Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the August 18th, 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 deferring 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. Our next, well, our first item on the agenda is going to be introductions, and happily, I'm going to start online. Commissioner Hampton.

Hi, everyone. Good evening. Adrian Hampton, Central Kitsap.

So good to see you.

Ryan Wixon, Central Kitsap. David Valit, North Kitsap.

Kathy Meisenberg, North Kitsap. Ashley Hall, South Kitsap.

Kane Fenner, Central Kitsap. Caleb Nelson, 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 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'll 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 your Zoom window at the appropriate time. Your name will be called and your microphone will be unmuted. For our call and 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 kitsap.gov by 2 p.m. on the day prior to the meeting. Please include the meeting date, your name, and the agenda item or subject you're addressing. Submitted comments will be entered into the record at the appropriate time. For all speakers, please state your name and the general area in which you live. Comments are normally limited to two minutes for the general public comment and three minutes for public hearing comments. These time limits may be adjusted by the chair when appropriate. The next item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Do I hear a motion to adopt the agenda?

I move to adopt the agenda as presented. I second.

Are there any corrections or additions to the agenda? Alright hearing none all those in favor of approving the agenda as presented, please raise your hand say aye All opposed none unanimous passes all right and the Where am I at? The next item on our agenda is approval of our previous meeting minutes. However, there are no meeting minutes ready for approval at tonight's meeting. So our next item on the agenda will be our first public comment period. As today's topics are a briefing and our work study instead of public hearings, please note that any comments you make will not be added to the official record. I want to remind the public that this is not a question and answer session. Planning commissioners and staff are unable to answer your questions at this time. Do we have anyone in the room that is wishing to speak? Seeing none. All right. Is there anybody online that is wishing to speak?

Nope. Not seeing anyone online.

All right. Quiet room today. As there are no more attendees wishing to speak, I will close the first general public comment period. All right. Next up, Mr. Rogers. He'll be covering our upcoming joint annual meeting with the BOCC. Thank you, Mr. Jim Rogers.

Good evening. Jim Rogers, Long Range Planning Supervisor. And I just want to give you a heads up and in case you weren't aware that we're going to have a annual joint meeting with the board of county commissioners. That's going to be September 14th here in the port Blakely room next door at 2 o'clock from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock. And the purpose of that meeting is to review the 2027 DCD work plan. And it's a joint review between yourself and the Board of County Commissioners and to review the board's priorities and how our work plan aligns with those priorities. And then also to hear from you what your priorities are and your constituents' priorities are. what are you hearing from your communities? And we want to look for places of alignment where between the board and the planning commission's priorities and how we can possibly accommodate those in the work plan going forward. So this meeting is intentionally a few months prior to the adoption of that work plan and the docket that the board will set. And so we want to make sure that We can do whatever we can to accommodate the planning commission's priorities also in that work plan for 2027. So that's the gist of what that meeting is about. Any questions?

Do you have any questions for Jim? All right. Great. Seeing none, Jim. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, our next item on the agenda is a briefing on the boundary line adjustment code update presented by Garrett Ballou, our long-range planner.

