in which you live. Comments are normally limited to two minutes for general public comment and three minutes for public hearing comments. These time limits may be adjusted by the chair when appropriate. And the next item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Do I hear a motion to adopt the agenda?

I motion to adopt the agenda.

Do I hear a second?

I'll second.

And are there any corrections or additions to the agenda?

None.

All right. Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the agenda as presented, please raise your hand. All right. I'm seeing five unanimous moves forward. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the previous minutes. Do I hear a motion to adopt the meeting minutes from the June 2, 2026 meeting?

I motion to adopt the meeting minutes from the June 2nd, 2026 meeting. I'll second.

All right. And are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes as presented, please raise your hand. All right, it's unanimous, the motion passes. Our next item is our first general public comment period. I want to remind the public that this is not a question and answer session. Staff is not able to answer questions and neither are the planning commissioners. And just also as a reminder that general public comment will not go on record for the public hearing this evening. Do we have anyone in the room wishing to speak for public comment?

No?

All right.

And then it looks... Oh, I do see somebody online.

Yes. Wonderful. Mr. Palmer?

Okay. Presumably I can be heard. yeah yes sir comment on the uh study item for affordable housing housing i'm tonight representing the kitsap alliance of property owners extensively on this topic have um most recently penned A paper wherein we have 17 recommendations for how to make housing more affordable in Kitsap County. Those 17 do not include... faster permit processing which still advocate there's many other things as suggested by the number 17 things that we can do to make housing more affordable and I doubt seriously that staff has considered uh any one of the 17 17 I will be interested to see whether there's any follow-up from staff regarding recommendations that the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners is making to make housing more affordable. That's it for now.

Thank you for your comments, sir. All right. I'm not seeing any more comments online. No more in the room. All right. I will be closing the first general public comment period. The next item on our agenda is a work study on affordable housing presented by Heather Cleveland, DCD Long Range Planner, Garrett Ballou, DCD Long Range Planner, Carl Borg, Human Services, Bonnie Tufts, Human Services, and Joel Warren, Human Services. Thank you all so much.

Thank you. Just waiting for our presentation. Okay, thank you for having us this evening planning commissioners. My name is Heather Cleveland. I am a long range planner with the Department of Community Development. And I'm here with my colleagues, Garrett Ballou. Bonnie Tufts will not be joining us, but Joel Warren will be covering her topics and then Kyle Borg. And this is a collaboration between two departments within Kitsap County. And so I'm happy to have us here presenting today on this topic where that brings us both together, which is affordable housing. These are the topics that we'll be covering today. So Department of Community Development, the Long Range Planning Division specifically, we'll be talking about the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, how affordable housing ties into that, as it relates to methodology, the community development perspective, which is different than the human services perspective, progress, and then Garrett, my colleague Garrett, will talk about the Comp Plan remand and affordable housing, and more specifically, the numbers. And then Human Services will talk about housing, have representation from the Housing and Community Development Division, and they'll talk about affordable housing. Also, the funding sources, their process, housing projects, and then also the Housing and Homelessness Division will give an overview and update on their work in two. And then we'll close with what's next. So with respect to long-range planning, affordable housing is part of our 2024 Comprehensive Plan Period update. This was the first time previous comprehensive plans included employment and population projections, and housing, and then specifically affordable housing was part of our 2024, required part of our 2024 Comprehensive Plan, and a significant effort went into that, updating zoning and updating development regulations, all of those to allow us to reach the capacity and the targets that we were assigned. Recently, the Senate Bill 5184 passed, and that's the Housing Accountability Act. I think what's happening when it comes to housing is not only are we making plans and having projections, but we are being held accountable for those. you know, with respect to progress reports and things like that, and that's what brings us here today is that. I will also say, as documented in the Housing Accountability Act, it's also tied to funding, so our progress on this will be related to funding, and we'll see how that moves forward in the future. Also, within the bill, it describes... I would say it's shifting from a proactive oversight model. I think that's a good way to put it. So rather than waiting for it to go wrong, it's how are you doing? You have to make progress rather than waiting the 10 years or through an appeal process. Affordable housing targets, what you'll see, especially in the slides that Garrett shares, is those are AMI-based, so the percent of income, and how we divide that up in Kitsap County in long-range planning is by housing type. But I will say when it comes to the affordability aspect of that, that is where our colleagues at Human Services really dig a bit deeper on the connection between how much money you make, support for that income, and Human Services will talk more about that. Another component that we brought into the 2024 comp plan and development regulations update was STEP. That's a term that brings us together, and we're continuing to update our development regulations as it relates to that. But STEP stands for Shelters, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing. And these are the two bills, House Bill 1220 passing in 2021, which we will open those requirements to the development regulations updated in 2024. And then further changes were made that are reflected in the administrative code updates for the 2026 bill. All of that is to remove barriers as it relates to that step housing. The methodology, so you'll see in the slides that Garrett shares, it is when it comes to the land capacity analysis, those housing types are affiliated with the percent AMI and that's how we go about it. And something that Garrett will share also is how do we account for that as it relates to the AMI? That's where our relationship with human services because if we're looking at a multifamily housing development, we don't know who that's actually serving. That's not something that's part of our permitting process, so again, we're making that connection and build a bridge. And then, as I mentioned earlier, updating definitions, that's the part that we... Currently, that's the only piece of our development regulations that we've had to update. We're trying to remove all barriers, but as you'll hear from Carl, there are other barriers that need to be addressed that we will continue to discuss and work towards. And then partly you know when something's required that increases the urgency of it so house bill 1241 that changed the comp plan periodic update from eight years to ten years so that's noteworthy but also and this is something that i mentioned in previous presentation last year was it recreate it created a requirement for a five-year implementation progress report so for us that will be in 2029 and where we gather now annually to come together to talk about our progress and to learn from each other and build this relationship so that we're working towards this progress report. I will also add that we're aware of this and on the back end we're working on implementation plan for our comprehensive plan overarching but also what are tools that we can as it ties into permitting and create some sort of dashboard those are things that are happening behind the scene that I think will help inform this document but also this relationship as it relates to the affordability component that's not something that's tied to permitting so we're looking at how can we build a bridge between those to meet this requirement for the five-year progress report. And as far as progress that's coming out of long-range planning in the Department of Community Development, we have our Silverdell Market Study Report. So that's something that was completed. And there was interviews with developers. And what's the target market? What are the barriers? All of those are being considered as we led then into the Silverdale Center Plan design guidelines and redevelopment code will be coming out of that. All of this, it's a slow process. There's steps towards how can we break down barriers and have a better understanding and what can lead to increased housing development, especially as it relates to Silverdale, which is the highest projection UGA in Kitsap County. for unincorporated. Multifamily tax exemption is something that we continue to look into. It's something that developers have brought up to Kitsap County throughout any of these studies and reports. And so we're looking at what would that look like for Kitsap County. It's not off the table yet, but it's not necessarily moving forward. It's complicated, especially when it comes to revenues and what does that look like for Kitsap County. And then also pre-approved accessory dwelling units. So that's something that was a collaboration across jurisdictions throughout Kitsap County, including the four cities. And yeah, you'll see that that's a potential moving forward of how can we add density within urban growth areas by removing some of those barriers, including building review and the fees that are affiliated with that, or the designs for that matter. And with that, I'm going to shift it over to my colleague Garrett to talk about the comp plan remand, but at the same time, that talks about our housing targets.