All right. Well, good evening, Planning Commission. For the record, Garrett Ballou, Long Range Planner with DCD. And this evening we wanted to come back to you guys with the boundary line adjustment ordinance and really just provide an update on where this is now as it's been adopted with the Board of County Commissioners. But really, so many of the things that are in that ordinance were direct result of the work that the Planning Commission put into this and the suggestions to go back and get additional stakeholder feedback from the surveyors and from realtors and other members of the community. And so really, we just wanted to thank you guys for your work throughout this process. And I think that we really got to a place where we have code and a new ordinance that provides an opportunity for us to catch these issues before the boundary line adjustment is made in that way. Later down the line, you don't see... folks having these really pretty terrible issues in some cases where they're not able to build on their properties and then that can be really not something that you want to address down the line. It's something that's really important to catch up front. And so that said, we have just a brief presentation with the highlights of that ordinance now as well as some updates on where the implementation process is as the effective date is this upcoming January, January 1st, 2027 is when this ordinance will become effective. All right, so just a quick schedule here. Back in June, June 22nd, that's when the ordinance was adopted with the Board of County Commissioners. And right now, we are in this implementation window. So myself and other county staff are working together with current planning, the health district, as well as the auditor's office to make sure that everybody's on the same page with this process moving forward. You'll see that there are going to be a couple of review avenues for this, both a traditional permit system as well as a free over-the-counter review for certain BLAs. And so right now we're just working through the process of what is this going to look like, what are the application materials going to look like, checklists and cover sheets, those types of things, and just making sure everybody's on the same page as we move forward and we have this ready to go before that January 1st effective date so that everything is going to work. for folks that are going through this process. And so a few highlights from the ordinance. So the ordinance is officially ordinance number 647-2026, again adopted June 22nd, and creates new code section 16.64. So this is in Title 16, and it establishes review criteria for BLAs, and again effective January 1st. So it establishes this clear, consistent review process before recording, and then it also offers a free over-the-counter review option for certain BLAs, for BLAs that are not as complex, that are between only two parcels and only one line being moved. The details of that are in the ordinance, and I have another slide on that. But the idea here is that for BLAs that are really simple, and let's say you have two properties and the boundary line doesn't line up with the fence and needs to be moved five feet, we want those to be able to be Quick, easy, and simple reviews. And so if boundary line adjustment meets certain criteria, they can come into the DCD lobby over here and get that stamped right there with one of our planners, and it'll also be reviewed by the health district. And so that's what we're working on right now is developing that because that over-the-counter review is a brand new process for us. We don't have an over-the-counter review like that at this time, and so that's a big part of this implementation process. This also prevents, having a BLA ordinance in general prevents property owners from unknowingly creating illegal or unbuildable parcels that don't meet zoning requirements, and that's why we have our current planners reviewing these. It'll also inform property owners of land use consequences in advance before the development stage. And so the Planning Commission played an important role in this process by reviewing several drafts from the very start, beginning of this last year, to our draft that we got to at the findings of fact. And also really what was critical were those recommendations for additional stakeholder input. And so we went and met with a variety of different groups and some outreach efforts and education to explain why we were doing this and also we gathered some really great feedback and the over-the-counter review process is a direct result of that as well as some of the language in the code that allows for some deviation and some approval from the director for some additional flexibility when non-conforming lots are involved. So all of this work from the Planning Commission and specifically that direction to have additional feedback from these stakeholders and some more time before bringing this to the board helped us refine the final ordinance and review criteria as well. So that additional stakeholder input was a result of the Planning Commission and your direction. And so after that meeting with the Planning Commission, probably about six months ago now, DCD went to the Puget Sound chapter of the Land Surveyors Association of Washington, also known as LSAW. for short, and we had a great meeting with them, discussed from a surveyor's perspective the importance of a code like this and also some of the challenges we'd be facing and how we can make sure that we're coming up with the best ordinance that we can for Kitsap County. We also spoke with individual surveyors who do work within Kitsap County as well as our own county surveyor who has also worked in the private sector in the past. And we met with the Kitsap County Association of Realtors as they had concerns regarding the ordinance. And with that, meeting with the realtors and also meeting with the surveyors, we again were able to develop some pieces of the code that we didn't have before. So that over-the-counter review, as well as those allowances for certain BLAs where there's already a non-conforming lot, And in addition, we have a piece of our policy that we're implementing in this process going forward where if a proof of sale is provided when the permit is applied for or at the over-the-counter review appointment, then we can take that and prioritize that review because that boundary line adjustment would then be tied to the sale of a property, and that was a concern of the realtor community. And so that way it would be essentially brought to the top of the list if we have other boundary line adjustments that are pending review. And we also met with Pacific Northwest Title and they had some great suggestions for us regarding our cover sheets and our checklists and those types of materials to help folks understand what they need to be submitting or what they need to be bringing for these boundary line adjustments. So the final ordinance reflects a balanced approach. It protects property owners' interests because we can identify issues around zoning and what the health district is reviewing for before the development has occurred. So before somebody comes in with a building permit and is then told that they have all of these issues with zoning in their property, they can have that identified before they do a boundary line adjustment that would then lead to those conditions. This provides a predictable review process with both that permit and the over-the-counter review. And the over-the-counter review is really a huge part of this accessibility piece. And again, we want to make sure that these more simple adjustments are not as complex as a typical online permit with the review cycles and all of that. We want it to be a simpler process for these adjustments. All right, so currently our implementation efforts involve developing administrative procedures for both the permit and the over-the-counter review, so working with our technology folks to develop that permit, as well as a system for these over-the-counter processes. Also, we're finalizing application materials, including cover sheets and checklists. And so we've got draft versions of those which we shared for the board public hearing several months ago and making sure that those are cleaned up and ready to go. also preparing public guidance documents and so the boundary line adjustment website that was used for the code development process is being converted to kind of a one-stop shop for going to this page and identifying what needs to be done for a boundary line adjustment whether you can Go through this over-the-counter process or whether it's more complex and the permit would be required and so that's something that we're working on and also meeting with our outreach team to make sure that we have communication and and messaging out there about this new process and And part of that is developing educational materials as well. So an application guide or brochure also available on that page to help folks walk through this process. Also, if somebody comes into the lobby and has questions about this, this would be a great resource to provide to them there. And of course, staff training as well. This is going to involve our current planning team as well as the health district. and auditor's office as well. They're going to have a part in this at the very end once these documents go for recording. All right, so I have a pretty short presentation today. But again, just wanted to thank all of you for your effort and your help with this project. I know the boundary line adjustment code, it was a long process. And we went through many iterations. And so we just appreciate your help and your guidance through this. And I'll open it up to any questions if you guys have any questions on the code or the development process and implementation.

I do. Is there... I know that it's going into effect Jan 1. So is there going to be... Do you anticipate having all of this available by a certain date so the public has maybe a week or so to review what the final checklist, what the parameters are going to be if they need to take part of this process after January 1st? Or will that just be made available on January 1?

Yeah, so right now we're targeting... early December to have everything developed and ready to go and our goal is to have December then to really work out the kinks in this process and make sure that everything's ready and so we can maybe do some test permits and things like that and going through the process. So that's our objective right now. So I would say we likely have those materials up before January 1st. We will so that folks can be able to see that and identify what they're going to need.

Okay. And then anybody that is in application or applies prior to, it's just prior code is what they're held to?

Yes. So the ordinance isn't in effect until January 1st. So boundary line adjustments submitted before then would not, this wouldn't apply to those. However, they will still be reviewed for legal law determination. in the future if that's found to be an issue. And so that's something that we have on the web page as well, is that these boundary line adjustments, if any, are being done right now. They're still subject to that legal law review.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Any other questions for Garrett we have in? All right. All righty. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it, Garrett. All right. The next item on our agenda is a briefing on the rural lands analysis and salmon recovery and local planning project presented by Jason Walsh, long range planner. And Heather Cleveland. I'm so sorry, Heather. Okay. Well, you're still here and we appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jason Robert Walsh. I am a long-range planner with DCD, and my colleague Heather Cleveland is here as emotional support. But also because we're presenting an update on the Rural Lands Analysis and Salmon Recovery and Local Planning Project, and so if we need to field any questions, the two of us will be able to do so. I apologize. I apologize. To start with, I'm just going to revisit our project purpose and then we're going to go over our approach looking at our progress to this point and also looking at our engagement with a variety of advisory groups and then looking at our next steps. Before I go through the project purpose, I would like to address a request that was made last Friday during our Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair pre-meeting. A request was made to provide clarification on two points, the connection of the reclassification process to this project and the connection between this project and existing salmon recovery plans and data at the county, regional, and state level. I'll address the reclassification process during the project purpose overview, and then we have a section of the presentation that is specifically about salmon recovery plans and data, at which point I will go into more detail about how we address the pool of existing plans and data. So the purpose of the project, excuse me, the purpose of the Rural Lands Analysis Project is to evaluate existing rural land use patterns and policies and regulatory frameworks in unincorporated Kitsap County and to provide a clear analytical foundation for future rural planning decisions involving these four pillars, agriculture, forestry, salmon, and development. I'm pointing there, but you can also look there, there. Sorry about that. Under the Washington State Growth Management Act, planning jurisdictions like Kitsap County must periodically review and revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations. During our most recent comprehensive plan update, it became evident that the county's rural areas lacked tools like the buildable lands report and land capacity analysis. both of which are focused primarily on population, employment, and housing growth within urban growth areas. During the review of the rural-to-rural reclassification requests to increase density, it was noted that there was a distinct need for additional analysis and tools to better prioritize lands for conservation and preservation while identifying appropriate incentive-based approaches to rural conservation and preservation. Within the rural lands analysis, the Salmon Recovery and Local Planning Project is identifying strategies from local salmon recovery plans that intersect with land use policy and planning implementation in Kitsap County. By linking the goals of the salmon recovery with the county's long-range planning framework, this effort will strengthen the alignment between ecological health, rural character, and community resilience. The first step in our project was to compile a list or inventory of existing plans that address the four pillars of this project, agriculture, forestry, development, and salmon. We are looking to planning and reporting documents prepared by subject matter experts through publicly informed and engaged processes and that address the content areas that intersect throughout the county's rural areas and thus this project. For the areas of agriculture, forestry, and development, we are looking to documents such as the county's comprehensive plan, particularly the rural and resource lands chapter, The county's 2021 buildable lands report, Kitsap County strategies for resource lands designation and interim development regulations, and the future of farming in Kitsap County. The salmon recovery and local planning component of this project was born out of a need to address an abundance of plans and data sets on salmon population health and conservation strategies, but the lack of a unified approach