All right. Well, thank you, Heather. So the comprehensive plan remand was a pretty intense project that we brought to the Planning Commission to share some updates on last year. And really, we had this directive from the State Growth Management Hearings Board to identify some gaps and some issues that they had with our comprehensive plan. And a big part of that was capacity for housing. And so it's very relevant to this presentation today. And what you'll see up on the screen is actually one of the tables taken directly from the final ordinance, which was adopted by the board last month on June 22nd. And this shows the changes that were made as a result of the adjustment to the land capacity analysis. And so land capacity analysis is essentially a bunch of different factors that you can adjust based on assumptions that you are making for future development that will give you a capacity for how much housing can be accommodated on the land that you're taking a look at in different UGAs and across the county. And so The issue that the growth management hearings board had with our 2024 comprehensive plan is that there was a deficit in some of these areas. And when I say areas, I'm referring to income levels, which you'll see up on the screen is the far left. So you've got 0% to 80% AMI as one block. then 80 to 120, and then over 120% AMI. And previously in the 2024 comp plan, there was a deficit shown there. And so we took a look at that land capacity analysis and made some adjustments based on the amount of area set aside for road and rights-of-way on parcels who were up for redevelopment, meaning they've already been developed to some extent, and so you already have these roads and rights-of-way there. And that was a change that we made to address that. And so you'll see off to the right, the deficit is now no longer present in any of those categories. And so that is represented in our update. All right. And then this is another table from the comp plan. Um, remands, you can see that it's been updated in that far right column as well. And we wanted to include this one because it also includes emergency housing. So that ties into that step program that Heather had mentioned earlier with, with the shelters and emergency housing. And so you'll notice at the bottom there, um, the housing need through 2024 or excuse me, 2044. Um, 612 and we have sufficient capacity off to the far right column and it's it's sufficient capacity and not a number because it's actually in more of the thousands of the capacity that we have based on the land capacity analysis and so sufficient capacity is what we have there in that in that comp plan but. You'll also see we have up in the 0% to 30%. There's 0% to 30%, and then there's also 0% to 30% PSH, which was on a previous slide as well, and that's permanent supportive housing. So another program that provides support for those lower income bands when you're talking about housing, and that's reflected in the comp plan as well. Yeah, next one. All right. And so every time we have a new comp plan update or development regulations update, anytime something new is being adopted, we need to submit what's called a 60-day notice of intent to adopt to the Department of Commerce. And so we submitted this to Commerce. They review the proposed amendments, and then they provide us with feedback or suggestions depending on what they think of that proposal. For the comprehensive plan remand, we submitted that a little bit more than 60 days prior to the adoption date, which was a requirement of the Growth Management Hearings Board. And the Department of Commerce came back with a suggestion that the county identifies the number of housing units likely to require subsidies and or incentives to be affordable at designated income levels. Again, those are the 0 to 30, the 30 to 80, and then 80 to 120, and then above. And also they wanted to see the level of funding and incentives necessary to develop those units and so This comment was received actually just a couple of hours after we'd gone through deliberation with the Board of County Commissioners. So it wasn't something that we had time to go back and do a full public process on and really dig into and get that material put together. But we have started conversations here with Human Services about how we can go about the methodology that Commerce is referring to when they're making this recommendation. And so that's just beginning this example of how we can work together and take a look at the work that human services does in combination with what we do with a comprehensive plan, because it's likely that this request from commerce is going to be needed in a future comprehensive plan update. Right. And so part of this request from Commerce is that the county identify a rate of new affordable housing production. Specifically, they want to know, on average, how many new affordable housing units are being constructed in a five year period. And so that's an average. And so there are a variety of different COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUNDS ARE A COUPLE EXAMPLES. THESE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN GET THE FUNDING FOR THESE PROJECTS, AND JOEL CAN GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT. THAT'S WHAT HUMAN SERVICES WORKS ON. THAT'S MORE IN THEIR WHEELHOUSE. BUT THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL PROGRAM THAT HAS COME TO LIGHT IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT PROVIDES HOUSING FUNDS THROUGH LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX. SO THAT PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT FUNDING TO GO TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE NEW PROJECTS. AND SO THIS IS ALL TRACKED THROUGH HUMAN SERVICES. THEY HAVE ANNUAL REPORTS THAT WE CAN THEN GO BACK AND LOOK AT NOT JUST NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHIN THE COUNTY BUT ALSO OTHER TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES LIKE MAYBE CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND PROVIDING THOSE TYPES OF SERVICES. This is all really important stuff when we're taking a look at adjusting the comprehensive plan and including a section to discuss affordable housing. and so part of that too is the 2026 to 2030 consolidated plan which is in partnership with the county and the city of bremerton which really does a great job detailing all of these projects that have have occurred within these jurisdictions with the county and the city but also outlines a future plan moving forward and so this is a great spot for us to kind of find this nexus and work forward when we're taking a look at what commerce is going to want to see here in a future update We also have up here additional resource considerations, one of those being that affordable housing needs operation and maintenance funding, so it's one thing to develop these units, but it's also very important to keep these operational and maintained throughout their life cycle. And again, there's that permanent supportive housing program as well for that zero to 30% AMI that's available.

Okay. I handed it off to Joel now. I'm up. All right. Thanks. So some of this will be kind of dry, I think, because it's been a year since I've seen you all. It's the same stuff. It's kind of explaining who we are, the programs, how it functions. And towards the end, we can get into some projects. And are you allowed to ask questions or stop me? OK. So if you have questions that's more interesting, stop me. So kind of like HCD is the CEA program that Garrett mentioned, and then the county CDBG and county HOME are the federal funds. So CEA is local sales tax, very flexible. It's about $6 million a year, and then county CDBG and HOME are federal funds. We get those through a contract. There are lots more regulations with those, so we'll talk a little bit later, but agencies tend to go for the CEA funds over the federal funds. Very normal. IN CONTEXT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE CAPITAL SIDE AND IN OUR WORLD WE DIFFERENTIATE CAPITAL FROM SERVICES AND OPERATIONS. THERE IS A BEST CASE USE. Carl's funds are those HH funds, and that MHCDTC, that's the other one-tenth of 1% sales tax program, that really just focuses on services. They partner with the sheriff's office, the courts, they really just focus on service and operations. So often what ends up happening is Bonnie, who's not here, but she runs CMG Home. Each year we put out a cycle, put out funds. We'll fund capital projects that might come to fruition in three years, and then Carl's funds or Hannah's funds would come in with service and operations funds. That's kind of generally the flow, how it works. Up there is a pretty good example of what we'll put out each year. So that top right of the pie is just HCD. So about 7.5 is a pretty normal estimate each year. Five and a half to six of that being SIA and then the rest coming from CWG and HOME. GARRETT MENTIONED THIS ALREADY TOO. SO YOU ALL HAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE HAVE THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN WHICH REALLY BOILS INTO THAT STRATEGIC PLAN. EVERY FIVE YEARS WE DO IT. WE JUST FINISHED ONE FOR 2026. SO THIS WILL BE OUR FIRST CYCLE IN THAT. And in our con plan, as we call it, the community involvement piece is interviews with agencies, it's surveys, community meetings. Mr. Palmer, I think he was saying 17, so slide 17 is some feedback we'll get often. So on slide 17, we have feedback from agencies that we get from developers. So the expedited permitting, all those things he was referencing, I think are slide 17. Not sure. But anyway, so that community involvement part is both people we serve plus developers. So it's kind of the whole sphere. Needs assessment and market analysis are way more data-oriented. So HUD gives us data that we have to use, and then we also supplement with local data. So that's kind of the sweet spot where we will consult with the comp plan. We'll meet with Heather, kind of get what they're up to with affordable housing, and then weave those together. And then it culminates into a five-year plan that we're kind of bound to. And in that five-year plan, if you want to ever open it, the most important pieces are really the priority needs and the goals. So priority needs this year are just new units of affordable housing. And in our world, affordable housing is the whole step. So it's from sheltering to unsubsidized, like market rate. So we might do a tax credit project where there is no subsidy for an individual person, but the building's subsidized. So we'll go from shelter up to that end. Good. Just to give a reference of who we and who ends up benefiting from the programs. SIA goes up to 60% AMI. So I think in your world you talk a lot about 0 to 30, 30 to 80, right? Our world is 60% is an often used number. So we'll have to figure out how we figure that out. But we do annual reporting and monitoring and quarterly reports. So we have all the data on who is benefiting from our programs. So that would be an easy bridge to make when we need to. But generally, SIA is always 60% AMI or less. Then there's some other characteristics like veterans, domestic violence survivors, youth, people at risk of homelessness, people leaving a shelter. CDBG and home can go up to 80% AMI. There's some nuance in what kind of project it is, whether it's rental, rehab, home ownership. But generally, 80% AMI or less is who they serve. Interesting part I guess too, so CEA can serve the whole county, but Paulsbo and Bainbridge have opted to take their own CEA equivalent funds and use those locally. So generally CEA does not go into those jurisdictions. CDBG, Bremerton gets their own. So when we say CDBG, we mean county minus Bremerton generally. And then home, we administer Bremerton's, so home is the entire county. Good. It's kind of already talked about what SIA is. It's the 1% sales tax. We've been around for three years, just started our fourth year of grant cycle. Awarded 20 million, expended about nine of that. We have some big projects that we'll probably spend out this year. So we'll probably get to about $16 million spent in that number. Again, prioritizing just new units of affordable housing right now throughout the county, minus those two jurisdictions. Some recent examples, Times Square, so Housing Kitsap is our county housing authority. They acquired this 16 unit building in Kingston. It was falling out of affordability period with USDA. They used the money to purchase those and they'll use their own vouchers inside of it. Options for supported housing, more often referred to as foundation for the challenged, they'll purchase homes, a single family home, rehab it, and while they're rehabbing it, they usually will find whoever can support three to five people and see what their needs are, and then they'll be placed in that home. Usually those folks will stay there for 20 to 30 years at a time. Good. This is Bonnie's program, so CDBG and Home. Again, federal funds, much more restrictive, have been around a very long time, so those folks who have been using it know the rhythm of how it works. They've awarded $7 million to 17 capital projects in the last five years. Similar to SIA, hence why we're HCD, they prioritize affordable housing kind of across the gamut. Two recent projects, Nordic Cottages in Poulsbo, that was sponsored through Housing Kitsap and the city. So those eight units there are kind of near downtown. And then Manette, this was a KCR project. I don't think they're fully leased up yet, but nine units in Bremerton, townhomes. They use home funds to both buy some of the land and construction. Looking forward, so this is just some projects that are in action from the last grant cycle. So Meadowdale is probably the biggest one. That's a tax credit project. 262 units in two different buildings. They're prioritizing larger families. So it's two, three, four bedroom units. 10% reserved for families with disabilities. Stone Ridge, this is a Lennar kind of pre-planned built community in Dickey Pit. They're going to do, I think, two different phasing purchases. So this year they'll purchase three units. They'll prioritize veterans, the HUD-VASH voucher. And then the ADU projects, this is KMHS, Kitsap Mental Health Services. They've been utilizing the prefab ADUs. So they're putting ADUs on properties that they already own with clients they serve. So right now they did three, two in Bremerton and one in Manchester area, unincorporated. CDBG Home, Park Place, they're doing new decks for the whole complex. They had water intrusion, all those things. So 55 units to maintain their affordability. And then the DPA, which is that down payment assistance program, this is administered through community frameworks. They do the whole county's project. The goal of it really is if you're income qualified to reach the 20% down payment to avoid the PMI, the private mortgage insurance. These are just good examples. So SIA is better suited for acquisition kind of larger scale projects. And CDBG and HOME often are better suited for the rehab of those DPA projects that are usually smaller scale projects. Great. Maybe this is what Mr. Palmer was referring to, slide 17. So this came through in our community involvement. It was like three years ago. So things have changed since then. But this was kind of the highlights of what our walk away was. Developers looking for exemption to impact fees. I think the CHIP grant, so the county now administers the CHIP grants for developers. We have two in the works right now. So it's kind of being addressed. expedited permitting process, an ease of burden of pre-development requirements that the county has. We don't have much control over that, just a thing that the developers bring up. Measures taken to address. Increasing densities it's been done promoting multifamily and missing middle housing Things the county is doing relaxing parking standards throughout the county again The adu requirements we've seen quite a few projects now interested in Acquiring adus placing them on their properties. They already own to serve clients. They already serve and then the sea of funds is the newest source of funds to support projects