to intersectional conservation that takes into consideration the interrelated nature of farmland, forest land development, and salmon habitat. Thus, DCD applied for and was awarded the Washington State Department of Commerce Salmon Recovery and Local Planning Grant to perform a meta-analysis of plans and create an intersectional or comprehensive approach to conservation. We began by assessing the plan and report landscape for salmon population health and conservation frameworks. There are several, so sheer number was not a deciding factor, but the quality of the methodology, the longevity and continued relevance of the findings and recommendations And the broad consensus of experts on the importance of a plan's role in addressing semi-population health is what led to our final inventory of plans. Numerous plans were reviewed. However, 10 final plans were selected for this project. Many of these plans included data sets that allow us to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of the plan findings, recommendations, and implementation strategies. These plans and data sets have been assembled to facilitate the analysis of existing conditions for salmon recovery, working lands, that is to say agricultural lands and forest lands, and the development patterns and accompanying infrastructure. This existing conditions analysis paired with the findings of the plans-based meta-analysis leads to an identification of candidate areas for protection and conservation, the long-term viability of working lands, and a look into the future to see what the development capacity of the rural areas might be based upon current zoning and to balance that development potential with the conservation priorities for our undeveloped lands. This analysis will culminate in the exploration of three scenarios. What happens if we do nothing to protect rural working lands and salmon habitat? What happens if we do everything? And what might it look like to find a compromise where prioritization is used? Pardon me. So, I apologize. Something just happened here. Thank you. As mentioned earlier, the project plan inventory is accompanied by a supporting data inventory. These are data sets pulled from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, the Wild Fish Conservancy, Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Areas, among several others. These data sets provide foundational information and insight into salmon habitat area and change over time, data on spawning locations, migratory habitats, riparian management zones, priority watersheds, and data to assess ecosystem health. As can be seen in this collection of images, many of these data sets are accessible and can be interacted with by way of online mapping tools. The tools allow us to illustrate the geography of salmon ecosystems and in turn the intersection of that geography with that of our three other project pillars, agricultural lands, forested lands, and areas of current and potential future development. The project equity filter is a tool and approach to our work that seeks to better understand disparities and opportunities to make a difference across the communities we serve in Kitsap County. This tool was developed by our project intern, Dahlia Barber, who recently graduated from Western Washington University and completed her internship with us shortly thereafter. The equity filter was developed to be used as part of our project research and analysis as well as our engagement and outreach. Utilizing this tool allows us to ensure that we are properly evaluating our process and progress, to ensure that we are accountable to meeting our project goals, to advance opportunities and mitigate potential harms that could be felt by way of our action or inaction. Equity in the case of this project can be discussed in terms of how we prioritize county policies and programming that directly influence the patterns of growth and development, whether these policies and programs advantage certain sectors or interests over others, and potentially realizing those advantages to the detriment of those not prioritized. In addition to the equity filter, Dolly Barber also created a comprehensive plan policies and programs report, which mapped out in detail the policies and programs described in the comprehensive plan, whether these were currently being used, whether there are correlate policies and programs in other jurisdictions in our region, and what those policies and plans look like in those other jurisdictions. This will be extremely valuable as we build our set of priority recommendations. A list of the tools identified in her report includes wildlife corridor plans, Purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights, legacy parcel aggregation incentives, voluntary stewardship program, and others. Now I will transition to discussing our approach. As you may remember from our last presentation, we have a phased approach to our community engagement, and we are currently in phase two. We are seeking out feedback on our data and plans inventory for our advisory groups and discussing our developing analysis framework. We regularly meet with our salmon recovery team, the Agricultural Advisory Council, and the forestry working group, and regularly communicate with representatives from our tribal partners. We are currently inviting subject matter experts from a variety of disciplines and professional areas to participate in our technical advisory committee. which will hold its initial meeting on September 22nd. The salmon recovery team is comprised of two regional lead entities, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council and the West Sound Partners for Ecosystem Recovery. The team has, sorry. The team has been essential to our data and plan inventory process, identifying gaps in our draft inventory, providing us with plan and data set references that not only complemented the resources, but provided a reframing of our approach. One of the biggest challenges that we face in creating an approach to intersectional or comprehensive conservation is that some of the plans and data sources segment the county into... Oh, no problem. Yeah. Awesome. Okay, so Salmon Recovery Team. One of the biggest challenges that we face in creating an opportunity, oh, I apologize, yes, an approach to intersectional or comprehensive conservation is that some of the plans and data sources segment the county into eastern and western sections, and some of this division has bisected watersheds. Some of the planning and data uses slightly different metrics for rating the importance of, say, watersheds in the county, and the salmon recovery team has the expertise to assist us with reconciling these conflicts. The Agriculture Advisory Council advises commissioners and county staff on agricultural policy, land use, education, and economic opportunities while providing a forum to support the long-term sustainability and resilience of the county's agricultural community. The Advisory Council has met twice since the beginning of the project and has created a tiered prioritization of matters to discuss for its 2026 work plan. Discussions on the rural lands analysis have resulted in a number of topics that the Council plans to explore further and which the project team is researching and examining as potential strategic approaches to conservation. These include the creation of a working lands and agricultural overlay. Overlays are akin to an additional zoning district applied in addition to the established zoning district. The specifics of this approach will require further exploration and analysis. They've also discussed the adoption of the Voluntary Stewardship Program. The Voluntary Stewardship Program, or VSP, creates a non-regulatory approach to meeting the goals of the State of Washington's Growth Management Act by protecting critical areas on agricultural lands. The state has recently reopened the program for enrollment, and the county will have to research and analyze how this program would be implemented and administered, considering Kitsap County's existing critical areas ordinance. The Council is also exploring a suite of protection tools, such as transfer of development and purchase of development rights, leveraging conservation futures tax funds, and greater collaboration with local land trusts. The forestry working group was developed with a cross-section of members from the private for-profit, the private not-for-profit, and public sectors, as well as small to large-scale property owners. The working group is co-facilitated by Heather Cleveland and Kitsap County Parks Department. The group has met once and will hold its second of four total meetings this September. After the initial meeting, it became clear that a survey for the forestry working group would be helpful to collect experiences and perspectives. We are currently finalizing our analysis of the survey, but initial findings indicate there is a level of disagreement on the definition of forestry as defined by the Society of American Foresters, with some members feeling that the current definition does not appropriately capture the ecological, economic, and cultural complexity of working forests. Findings also indicate that the primary challenge is making long-term forest ownership economically and practically viable in a rapidly growing county. Respondents shared that the forest markets need improvements to strengthen the industry, including local processing facilities, stronger and more diverse markets, workforce development, and financial incentives. We found that a majority of members are multi-generational foresters and property owners that are concerned about long-term stewardship and passing their lands on to the next generation. These are foresters with family ownership spanning sometimes between 51 to 100 years. The group will meet next to review and discuss the survey results and identify what is feasible. This will include inviting the participation of additional subject matter experts. The Technical Policy Advisory Committee will review and provide feedback on the rural lands analysis and related findings to help identify policies, programs, and implementation strategies that reflect community values and support the county's long-term vision for rural lands. It is a group that brings together representation from the three other advisory groups and adds members from the development sector. We are currently confirming membership and the first meeting of four will be in September. The committee charter and member list will be posted on our project website. As part of our engagement strategy, we held an open house on July 8th. It was our first of three potential open houses, and it was held here in the Commissioner's Chambers. We had a solid turnout with steady attendance and participation throughout the event. Attendees were able to visit four different engagement stations where they learned about the project, the topics we're investigating, and spoke with subject matter experts on salmon, forests, and agriculture in Kitsap County. Attendees provided us with their thoughts on salmon protection, farmland and forest land preservation, and the importance of rural character in Kitsap County and how to preserve it. We heard from attendees their thoughts on agricultural lands, forest lands, and salmon. Some of the things we heard are, for example, on what the county should prioritize to protect and strengthen farmlands. Attendees said that the county should enhance tax benefits for agricultural lands and reduce permit costs for farms. When it came to forest lands, attendees said that the county should make funds available for forest maintenance and variable density thinning. And on the