There we go, that's better. We also have a five year plan, and our five year plan is dictated by the Department of Commerce. Part of that was coordinating with Heather to work on a five year breakdown of the 20 year plan. So within ours, our strategy is to reduce, prevent homelessness over the next five years, identify community needs, evaluate the current system response, and establish priorities in action. So our countywide collaborations with community members, service members, people with lived experience, local jurisdictions, and our plan also complements the 2024 county comprehensive plan, supports the 26-2030 consolidated plan, and aligns housing, land use, and homelessness planning. We need to expand affordable housing, increase the supply of deeply affordable subsidized and non-traditional housing, reduce financial barriers to housing development, promote trauma-informed decision-making, increase the understanding among planners and decision-makers of the complex needs of people experiencing homelessness, including behavioral health, physical health, and trauma. Also increase permanent supportive housing, which is PSH, expand housing and integrated services, including case management, behavioral health care, and recovery support. So this is our breakdown of the household size based on the percentage of income they have. You can see the various levels with one person, two, three, and four. So an extremely low income is 0 to 30%. Very low income is 31 to 50%. Low income is 51 to 80. And moderate income is 81 to 100%. These have changed these are as of 2026 And they will continue to to go up as rental rental rates go up also and also back when they're real quick and a household that has an income below of 30% ami and lack sufficient resources to support networks to prevent them from entering emergency shelter and meets the housing stability criteria defined by HUD and So housing continues to outpace incomes. The 2023 Pathways to Housing Security study found that for every $100 increase in median one bedroom rent is associated with 3.5 additional people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 residents. Rents in Kitsap County have increased dramatically. The average monthly rent increased from $917 in 2014 to $1,716 in 2024. It's an 87.7% increase and 41% after adjusting for inflation. The lowest income renters face the greatest housing instability. More than 75% of the renters below 30% area median income are severely cost burdened, spending more than half of their income on housing. Long-term housing stability requires more than rental assistance. Eviction prevention can address immediate crisis, but ongoing case management and supportive services are essential to help households maintain their housing. Kitsap Community Resources provides case management for households receiving housing choice or Section 8 vouchers. Kitsap County faces a significant shortage of affordable rental housing. As of 2017, there was a deficit of nearly 5,800 rental units affordable to households earning less than 30% of the median income. Approximately two-thirds of the county's deeply affordable rent-restricted housing is located in Bremerton. Higher-income households are increasingly renting units that were traditionally affordable to lower-income residents, reducing housing options for those with the greatest need. The rising housing costs place additional pressure on seniors living on a fixed income, increasing the risk of housing instability and displacement.

So what's next? UGA boundaries and affordable housing. So something, you know, as was mentioned earlier, the housing targets and the projections for multifamily is within the UGA boundaries. So how can we maximize that where infrastructure already exists? Like Joel had mentioned earlier, the increased heights and the increased allowable densities, how can we infill where that's at? And it's challenging, but that's kind of the number one. How can we do that? These are other things that we're considering and looking at and wondering where are some barriers and gaps. So USDA, affordable housing, rural and multifamily. So when I see rural and multifamily, that doesn't go hand in hand. So I'm just curious, you know, is it in the Lammards? Is it in, you know, where are we missing that opportunity for income to support affordable housing, perhaps in the rural areas? So looking more into that, are there some barriers there? That can and should be addressed. Rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing. So maintaining the existing housing stock is also important. But interestingly, when we're looking at the requirements and reporting for progress for the Department of Commerce, it doesn't account for that. So there's something missing there, too. I understand there is a number with new construction, but also that maintenance or conversion is also something that we think matters and should be counted. And then we want to continue to strengthen our collaboration and coordination with human services. We're both documenting. We're both having to report on things. And how can we, in looking at what we're reporting, making sure that it's mutually beneficial. So if we have to tweak something or change a word to make sure that it's aligning, that's something that we're going to be looking towards in the future to make this as easy as possible if we're reporting the same thing coming from the same county. and then we're happy to answer any questions that you may have on our progress with affordable housing in Kitsap County. Thank you.

I see Commissioner Fenner has his hand up, please.

I do appreciate your presentation. I'm looking at page 16. It shows the number of total new units, the number of rehab units, a number of down payment assistance units. It wasn't clear what timeframe that occurred. It says 2026 funds in action. So I'm guessing that's not year to date. Can you provide a timeframe for when these were delivered? And I have a follow-up question.

Yeah, for sure. So these are all in construction. So these are not delivered yet, none of these. So DPA is an ongoing program that we have every year we have reports on. Eight is the estimated annual that we have. I think it's always six county generally, two in Bremerton. So eight DPA, that's estimate. But we can give you the capers from the last however many years you'd like if you want that data. And then Park Place, so they're doing bids now. So they'll start construction soon. This slide really is in action now. So the acquisition for Stone Ridge will happen this fall. The ADU project, same. They'll finish this fall. Meadowdale tax credits will get announced soon. So that might be three years out until it's completed.

Yeah, I think this way of presenting is a good start. It's useful to show to the extent that this is intended as a presentation for long-term assessment to show this over time. So how many new units were delivered last year and the year before? How many are projected next year and the following? And then separate from that, I'd be interested in seeing... So I think it's... I'm understanding correctly that CEA and CDBG are not 100% of the capital stack. In other words, if a project costs 100, they're not providing all 100, right? It's percentage.

I mean, it's not always a percentage, but you're definitely correct, yes. It's very rare for a project to come to us and for us to fully fund anything. I think the ADU project is an outlier, and we did that. There was three ADU units for a total of, I think, 600,000. So SIA funded all of that project, but it's very rare, yes.

600,000 for, that was for the? Three ADUs, yeah. For the three ADUs. So that's $200,000 per ADU? That we paid for, yes. So is that the total cost of the ADU or is that the subsidy toward the ADU?

That was the cost for the whole project. So that includes purchase of the actual prefab ADU plus installation, hookup fees. Yeah.

Okay. I think it would be interesting to show what the total cost was also for each of these per household. So if the new units are 268, what was the total cost of those per household, the 55 rehab units and so on from year to year, to the extent that it would be useful to know where the most efficient dollars are spent in delivering SUBSIDIZED PROJECTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

YEAH, I TOTALLY AGREE. I TRIED TO KEEP THIS VERY HIGH LEVEL FOR YOU ALL, TO BE HONEST, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO GET ALL OF THAT. WE HAVE ALL THAT DATA FOR SURE. AND THEN TO YOUR OTHER POINT The cost effectiveness, that's certainly a thing that we always look at, obviously, in our interview process when we do scoring. You know, one thing that we've talked about is doing less of an open RFP. So right now, CEA, CDBG Home, we do an open RFP every year. We'll say this is the amount of money we have. These are our priorities. These are the last year's projects, which will kind of give you a sense of geography. And then we just have developers, agencies come to us with projects. So, you know, it's a bit of a mixed bag occasionally, right? So that does unfortunately sometimes mean a less effective project might get funding because there's just no other project. It does not always happen. But to your point, that is a possibility. And we agree. It's definitely a thing we always look at.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bleed, I saw you had your hand up earlier. Would you like to? No. Okay.

I'll just ask it really quick. Thank you for catching. I was thought I might hold on to it, but just from my own knowledge, like thanks for the nice presentation. How does, how does like who tracks like affordably units? We know which ones are created, like where's the tracking them with regards to like the units, how many units are being actually used that were created and you know, all that, who, who attracts that? I guess, you know, once they're created or whatever, is that reliant upon the developer or the owner of the property or is it the county or how does that work?

I can say for market-based, on the permitting side, that isn't something that we track, but I'll let Joel answer if they track that, the occupancy issue.

Yeah, we do. So with SIA funds, it comes with a 40-year affordability agreement. So every year, for every project we fund, we do an inspection. So it's called SIA assisted. So to Commissioner Fenner's point, if SIA is paying for 20% of a project, we'll expect 20% of those units to be SIA qualified. So every year, we'll do an inspection to make sure there are 20 units in that building that's SEIA assisted. And we'll do that for 40 years for that project. And then as it goes, we keep track for 40 years. Home is more often 20 years. But home is such a smaller pot of funds, it's often paired with commerce, which also does 40 years. So in that case, commerce would do 40, and we would do 20.

Thank you for that.

Yeah.

I have a question. Are there programs or incentives for larger commercialized apartment companies to designate possible reduced rent? There's multifamily units all over Kitsap right now that are just growing and growing and growing. And they all have these large lease flags out front, and it seems like those flags have been sitting there for months. And it just kind of made me start to think, like, are there any incentives out there? Has there been any conversations and communications with these larger apartment companies about possibly incentivizing or offering that?