topic of salmon, attendees said that the county should protect the tributaries of salmon streams and keep water as clean as possible. We launched our survey that evening and invited attendees to sign up for our project mailing list. Our project survey went live on July 8th and was open for approximately a month. The survey was a mixture of rank choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions, as well as opportunity for people to share demographic data to help us understand a little bit more about respondents. We did experience some technical challenges with the survey platform and its ability to fully leverage its purported features. For example, the rank choice questions did not function as designed, and we are evaluating the appropriate steps to resolve this issue before we administer any additional surveys. We had a total of 290 completed surveys, and our analysis revealed that there is a central tension that exists between growth and preservation. Initial analysis found four major themes, which can be concisely put as development is outpacing county infrastructure. Kitsap County code and its enforcement can be seen both as onerous and too lax. Housing growth needs to be focused in the UGAs or the urban growth areas, and at the same time, Doing so is believed to potentially be contributing to the rise in housing prices. And lastly, current development is seen to be fragmenting important wildlife habitats, removing forested areas, which are seen as essential features of rural character. And this is threatening the health and sustainability of watersheds and dependent species. The final analysis will be posted on our project website. And since the creation of this PowerPoint presentation, we see that there is nuance in the responses that brought forth an additional theme and subsequent reorganization of the themes. The project team will discuss the survey findings over the course of several meetings to identify opportunities for application to the development of the prioritization matrix. The themes will inform the team's exploration of the potentially overlapping areas amongst the project's topics of focus, forestry, agricultural lands, salmon habitat, and development. The team aims to develop a set of priority recommendations that will maximize benefits across topic areas and will preserve rural character. The findings of this survey will be a lens through which the team will analyze potential strategies and how they can be prioritized. The prioritization matrix and attendance strategies will be analyzed by our advisory groups. The final prioritization matrix and recommended strategies will be the product of the application of the survey findings and the analysis of the project advisory groups. The synthesis of these two will be essential to the creation of the final rural lands analysis. So what are our next steps? Well, we have meetings. When it comes to meetings and organizing, our salmon recovery team meets as needed and, as described earlier, has been essential to the development of our data and plan set and to our analytical approach. We meet tomorrow, actually, to discuss our final data and plan inventory and transition into our draft salmon recovery technical memo. Our next forestry working group and agriculture advisory council meetings are going to be scheduled for September. And our first technical policy advisory committee, or council, excuse me, meeting is scheduled for September 22nd. Our internal review team will meet once we have our draft recovery memo in December. When it comes to engagement, our website will be updated to include online versions of some of our engagement activities that will be featured at the open house. These will allow visitors to explore the salmon and agricultural components of our project more in depth and provide input on what they see as priorities for future salmon and agriculture in rural Kitsap County. We will attend the September 19th Port Orchard Farmers Market and Discover Kingston on September 28th to give the public an opportunity to learn more about our project and for us to hear from them on their priorities concerning the future of rural Kitsap and salmon. We have scheduled a public workshop for October 29th at the Village Green Community Center in Kingston. We will invite subject matter experts from the four subject areas of our project. Again, that's salmon, forest, agriculture, and development. Attendance will be by invitation, however, and it will be open to the public to observe. We will hold another public workshop on February 17th. The details for this are in development and we will provide more information on this in our next meeting. We will share project updates and details via our colleagues who liaise with the county advisory councils and will make ourselves available to attend meetings to discuss the project as requested and as we are capable. And then when it comes to plan and data, we are currently creating our analysis framework and conducting initial analysis of the compiled salmon-related data and plans. As our analysis progresses, we will work with our advisory groups and our tribal partners to refine and adjust our analysis as needed. The draft Salmon Recovery Technical Memo will be available in December, at which time we will share it with our advisory groups for review and feedback. So when it comes to our milestones, we're in August 2026, so our 30% project update. Hence the update here for you all, as well as our spreadsheet of data inventory has been finalized. We will be transitioning, as I stated earlier, into our draft salmon technical recovery memo, and concluding in June 2027 with our final salmon recovery and local planning report, as well as our final rural lands analysis report. That is the presentation. Thank you for your patience. And if you have any questions, we'll fill them at this time.

Thank you so much, Jason. I really appreciate that. Does anyone here have any questions for Jason and Heather while we have them?

Thank you for the presentation. It was really informative, and it answered a lot of the questions that I had on Friday. But I was just kind of curious about the working groups and the advisory committees that you're suggesting be a part of this process, such as the forestry working group. It seems like the turnaround's really tight if you're having your first technical policy advising committee meeting on September 22nd. So how are these meetings being publicized for people to participate or be on the group? the special interest group or the advisory groups that you are formulating? That's my first question. And are there representations that are attending these groups and advisory committees pulled from the DCD department? Or is it suggested by something else that is driving who those people are on those groups?

So the forestry working group is a cross section and that was shown in the slideshow. So that's a cross section. And those folks were determined by our department to represent a cross section of representation. So small public tribes and I'm trying to think if I'm answering your question. So that cross-section was determined by, and they were invited. It wasn't an open call. Yeah, and it was meant to have, and we're already having it, discussions like Jason had mentioned, what is forestry? And there are several different interpretations of the definition of forestry, and the intent is to find where is the compromise and where is the alignment moving forward for Kitsap County. And I will say that based on my experience, during the year of the rural, we intentionally formed these small focus subject matter expert groups to really wrestle with these very specific industry questions. So that's the forestry working group. And then the technical policy advisory committee, the reason why that one's a bit lagged is it's bringing all four topics together. And so I would say the salmon recovery is probably the furthest ahead. Well, I would say agriculture, too, actually. And then development will be last, but that one's bringing them all together, and so we needed to have something to share with them at the first meeting to begin that discussion. And that'll be the first group where we're bringing in the framework for the rural lands analysis, so those development scenarios. So the capacity for development in rural is where that conversation will happen, along with others, and that's where we're bringing in development and development So that, and two, they're selected based on their representation of a variety of subjects. But what we did at the forestry working group is at the very first meeting we asked, who are we missing? And then we went out and asked additional people to join us based on that conversation, and we'll do the same with the technical technical policy advisory committee at that first meeting. And then I think the other part that you would ask is, is this is a tight turnaround? I agree it is. So we'll do the best that we can to get done and start this conversation and move as much as we can forward within the time that we have.

Thank you. So just to clarify, these aren't committees or groups that are being open called, so to speak, for the public to be involved in. These are groups and committees that you're formulating with specific people who are specialized in the field?

That's correct. Okay, thank you. With opportunities for input at, as Jason had mentioned, at public houses, open houses, surveys, so we're trying to balance that.

If I might just follow up with one thing, it may have come across as like slightly kind of a blending when I referred to the October workshop. The October workshop, we are sending out direct invites, but we're also letting the public know that they can come and attend. So I apologize if that was slightly mixed messaging on that.

Unless I missed it in your meeting, which was very your presentation, which was really informative Did you say something about the chair of the vice chair having a question about reclassification? Requests and how they're going to be treated going forward

Yes. So last Friday at the pre-meet, we were asked if we could clarify information about the connection between our project and the reclassification request. So that's where at the beginning when I was talking prior to the purpose, connecting back to the purpose statement for this project, I was discussing how I can just go back to that portion of the presentation if you like. So in the reclassification process, basically So yeah, during the comprehensive plan update, it became evident that the county's rural areas lacked tools like the buildable lands report and also the land capacity analysis, which are focused on the UGAs, but there's not something comparable within the rural areas. So during a review of the rural to rural reclassification requests that were made during the comp plan update, which are made to increase density, it was noted that there was a distinct need for additional analysis and tools to better prioritize lands for conservation and preservation. So it was born out of that.

So going forward, how are the rural land reclassification requests going to be treated?

So that's a different question. But I'll answer that as well. So the rural lands analysis, like Jason had mentioned, in the rural reclassification requests to increase density, we didn't have the data. So we're hoping to be able to answer that question but in 2027, but also for the next comprehensive plan. Then a presentation will be made very shortly about updating Title 21, which includes Title 2108, which is looking to address that site-specific amendment process for the future. So those are two separate, but they are born out of the experience of the comp plan and the year of the rule. So this project is about getting data, and then the update to Title 21 is about improving clarity and procedure about that process.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Hampton.