Yeah, no, but that's a good point. So I suppose in a world where if they wanted to recapitalize some debt they had, they could come in for an application and provide, yeah. I mean, so SIA can provide rent assistance. In a situation where there's a family who would be income qualified who already exists there, if they were attached to... an agency that wanted rent assistance they could get that from ceo or carl's program but i think your question sounds more like if there are vacant units in an already existing building could those become ceo assisted there's no rules against that um but they would i'm not sure how that would function i guess with the contract i'm just kind of curious too because that opens up that conversation about where does that collaboration happen in the planning stage

is there discussions at that point in time before construction even starts about the deficit that we have for affordable housing and maybe coming to the table and having those conversations?

Yeah, we agree. It's a good point.

Um, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK INTO THAT. IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT. THAT'S A REALLY COMMON THING THAT YOU SEE WITH MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS. THEY TRY TO ALL THEY HAVE TO HAVE FOR WISHFIX STANDARDS FOR BOND AND TAX CREDIT LENDING IS 20% OF THEIR UNITS NEED TO BE BELOW 80% AMI FOR THEM TO BE CONSIDERED AN AFFORDABLE PROJECT. TAX CREDIT LENDING IS ONE OF THE MOST OVERSUBSCRIBED PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES, LET ALONE WASHINGTON STATE. THERE'S ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS IN APPLICATIONS IN WASHINGTON EVERY YEAR, AND THERE'S ONLY $250 MILLION AVAILABLE IN TAX CREDITS. SO, AND THE HARD THING WITH WISHVIC, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, IS WISHVIC GOES OFF OF A SCORING METRIC, AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOUR GUY'S SCORING METRIC IS. And really what WISHVIC likes to see is that it's what projects are going to serve the highest and most good for the area. So it's not always the largest density projects that get awarded. It's usually, you know, what are some areas that need some love? I know that I participated in two rounds of tax credit lending with two projects in Bremerton. I've tried one in SeaTac. And It's an arduous process. It's one of the hardest things I've ever participated in in my entire life is actually putting together a tax credit application through the state of Washington. And so bless those folks that are doing the good fight for those out there that need it. Bond lending's a little bit more flexible, but it's hard to get syndicated. You have to be very credit worthy and have, it's really hard to find a syndicator that'll just give you a bond lend. And so... IT IS HARD TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT AN ESTABLISHED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER FOR SURE. I GUESS THAT IS KIND OF ALMOST TO COMMISSIONER VLEET'S QUESTION. there are some market rate folks out there that have gone back, you know, they have enough equity in or maybe, you know, whatever covenants are in the deed of their property where they're able to go in now and get some subsidies, something, you know, backed with HUD or they've reconfigured 20% or more of their units or their unit matrix to where they are able to get, you know, certain subsidies and things like that. And so I would almost, think that maybe not your new guys. They got a pretty heavy debt service as you could imagine. Anybody that's probably 10 years or newer, but anybody maybe a little older that might be experiencing vacancies, those would probably be, if I were you, that's where I would start because those folks, they'd love to alleviate. Maybe they could refinance the building, bring in a partner, bring in subsidies. you do a little bit of improvement to help the market rate side of their projects. So it's just a thought, an idea. The question I had really was, I know that there's a lot of data collection and just trying to understand what's going on with units and availability. I know that we did the local plan here 25 to 30. It's more around homelessness and transitional housing. I know, Carl, that's kind of under your wing here. And so I was just curious, you know, we have that. We just did the 2024 comp plan where we did affordable inventory and a market analysis. And so much data has been surmised in the last two years. What's the intentionality? Is this to actually have an action take place now out of all this data and fact finding? Is it to WHAT'S DIFFERENT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS THAN WHAT WAS DONE IN THE COMP PLAN WITH AN ANALYSIS AND AN INVENTORY AND THEN THE 25 TO 30 PLAN WITH AN ANALYSIS AND AN INVENTORY AND IT'S ALL AROUND THESE SAME HOUSING TYPES AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE'RE APPROACHING IT A THIRD TIME.

AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO KEEP IMPROVING. SO I THINK PART OF WHAT GARRETT MENTIONED IS WE'RE BEING ASKED TO GO FURTHER AND FURTHER WITH THIS. SO NOT JUST THE DATA, BUT AN EXAMPLE IS estimating our rate of construction, it goes to Commissioner Fenner's point that he made earlier, looking historically what has been our construction rate historically for those affordable rates for new construction. And so then using that to project to the future and how are we missing? Are we missing our targets? The answer is yes. And what are we doing to fill that gap? So we haven't even gotten there yet. So I think right now we're in the relationship building phase, recognizing we both have data. SEEING WHERE THEY OVERLAP AND I THINK EVERY YEAR WILL CONTINUE TO AND WITH THAT 2029 PROGRESS REPORT OR SOONER DEPENDING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PERHAPS REACTION TO OUR COMP PLAN REMAND IS LIKE WHEN I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S SHIFTING FROM It's shifting to a proactive oversight model. So if you're not meeting this and you're not working, like if the rate that you've been building, you know, year one, two, three is not projecting to meet it, what are you doing to change that? And they're going to hold that accountable and it's going to be tied to funds. So I think this is the beginning and I think it's going to continue to get more and more detailed. That's why any sort of creative idea that you bring to us, we're listening. But all these systems are new and need to be created where a bridge needs to be built that wasn't there before.

Yeah, absolutely. I'd be curious. I know that Bremerton has one, something that I really relied on in my time in affordable housing development was housing action plans. I was on the other side of the water where it's far more common with those municipalities to have a housing action plan. And I don't know if that's something that Kitsap County has ever kicked around because it kind of solves actually everything, right? The comp plan, what was derived from the comp plan, the local plan, that's what it is usually referred to, which is that 25 to 30 around the homelessness. And then even this, the beauty of that, in my experience, truly from a developer standpoint, so I can't speak from the inner workings of those municipalities, but it does exactly that. The housing action plan really bridged bridged multiple departments within that municipality so that way you're getting a really holistic approach to what actually is going on with housing at every level of AMI. And that might be something that kind of solves and gives like a living document. I know like my last big project I did was in SeaTac. Their housing action plan gets touched every five years. And so they are constantly updating and kind of living in that. So I don't know if that's something that the county is open to, not to put a project on your plate, but what it might do is bring all that data and all this hard work that's been done over the last two to three years and give it life and legs and let it move forward and let it be a living document that you can share with commerce and share with the public at large that we're taking this serious. And it gives a path forward with a lot of input.

I agree. And I think that 2029 progress report is our step towards that. And what those requirements look like in the end, we're waiting for that guidance. But I think us just having these conversations is starting to work towards that.

Yeah, absolutely. I'm really excited, you guys. I think there's a lot of ways forward. My last bit of creative advice I guess would be since you're open to creativity is I know I mentioned this to Jim before but something totally unrelated is We would get a lot of investment from like local hospitals and really big corporations That if you really dig into them, they actually have a it's part of their mission usually is to impact housing and or to improve the communities in which they're living. And so I would really lean on that. And there's usually a lot of untapped funds, especially places like St. Michael's and things like that. They actually, it's part of some of their mission for the communities that they serve in. And so I think that might be an untapped potential of kind of encouraging them to participate in solving some of these issues that they're helping create, not in a bad way, but they are. They're bringing more bodies and more employees and more services and more cost and more pull on our overall tax system. And so I think that it's only fair that everybody comes together in the sake of collaboration. So that might be another avenue.

No, that's great. And public-private partnership models exist. So how can we take from that?

Yeah, there's really beautiful ones I can really speak to in the city of Seattle. Just a quick little Google search, the public-private with health systems, things like that, I think they're easy they don't you don't have to recreate the wheel with some of those things and those are my favorite things where you can just kind of mimic an existing provable model so yeah i think i know it seems like this insurmountable task to try and solve this i don't think it's something that necessarily gets solved but i think that it can be made a lot easier and lighter so i'm excited for you guys i think this is great work yeah commissioner fenner i saw you had your hand up would you like to give an additional comment

I can offer a little background to the question about vacancy, having worked in multifamily private equity. When a for-profit property is operating, whether it has a component of the unit set aside for subsidy or not, it's always intending to offer some units vacant so that they can test the market. whether the market's going up or the market's going down. So if the market's going down, for example, and you've got generally 5% vacancy is kind of the target, 4 or 5%. And if the market's going down, then you'll see increased vacancy if you hold the rates constant. Multifamily is unique apart from, say, office, retail, industrial, where if you drop the rates just slightly, absorption or increased occupancy is very responsive. And so you can say, We need to drop the rates by this much to keep our vacancy at the optimum amount. And the other way, if the market increases, then you want to be testing the market to know where the opportunity is to increase your top line and your net operating income.

Thank you so much. All right. Do we have any other questions or comments for our presenters today? All right. Seeing none, thank you all so very much for your time. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

All righty. OUR NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO BE OUR COMBINED WORK STUDY, PUBLIC HEARING, DELIBERATIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT ON TITLE 17 DEFINITION EDITS PRESENTED BY GARRETT BALOU, DCD LONG RANGE PLANNER. GARRETT, TAKE US AWAY WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. and Mr. Jim Rogers. I'm so sorry, Jim, I didn't see you on the agenda.

All right. Well, good evening, commissioners. For the record, I'm Garrett Ballou, long-range planner with DCD. And this evening, we are bringing forth a brand-new code update that you'll be seeing this evening. You'll notice that in the schedule and in the meeting invites and all of that, that it's proposed as a combined briefing, public hearing, deliberations, and findings of fact. I want to reiterate that there are Just to explain, that's our staff recommendation based on the more narrow scope of this proposed amendment and also just the timeliness of the subject matter. However, if the planning commissioner at any time would like to defer any part of this to a future planning commission, that is totally fine. That is acceptable. This is what we're proposing for this evening's meeting going forward with it all together. So with that said, Is that all right with the Planning Commission if we begin that way? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, awesome. Okay, so then the way this can work is I'll go ahead and give this short presentation on what we're looking at with these Title 17 definitions updates. And then following the presentation, we can have a discussion and answer questions. And that can serve as the briefing portion of tonight's presentation. At that point, we can then open up the public hearing. There's been a comment period for the last two weeks, and you have the comments before you. And then after the public hearing, we could move to deliberations. We have a matrix with two items on it, proposed changes from the comment that we've submitted over the past couple of weeks. And then at that point, if the desire is to move to a findings of fact, we will need a unanimous motion from the planning commission. And then we can move to the findings of fact, and final document in the packet that you've received and so for those online Commissioner Fenner and Commissioner Vliet we have emailed a few additional documents to both of you before the meeting and those are including the public comments received as well as a summary of those comments and the deliberations matrix which I'll also be sharing at that time so I know there was a lot of information, but just wanted to cover that. I know that this is kind of an action-packed meeting this evening. Okay, so with that said, I'll jump into the slides. So the proposed schedule for this project, tonight we have this combined meeting with work study, public hearing, deliberations and findings of fact. Tomorrow we are bringing a similar presentation to the board at our monthly update with the Board of County Commissioners. Then we would have a public hearing, and actually that should say August 24th, the August 10th meeting was canceled. And then we'd be looking at a late summer, early fall potential adoption window for this. All right. So a little bit of background on the topic here. So data centers, they are often large scale development projects that can have substantial land use resource and infrastructure requirements. They require oftentimes significant amounts of electricity and water for their operation. Typically these are like always on facilities. So they need to be cooled and they need to be connected to electricity to operate. and transfer the data that they're providing for their use. And they may have implications for local utilities, natural resources, and environmental conditions including water quality as they use water for a lot of their cooling purposes. And we are currently keeping tabs on a variety of different pieces of guidance, both at the state level, at more of a local level, and also federally regarding these data centers. So here are a few examples up on the screen. So there is the Governor's Data Center Work Group. which came up with some direction in 2025, and it was more of a recommendation for large utility loads, so sites that are using quite a significant portion of the power grid's resource to develop kind of a reporting criteria for those uses. And they also directed the Department of Ecology to develop data center siting and operating best practices to address infrastructure, environmental practices, and tribal rights. And so that's something that we are continuing to follow as we look towards some additional guidance when it comes to these types of use. There's also at the federal level an executive order directing the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to review state AI laws for conflicts with a nationally minimally with the National Minimally Burdensome AI Policy Framework. And so that is something that we have yet to see, but it's also another item that we have on the radar to keep an eye out for. And then more locally, there are several county associations, including WASAC, which is the Washington State Association of Counties, as well as the National Association of Counties. And so these groups are collaborating to develop some proposed legislation regarding a citing and best practice guidance for these types of data centers. And so county is following all of these efforts. We're monitoring these trends to understand potential approaches to regulating and managing data centers. And I want to kind of explain here that this proposed update to Title 17, it is not really creating an overhaul of code or anything like that, and it's not introducing a new use for data centers or anything along those lines, which we did get some comments speaking to that effect. Really, we're taking a look at a couple of existing definitions, and I'll share with those in a minute here. we're really following this guidance and awaiting this guidance before we, we take any potential next steps when we're talking about these data centers and that the type of use. And so it's something that we, we need to see additional guidance from the state, um, potentially at the federal level and also from local organizations. It was also something that we would be need to be directed to, um, TO BE TASKED WITH BY THE COMMISSIONERS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ADDITIONAL WORK THAT IS LIKELY TO BE DONE ON THIS TOPIC, BUT THE SCOPE OF THIS AMENDMENT HERE IS JUST TAKING A LOOK AT A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS IN TITLE 17. ALL RIGHT. SO WHY ARE WE TAKING A LOOK AT THESE RIGHT NOW? SO NEARBY JURISDICTIONS AND JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FOR DATA CENTERS SUBMITTED UNDER use classifications such as research laboratories or warehouses. So we have a couple of examples. So one of these being Pierce County, and they actually use what's called a light manufacturing definition. There's also the City of Seattle more recently, and there was a SEPA checklist that we reviewed in which the proposal is described as a research and development lab with a co-location data center. And so we're taking a look at a couple of definitions in Title 17, those being research laboratories and warehousing and distribution. Because these definitions were written into the code before the evolving landscape regarding these technologies and data centers and the increase in interest in building these and permitting these across the country. And so we want to ensure that the intent of those definitions is still met as these conditions evolve. All right. So you'll see up on the screen now it's the first of these two definitions is that research laboratory. And so this is 17-110-658. And really the, The key piece here with this revision is that research laboratories are characterized by the presence of researchers, technicians, scientists, engineers, or similar personnel conducting that research, testing, or experimental activities within the laboratory. And so these uses can include some offices, equipment, support spaces, but they must be characterized by that equipment CONTINUAL RESEARCH BY PERSONNEL ON SITE. SO THIS REVISION OR THIS FIRST PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION GETS AT THAT AND EXPLAINS THAT FACILITIES WHOSE PRIMARY FUNCTION IS EQUIPMENT OPERATION, UTILITY SERVICE PROVISION, STORAGE, WAREHOUSING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT INVOLVING THAT ONGOING RESEARCH PIECE ARE NOT RESEARCH LABORATORIES UNDER THIS PROPOSED DEFINITION HERE. When we get into the deliberations portion, there was a change based on the public comment that we'll see before this slide was put together. But it's very much the same, and this is the proposed change for this definition. Are there any questions on this one? Okay. All right. Then we can take a look at the next definition, which is a 17.1.10.743 for warehousing and distribution. So this was a fairly short definition. It is a fairly short definition in Title 17. And this has also seen some proposed amendments here. This is one where once we get to the deliberation matrix, there have been some proposed tweaks. Taking a look at the public comment, there was some suggestions there that have been incorporated into the staff recommendation, but THIS ONE IS REALLY FOCUSING ON THE STORAGE OF PHYSICAL MATERIALS, PHYSICAL MERCHANDISE AND STOCK FOR A WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER TO BE STORED ON SITE FOR SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OR TRANSFER ELSEWHERE. SO THAT'S THE FOCUS OF WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION UNDER THIS PROPOSED REVISION TO THE DEFINITION IN TITLE 17. And that final sentence, a use that does not maintain an inventory of tangible goods as its principal activity shall not be considered a warehouse. You'll see that seen a bit of a recommended change in the deliberations matrix. But the general idea remains the same for that. So are there any questions on this one? OK. All right, so that wraps up the presentation portion. And if there's any discussion on anything that I have covered, we can go ahead and get into that for the briefing portion of the presentation tonight.

I just want to re-clarify, Garrett. There's no active or in-process applications that you're aware of regarding Kitsap County and AI Data Center?

Yeah, that's correct. There are no applications at this time. This is... The county DCD is taking a look at what's occurring across the state, across the country, and also taking a look at our code. We're always taking a look at our code to see if we can make any adjustments. That's kind of what's happening with the admin code as well. And this is something that we've identified as wanting to make sure that these two definitions still hold up to their original intent as things kind of change and shift around the landscape regarding these data centers.

Sure thing. Thank you so much. I see Commissioner Fenner.

Yeah, if I might just go back to the previous slide, well, the two slides. My question is, when a new project applies for permit, then does this necessitate they apply under one or the other definition if their intent is warehouse or research, warehouse for distribution or for research?

So the, let's see. You're saying if there was a situation where there is warehousing activities and research laboratory type activities, you know, ongoing research and testing going on within the same facility, whether they should permit under a warehouse or a research laboratory? Is that the question?

That would be the next question. My 1st, how are these definitions used? Are they used to categorize a permit application?

Yes. Yeah, so essentially these are uses within Title 17. So if somebody were to come in for a permit and they are going to have a warehouse, they're going to be building a large structure. They're going to be storing physical goods for sale elsewhere. There's going to be, I'm thinking like an Amazon warehouse or something like that. they would fall under this warehousing and distribution definition in the code. And if there were a research laboratory, there's going to be testing, research, and those types of activities in line with the definition we see for research laboratory, then that would be a research laboratory under the definition. Hopefully that answers your question. If not... Let me know if there's anything else as a part of that that I can speak to.

Yeah, so an applicant wants to build a research laboratory with storage components, then yeah, you started to elude what happens if one wants to do both, or one wants to use one space for the other use at a later point.

Yeah.

Maybe start with the first question.

Yeah, so you have multiple uses. It's a mixed use.

It's not uncommon to see research and development with a storage component, right? So you might You might do research and development, you might do some manufacturing and you might do some logistics all in the same place. And that business model might shift over time for that matter. And then you might be not any of the above. You might just be a private for your own, where it's not for a commercial intent, but you need the warehouse space. Some is for a distribution because you might have a side business and others for your own personal and it's not a logistics hub like the traditional industrial definition you've got on the second page would describe. So it would seem to preclude one from that intent in the permit application. Is there a category for that type of individual?

So I think part of this is maybe, and one of the comments alluded to this as well, is if you have multiple types of use, is there then like a percentage on then what's a primary and what's not considered? So how much of the floor space, for example, would be a research laboratory and then how much would be a warehouse and distribution facility? THE PROPOSED CHANGE WHEN WE GET INTO THE DELIBERATION MATRIX IS ACTUALLY TO TAKE OUT AT LEAST FOR THE WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE FACILITY SHALL BE THE STORAGE. I know this isn't entirely getting to what your question is, but our proposal- I asked a few questions.

That's a lot all at once, but this was the thought off top of my mind. How would one who has something that doesn't fit neatly inside one or the other description know how to apply? Or are they just disallowed from applying?

So the way that we currently have uses work in the code is if you, well, first off, if you're under one of the uses, you are able to apply under an existing use. If we don't have an existing use, then you have to compare to a similar use within the code. If we don't have a similar use, then it's not permitted going forward. So that maybe addresses part of it, but it doesn't get at the multiple types of use within the building.

Yeah, it doesn't sound like there's a quick and ready answer, but maybe my question can stir a little more thought in allowing development that's not for AI servers, or our generation, but is still to be encouraged not to be discouraged. Okay.

Hi. I just wanted to maybe clarify off of your question and maybe just to see if I'm understanding it correctly, which is my understanding is that these definitions are just expanding a categories we already had in our code just to make them clearer and have more elaborate explanation of what those items are. And then in my PAST WHEN WE HAD, SAY, A RESEARCH BUILDING AND WE WERE BUILDING A RESEARCH BUILDING BUT THEN IT HAD A STORAGE COMPONENT, WE ACTUALLY PERMITTED IT AS EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONE BUILDING, THE STORAGE COMPONENT ABIDED BY STORAGE CODE AND THE RESEARCH BUILDING ABIDED BY RESEARCH CODE. WOULD THAT MAYBE HELP EXPLAIN THE QUESTION?

YEAH. SO TO THE FIRST PART OF YOUR of your piece there, it's we're not intending to change anything that was existing or there. We're expanding to provide some additional clarification. Yes. However, these warehouses and distribution centers and research laboratories were permitted in the past. Nothing's changing there going forward. It's just providing some clarification and expanding these definitions a little bit further out. That's the intent of this update.

So that if you're building a research building, you easily meet these criteria. And if you are building, say, something else that you're wanting to call a research building, it is harder to meet this criteria. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments for Garrett or Jim while we have them up? All right. I am seeing none. Okay. So let's start with you guys. We'll open up the public hearing.

All right. Yeah. Sounds good. Thank you.

Good. Okay. All right. It is now time to open the public hearing. Do we have anyone in the room that would like to provide public testimony?

Yeah? No?

All right. And then do we have anybody online that is wanting to provide public testimony? All right.

I'm not seeing any hands up.

Yeah, I see none. Okay. All right. I see none online and none in the room. This concludes the public testimony portion. DO ANY OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR FINAL DELIBERATIONS? NONE. SEEING NONE, WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE TO INITIATE DELIBERATIONS? IF YES, THEN A MAIN MOTION IS NEEDED TO INITIATE.

I move to consider by paragraph and recommend adoption of the Title 17 definition edits as presented by staff and as potentially amended by Planning Commission in these deliberations. Do we have a second?

I second.

All right. The motion has been moved and seconded. Apologies. We can proceed with deliberations. Garrett's going to have our deliberations material shared up here in a moment.

Yeah, I'll get those up in just a minute here. Alrighty, thanks for bearing with me there. So I had mentioned we had a couple of items on the deliberation matrix this evening, one for each of the proposed changes to the definitions. And so based on feedback from the written public comments we received, there were a couple of comments, one of which pertaining to research laboratories and This was the use of regular presence in that type of language may introduce the potential for misinterpretation or subjectivity in this definition. So initially, if you look at the draft ordinance, which is included in your packet, it was also on the previous slide when I was presenting earlier. It had said research laboratories are characterized by the regular presence of researchers, technicians, scientists, engineers, or similar personnel. And that could lead to some misinterpretation and subjectivity regarding that term regular presence. And so this was a suggestion. And our staff recommendation after reviewing those comments was to remove the word regular from regular presence. And so that's what you see here in the staff recommendation and the deliberations matrix. So are there any questions by the planning commission or any discussion?

Just to clarify, from what we read previously a few minutes ago on your other slide, the only change is that we've taken out the word regular?

Correct.

Okay.

All right. Well, then we'll go ahead and move on to the second item on the matrix here, and that is... Oh, we did have Commissioner Fenner's hand up.

Oh, I apologize.

Commissioner Fenner? Well, I was going to affirm that change. I agree with the removal of that qualifier. Okay.

All right, then moving on to warehousing and distribution. These changes are similar in that they are intended to reduce the potential of any misinterpretation. Clarifying, we want to provide clarity in the code and not create additional areas for potential misinterpretation or subjectivity. And so in the original ordinance, or in the slides which I was sharing earlier. It had language that referred to the primary purpose of the facility is for storage of physical materials. It also mentioned that a use that does not maintain a substantial inventory of tangible goods shall not be considered warehousing distribution. And it also mentioned that that would be the principal activity. So if a site... If the principal activity of... structure or building is not to have a physical inventory of goods that are to be sold or transferred elsewhere, then it would not be considered warehousing and distribution. That is the effect of the previous original edition of the code that's in the draft ordinance. So after taking a look at those definitions, we proposed removal of that primary, substantial, and principal from the proposed amendment and specified that only physical inventory is to be maintained and distributed. So that was the addition of this word only here for only physical goods and A use that does not maintain an inventory consisting exclusively of tangible goods shall not be considered warehousing and distribution. So this one has received a few additional changes beyond just the one word change from the research and laboratory up there. So with that said, I'll open it up for any questions and discussions on that staff recommendation.

Do you have any comments regarding this item number two? All right. Seeing none, Garrett.

OK. Are there any other items of either of these definitions that the Planning Commission would like to discuss or provide recommendations?

I'm seeing none online. Please, Commissioner Meisenberg.

Sorry. I was reviewing the language in that paragraph a little bit more closely. So in the first sentence, you have a notation only physical goods, but at the very end, you say exclusively of tangible goods. So can you, I mean, should that be?

Just for consistency, you're suggesting physical there as well?

I was. Yeah. But I just kind of, I wanted to hear from you as to whether or not there is a difference, just for consistency.

Yeah, this is something we actually were discussing earlier as well. And the effect of tangible, the definition of tangible and physical, they're similar there. But if we see value in going with physical just for consistency and clarity, we can certainly make that change.

I would recommend doing that. Okay. Do we hear a motion for that? I would like to make a motion to amend the language noting only physical goods to the end where it notates tangible goods. I second.

Is there any discussion with the Planning Commission around that change? All right. I am seeing none. All those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise your hand.

All right, it is unanimous and it passes.

Are there any other amendments for this Title 17 definition update? I see none online. No more on the dais. Okay. If there are no additional amendments, that brings us back to the original motion as amended. Is there a motion to approve the main motion?

I move to approve the Title 17 definition edits as presented by staff and amended by the Planning Commission.

Do we hear a second?

Second. Is Commissioner Lee? Okay. All right. Is there any further discussion? All right. There's no further discussion. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. It is unanimous. The motion passes. Would the Planning Commission like to consider the findings of fact this evening? If yes, the Commission must have a unanimous vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Sure is unanimous. All right. It will be moving forward. And do I hear a motion to approve the findings of fact this evening?

I move to approve the findings of fact as presented by staff.

Do we hear a second? Second. Second. Are there any further discussion? If there is further, oh, so sorry. Do we have any further discussion around the findings of fact? All right. Seeing none, if there's no further discussion, all in favor, please raise your hand. All right, unanimous again. It's going to pass and carry. Before you both leave, I just want to say thank you so much, and thank you to the county as a whole on this. I think it's something that you can see from public comment is near and dear, and it's heavy on the hearts of all U.S. citizens right now. This beautiful country that we are so blessed to live in is... just in a really tough spot between growth and preservation. And so thank you guys. I really appreciate you getting ahead of this and keeping, you know, our citizens in particular at the forefront of your minds. And I have a feeling there's going to be a lot more that comes down the pipeline around this, but I just want to say thank you to staff and just thank you for taking the time and realizing how important it was to bring this forward now. So I appreciate you. All right, fastest public hearing in history. The next item on our agenda will be a briefing on the 21.08 site-specific amendment presented by Heather Cleveland again, our DCD long-range planner. Welcome back, Heather. Thank you. Thank you. I'll just give it a moment for the presentation to come up.

Okay, thank you, Planning Commissioners, for having me again. Again, my name is Heather Cleveland, Long Range Planner with Kitsap County Department of Community Development, and I'm here to give a briefing on a new project. It's Code Update Title 21, Site-Specific Amendments. So a bit of background about this project. So Title 21 is a legislative process for site-specific amendments. This is different than a comp plan update or development regulation update, which you normally see from us. And with that, the public process is different. So because this isn't changing anything, this is only changing a process, the public process is different, meaning it doesn't have to go through planning commission for hearing. But we do feel... We do feel that this is a topic that you are involved in, as it went through the Planning Commission last year, recommendations and moving forward, but this is a process update. Historically, the process, it was in 2016, I believe, was the last time we accepted the applications and there was a fee. And those are the reports that I looked back on when we were reviewing for this process. And it includes in our 2108 process a pre-op meeting, you know, and a fee is involved. And that has been our historic process. That shifted in the 2020 for a comp plan periodic update process in accepting What was known as reclassification requests. It's a it was a different term that was used The comment that's okay, I'll just keep going it a different term was used for something that was very similar and In that It aligned with for example about 80 applicant applications were received and and I would say application-slash-interest forms were received, but it didn't go through that same process that's described in 2108. And it included, for example, increased density and zonings that were in the urban growth area that aligned with the comp plan direction. And then there was a number of those... applications that were included in the rural to rural that shifted over and those were part of the environmental impact statement assessment and then some were dismissed immediately as spot zones. So that was the process and those were received in 2022 and then some of those part of 2024, 17 were then deferred to 2025 as part of the year of the rural. And that process was difficult for staff in that the process used to evaluate, like I said earlier, it aligned with the comprehensive plan goals. Those are the ones that move forward, and they move forward as a county proposal. County proposal doesn't have to go through the same site-specific amendment process. But when it came to... the year of the rural and the rural-to-rural reclassifications that we were evaluating during 2025, we did use the site-specific amendment process, which is a significant amount of work. However, it didn't include those pre-op meetings and things like that. So all of this background is what brought – we want to build on the momentum and lessons learned from the past several years, and that's why this project is moving forward this year. So next steps, a charter has been created to outline the scope of work and the timeline. The scope of work includes the following topics that we'll be looking into. This is not intended to be a long project and update, but at minimum, just acknowledging some of the things that we would like to take a look at and dig a little bit deeper and do some research. Not all of this may move forward. Some of it will, some of it won't, but these are the observations that I've had just based on my experience over the past couple years. so mid-cycle review is something that is mentioned in the comprehensive plan and we would like it to be more explicit explicitly mentioned in code when folks ask us well when is my next opportunity to apply we would like to be more clear of when the next window would open i would add to that though not wide open but be clear of what you're accepting so that it's a good use of everybody's time of what could move forward, what's being considered, be part of that vetting process in the beginning, that that should be a part of it. But what we're looking at is potentially a mid-cycle review and then a comp plan review to be part of the kind of openly, like a process that's documented and recognized by staff and by the community. Code compliance violations, so in this last review of reclassification requests in 2025, we didn't have anything in our code to address that. It was something that we looked into, it was brought to our attention, but there was no direct, I guess, explicit way of what does that mean for an applicant, and is that something that's evaluated with everybody? We did do that in the public interest, but we would like that to be more explicit so that it's clear for the applicant about what that means if you have an existing code compliance violation. process within the comprehensive plan, that's something that I would like to look into further. So what does that mean? You know, if you're updating zoning or land use designations, as is a part of the comprehensive plan periodic update, how do you understand those interests that align with the county without having it shift over to a site-specific amendment request eventually without that proper process that's identified in our code? Clarity for the following rezones or site-specific amendments or land use designations. So mineral resource overlay. So that's a resource land, but it is an overlay. But what is the process to remove it? And what is the difference between exhausting it or it not being activated at that time? What is the process for that? Would like more clarity on that. Park zoning. So that's something that would come from the county. Any site-specific amendment is a comp plan amendment process. So if it's added to the docket, all of this is a part of a process. However, when it comes to park zoning, that's coming from the county. Is that something that should be evaluated annually? And then is it a policy, which it isn't currently? that all park acquisitions is park zoning. If that's not the case, what does that look like? And then finally, tribe zone. So these are all a little bit different, but also you can see that they're unique from typical development zoning, such as rural residential versus something in the UGA. So tribe zone, that's applied when it's in the tribe trust. And we don't have to decide that. It simply happens. But what is our procedure for that to assess that and gather that information on an annual basis so that our records are accurate? Assess review criteria, so having just went through site-specific amendment, the review criteria, is there duplication in this? Is this getting to the heart of helping us make a decision, also to help decision makers? Are we providing the information that's helpful to move this forward? And then finally, just want to touch on assessing land use designation, which that's the process that goes through long-range planning, and that's a comp plan process versus a zoning update process, which is a permitting process that happens in current planning. So just want to make sure that we're doing that the way that it should be. The reason why we have a bit of pause with that is there are zoning maps in our comprehensive plan. However, we do have a specific process for this in our code currently. So I just want to revisit that, make sure that we're good with that. The public process for this, like I mentioned, this does not have to go through the public process with planning commission hearings, finds the fact. However, we do want to share the updates with you to get your feedback. Again, also seeing this as an opportunity to keep the public up to date on updates that are being made. And then finally, I'd mentioned earlier where the intention for this project is to wrap up in 2026. So whatever scope that looks like, ideally it would wrap up in 2026. So just highlighting some of the scope that I mentioned earlier, just showing this is the mid-cycle review. This is where it's identified in a comprehensive plan. So the work that's moving forward has already been identified in the comprehensive plan. But again, codifying it is what we're looking for. Code compliance, so application, is there something that should be acknowledged in the application process, acknowledge of an existing code compliance case? We'll be reviewing the process for that. Comprehensive plan, so alignment with the comp plan process and then the site-specific amendment process and what's the difference. Alternate process for the following that I already mentioned, the mineral resource overlay, park zone, and tribe zone. Administrative, although it still has to go on the docket and be part of that process, but is there something that could happen annually for us to assess those? Review criteria, so this is an example of the review criteria. Want to look through this, make sure that it's helpful, make sure that it makes sense, and also does it align with applications that would move forward in the future? We'll review that. And then I mentioned earlier land use map and zoning map. So this on the comprehensive plan map, so that's land use designation. So interestingly, in Kitsap County, when it's rural, those are separate land use designations. So those aren't, it's a zone and it's a land use designation. So hence why it has to go through the comprehensive planning process. And then zoning maps, so if there's a change in density in an urban growth area, if it has the same land use designation, that can go through the current planning process. And that's all I have. Thank you. Yeah, this is an update on the project moving forward, and then I'm looking forward to presenting again on our proposed updates in August.

Happy for any questions. Yeah, awesome. Thank you so much, Heather. I have a quick question. on your slide we don't have to look at it by any means but it was the alternative processes which is like the mineral resource overlay or is that just truly kind of extracting through the overlays to surmise data or is it is there a little bit of an assessment around that particular piece too like around our mineral resource our parks because I know you're talking about doing like maybe like an annual review or maybe a certain periodic review is that the intentionality or is it truly the overlay of trying to understand what actually is there when you take off each layer?

Yeah, there's a split. So to answer your question about mineral resource overlay, it's what is the process because we've received several requests that folks want to remove that. So, right, so is that part of a site-specific amendment where they would submit an application? Or is it treated like a mineral resource zone? The difference with mineral resources is that they can be exhausted. That's different from forest resource lands or agriculture resource lands, which we don't have agricultural zoning. So the idea with the overlay is it can be removed once that resource is exhausted, and then it would go back to the underlying zone. So what we've been asked is, well, I don't want my mineral resource overlay, and we're looking into what does that look like? Is that a site-specific amendment that you request? Or more likely, though, it's a resource land and it's not treated like that. So I want to better unpack what is the process for that, what do other jurisdictions do, and be clearer so we can have a better answer for folks of what that process looks like for them.

Forgive me if this is like me trying to connect two wild dots here, but are you able to surmise, is there anything to support that process of what you're extracting out of the Ken ramp? Project.

Oh, you know what I mean?

I know that it's like in a second ramp just and please correct me if I'm it's been a little bit since we had that presentation But it was meant to be like an assessment of natural lands and resources And I was just curious if that might help support and decision-making To identify, you know, maybe it is an exhausted resource or it's near its end of useful life or something like that I didn't know if that might be a helpful data. I

It could be, and also the DNR has new maps that they've published, so I think that's another resource. And I think identifying the existing data and maps that exist, but then I think the next step further is what's needed to remove that. What does the decision-making tree look like? Because even if a site-specific amendment application was submitted, what's the process to determine that? The difference being this is a resource land.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay, awesome. I was just curious.

And then I guess to answer the other side, those are administrative, and I think those aren't in the same bucket. They're all in slightly different buckets. Can we just look at those a little closer and see what does that look like? It's not a site-specific amendment. It's not part of a comp plan process. What is the process for those kind of unique situations?

Yeah, surely. Awesome. Thank you, thank you. Do any of my other commissioners have any questions or comments for Heather while we have her? All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right. WHERE AM I? HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. DO ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JIM OR GARRETT PRIOR TO US GOING INTO OUR FINAL DELIBERATIONS AROUND THE 2026 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE UPDATES? ALL RIGHT. I AM SEEING NONE. WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIKE TO INITIATE DELIBERATIONS? IF YES, THEN A MAIN MOTION IS

I move to consider by paragraph and amend adoption of the 2026 Administrative Code update as presented by staff and as potentially amended by Planning Commission in these deliberations.

And do we have a second?

Second.

All right. The motion has been moved and seconded. We can proceed with deliberations. All righty. Thank you, Jim.

Hi, my name is Jim Rogers, a long-range plan supervisor. And I am filling in for April, who has been your lead on this project up until now. She's on vacation, so I'm filling in here. So bear with me as we get through these. So one of the things, a background on this one is that DCD does these updates to code annually. The edits are intended to move quickly through the adoption process and not be substantive. And so if items are substantive, we would pull them off the list to go through a different process. And as you have seen, we have pulled a few of those from the beginning. So the objective here is to eliminate or reduce conflicting provisions of code, add clarity to existing sections of code without changing the intent or meaning in the language, to create more predictability and certainty in development standards and review processes, and to create an efficient system to catalog and organize previous and new code edits, and to codify certain directors' interpretations. So the timeline right now, we are in July here at the deliberations and findings of fact. And then following this, we will be going to the Board of County Commissioners in the August and September timeframe with a briefing, a work study, another public hearing there. And we'll be doing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt. And hopefully, we'll do an adoption in October. So some of the proposed edits, they're all administrative edits. They're listed here, and I'll go through each one of them here on the following slides. We also have three director's interpretations, and I'll go through those quickly as well. You've seen all these before, so I won't spend a lot of time on them, but I do wanted to just, you know, just to highlight them and update, make sure that you're aware of everything that we're looking at in the change matrix before we get there. So this one is adding co-living to the group living definition. And multifamily definition, we're adding side-by-side units. And this one actually has a change in the matrix. It's on line two. I handed out hard copies for you just a few minutes ago. There was a deletion of a couple of words at the end of the sentence that didn't get carried over into the the deliberation matrix that you saw um the the words in the end uh designated uh for occupancy by three or more families that that should be stricken like as it is here on this slide um in the version that you saw in your packet that that was not stricken um but now all three documents including the draft ordinance all match so That's the one difference that those online won't see in their handout because we didn't have a handout for them tonight. The next one is club, and this is defining the rear lot lines and in all other zones, the minimum setback, what those are supposed to be. Another zoning, places of worship, also looking at the minimum setback. And then adding a footnote to a reference table in the low density residential, adding footnote 25 there to urban low and the UCR zone. Tree canopy we're adding commercial uses to that definition it was clear when that was Adopted but it was left out so we're adding that back in there And then on doing the math on tree canopy credits, making some clarifications there from one to both and from six to three new deciduous tree units. Correcting a reference on this one. And then an interpretation on for cell towers. This one is a, so I got three slides on this one, so it's making sure that subdivision, or not subdivision, but making sure that land could be subdivided for leasing to wireless communication services. So you don't have to worry about the minimum size standards there. But it still has to comply with county code. And there's the full added code for leasing division of property in its entirety there. And again, here's an interpretation of... Gosh. Nonconforming structures. If you're going to replace a nonconforming structure, it can be no greater than 10% larger than the original structure. That interpretation is written out there. This particularly pertains to mobile and manufacturing homes. And that was it. I should have changed my name. My name's not April. It's Jim. So sorry about that. Any questions or any slides I should jump back into before I open up the change matrix?

I just had one quick question just to reconfirm. These 11 items that we just read are the total and complete what we are deliberating on today? Correct. Thank you.

Do we have any other questions or comments for Jim from the Planning Commission? prior to going to deliberations. Commissioner Vliet?

Yeah, I don't know if this was the right time for it, but I just wanted to, well, thank you to April and Jim for putting this together. I know we've kind of talked about this a lot. I know there were some people from the community who wrote in about with regards to the tree credits. So I'm looking forward to us as a planning commission to give them the opportunity to talk about that more further in the future.

Yeah, we had several comments regarding the tree code and wanting to kind of open that back up, but that was kind of outside the scope of this, to open that code back up for anything other than just clarifying what the code was intended.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Are there?

You're going to open up the digital matrix now? You're working on it.

We're going to open up that change matrix so we can take a look at them. You can either look.

Okay.

Feel free to. Oh, there you go.

Sorry, Commissioner Fenner and Commissioner of Leet don't have this particular matrix, I believe. We just got this given so that way they can follow along with us as we go.

And you'll notice there in line two, it is the only difference between the version that you have in your packet and the version that I handed out is in line two there where the last portion of that sentence is stricken.

OK, wonderful.

That's the only difference.

Wonderful. If it's okay with the commission, I would love, it's just 11 items and most are fairly simple. I'd like to just go one by one. And if there's any amendments, if that also works for you, Chairman Garrett, does that sound okay? Okay. Lovely. All right. So we'll start with item one. Are there any amendments looking to be made from the commission? All right. I'm seeing none.

Thank you.

All right, on item two, multifamily, are there any amendments that are looking to be made from the Planning Commission? All right, I'm seeing none. Item number three, around correcting the grammar of allowed use standards of club, any amendments? All right, I'm seeing none. Item number four, correcting the grammar of the allowed use standards of places of worship. Any amendments? All right, I am seeing none. And for item number five, adding the footnote reference for the table. Any amendments? Seeing none. Item number six, tree canopy requirements clarification. Any amendments? Commissioner Fenner, please.

Yeah, I just want to clarify this references 17.495.020 and it's incidental or affirming what's below it then in 17. And I just followed the link to see the page beneath it shows 17.495.030. And I just want to confirm that the reason it's not new is because it's just above the table that includes a variety of zoning designations, including commercial low intensity and high intensity. And so that's why It's not new?

Yes, that is correct. And taking a look at that one, it should state commercial uses above because the table below does include commercial uses. And so if you're reading through that as the code is currently written, you wouldn't realize that it applies to commercial uses until you get to the table. And this is to make it clear that it does indeed apply to commercial uses, and it just puts that up top as well.

Thanks for confirming.

Yeah.

All right. Are there any amendments on number six? Commissioner Vliet, please.

I think I'm not following something, but if you could scroll up on the screen a little bit. In the third column on community club and all that, can you, a little bit further up, maybe is it three and four? Maybe I'm just missing something, but The language in here is like, yeah. Let's go down to three. So the third column, is that what's supposed to be in there, the wording? And on four, they had the same one, but I don't see Maybe something just got re-pasted incorrectly.

Oh, I think that it continues on to the next page. So number three continues on to the next page. And so this is the, yeah, the director may increase setback buffer and landscaping standards or impose other conditions to address potential impacts.

The, I think he's referencing the section where it says that in the first sentence in the definition of club, it's awkward and potentially ambiguous because it omits a comma. That's like the reason for the change, but we're not seeing the definition in the first sentence. If you read the first sentence of the, is that commissioner fleet, I apologize. Is that what you might be referencing? Yes. Okay.

Same with four. Let's see another one.

I'LL LOOK THAT ONE UP REAL QUICK. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE FULL TEXT So where it says in rural protection, where it starts out there, that is the first sentence. The first sentence in the definition of club is awkward and potentially ambiguous because it emits a comma. And so we ended up striking some of that last portion of that sentence and moving some of that material higher up in the sentence to make it make sense. So it's just a clarification because a comma was omitted there. So they both start out in rural protection or rural residential zones. So, what you're seeing is the full text of the code.

Okay, I guess I'm just okay. I guess I'm just, I thought there was something in there. About like, it would reference places to worship or. Club or whatever in the. In the language that we're looking at.

That's the title of the sections. I think that might be the confusion is when you're saying definition, you're not actually defining those specific words or the phrase of a place of worship. You're just defining within that section or clarifying within that section titled club or titled places of worship.

Right. It just doesn't have the title in that particular column. If you look to the column two there, the KCC section number is 17415.115 club. And then the next one is 0.395 place of worship.

I think the word definition in the staff, I think that's just kind of just throwing us off a little bit. But I understand it's just clarity around the sections that are titled. Club entitled Places of Worship. Does that track, Commissioner Lee?

That's good. Yeah, thank you.

Those aren't definitions. Yeah, I think just the wording in that third column has just thrown us off. But all right, I think we're good on it. Apologies. No, that's okay. It's okay. We were going to get there.

It should say the first sentence in the allowed use standards for places of worship, not the definition of the land.

Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Reiterate that.

Yeah, so he's saying that it's not the definition of places of worship. It's the allowed use standards for places of worship. And for those online, I'm reiterating what Rafe says in the back here. He's present. So hopefully that alleviates some of the confusion. Apologies for that. It should not say a definition. It should say allowed use standards. Yep.

Thank you. I would love to revisit number six. Are there any amendments to this particular section in the commission? All right, I'm seeing none. And then number seven, are there any amendments to this particular section? It's the math. I'm seeing none. All right, item eight, director's interpretation cell tower. Are there any amendments to this section? I'm seeing none. And number nine is the director's interpretation cell tower. This is the leasehold division of property section. Are there any amendments? All right, I'm seeing none. Oh, I apologize, Garrett.

I just need clarity that the links that are in blue are referencing a different section. Is that correct?

Those are referencing the director's interpretation that is being proposed to be codified with this update. So online, we have a web page that houses links to all of the director's interpretations that are currently there. So that will link out to the director's interpretation itself.

Thank you.

All right. Any amendments on Section 9? Seeing none. All right. Item 10, Director's Interpretation, Replacement of Nonconforming Homes. Any amendments on this section? All right. Seeing none. And our final item, correcting the incorrect reference in this particular section. Are there any amendments? All right. Seeing none. All righty. If there are no amendments, that brings us back to our original motion as amended. Is there a motion to approve the main motion?

I move to approve the 2026 administrative code updates as presented by staff and amended by planning commission. Do we have a second?

I'll second. Are there any further discussions around the code edits? All right. If there's no further discussion, all in favor, please raise your hand. All right. It's unanimous. The motion passes. Would the Planning Commission like to consider the findings of fact this evening? If yes, the Planning Commission must have a unanimous vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It's unanimous and the motion passes. Do I hear a motion to approve the finding of fact?

I move to approve the finding of fact as presented.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Are there any further discussions? All right. If there are no further discussion, please, all in favor, raise your hand. All right. It's unanimous. Motion carries. I want to say thank you both so much. Thank you, April. I hope that you're doing something fun since you're not here. And just thank you for your hard work. And this is not the most fun thing, I think, you know, but it's necessary and it's helpful. So thank you, guys. I really appreciate it. All right. That brings us to our second and final general public comment period this evening. Do we have no one in the room wishing to speak? And do we have anybody online that is wishing to speak? Going once, twice. All right. As there are no speakers for our second general public comment period, I'll be closing it. And that will bring us to our final item, which is our for the good of the order. Do any of my commissioners have any comments that they wish to share for the good of the order? All right. I am seeing none. There are no other items for tonight's meeting. I declare this meeting adjourned. Please note, adjourned at 7.43 p.m. Please note that the August 4th meeting is canceled. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 18th. I'll see you all then. Thank you.