Yes, thank you all so much for the presentation and I echo the sentiments of a lot of really important work here being done. I had a suggestion as relates to public education in future open houses and community events. So in the presentation we just went over on the slide that talks about salmon recovery plans, you have incorporated treaty rights at risk. And that report is so incredibly significant that I think it's deserving of its own slide or poster when in a community forum to continue to educate our community about all of our shared responsibility to salmon restoration and in the utmost importance of honoring tribal treaty rights by doing this work and for future generations. So it was just something I wanted to highlight as a continued opportunity for our community to continue to learn about the significance of this work and really place that emphasis right on our shared responsibility to improve salmon population in that conservation effort throughout Kitsap.

Thank you very much for that recommendation. We really appreciate that.

All right. Any other questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, thank you both so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a wonderful evening.

All right. Next item on our agenda is a work study on the Title 21 Updates Project presented by Cecilia Olson, our DCD Assistant Director.

I'll just get my computer set up so I can share my presentation with you all, and we'll start in just a minute. Okay. So I am Cecilia Olson. As Ashley mentioned, I'm a assistant director over long range planning and all of our development services. So review inspections, permit related stuff. So I'm here today to present to you, um, some code updates that we have been working on to Kitsap County code title 21 and Heather, as Heather mentioned, she does have a part in this, um, which we'll get into in the presentation. so title 21 is procedural code it's our oh there we go it's a little bit delayed so i'll try to keep that in mind um it is our land use and development procedural code so there are sections of it that address processing for conditional use permits subdivisions sdaps shoreline permits and then also 2108 is our legislative action so items related to the comp plan And all of it is based out of state requirements through GMA and the Local Project Review Act. We introduced Title 21 in 1998. It was repealed and replaced in 2012. And there have been minor updates to the chapter title and some of the chapters since then, starting in like 2015 and even as recently as our last comp plan update. But we have not had a real hard look at the whole title. since 2012. And so we've been able to identify some administrative gaps and also state laws have changed. So we have some things that we need to update regardless based off of what the state legislature has done. So our objectives overall is really looking for Consistency with the state legislative changes, modernizing the code and restructuring it to make it easier to digest. If any of you are familiar with the current Title 21, you know that there's a lot of information in 2104. So we're looking to restructure, and I'll go more into that in later slides, but also to add clarity to a lot of the procedures that this title establishes so that there's consistency in interpretation and how the code is applied. So, This actually is not something that the Planning Commission will deliberate on. We will not do a public hearing with you all because it is procedural code. So we don't have any changes to any of our development regulations, no changes to zoning proposed, no changes to density, nothing that impacts the comp plan. Nothing that we would look at on a site-specific basis with a permit application. This is procedural only, and so it's therefore SEPA-exempt. However, we wanted to still present to you all to give you the opportunity to provide feedback and also to provide additional opportunities for the public to see what we're planning on. and for them to be prepared. And later on in this presentation, I'll show the timeline so you can kind of see what our plan is for opening it up for public comment. But that's really important. This is just procedural code. And based on Washington administrative code, we do not need to issue a SEPA determination. So here is the current structure of Title 21, where we have a chapter that is introductory, the definitions. All of the project permit application procedures are in 2104. And then it goes to 2108 for the legislative action procedures, and 21.10 goes over fees. The new structure that is proposed would have the project permit application procedures split up into several different chapters. So the 2101 becomes general provisions that would apply to both project permits and any comp plan amendments. Definitions is the same, but then we introduce 2103 as application procedures. 2104 is review procedures. 2105 is specifically for public notice requirements. 2106 is decisions. And then 2107 would be enforcement related. With 2108 staying as legislative action procedures and 21.10 going away. So in 2103, there are several things that we are changing to improve project permit application procedures. obviously putting all of those things in one chapter is an improvement in and of itself. But things like right of entry language where we specify that by making application our review staff or inspection staff can enter the property during reasonable hours to verify something from the application or to do inspections once we've issued a decision. So we are also making some changes to completeness. It formerly, or I guess currently, is that the department determines completeness based off of ordinance and changes to RCW allow us to prescribe checklists. So we're making that change and also introducing some bookends for the department to publish any changes within a reasonable period of time so that we can't change the application requirements without letting the public know. So there's still predictability with making applications. There's some clarifying stuff to vesting and how that works. Some of you might be familiar with the pollution control hearings board decision a while back that does not really allow stormwater code to vest. It can, but in limited circumstances. And then there is going to be a new requirement for neighborhood meetings related to plats, which would be 10 or more lots within the UGA. And part of the application procedures would be requiring that documentation for a complete plat application. So, and then some other things related to how we provide application assistance and expiration provisions. And then one of the administrative gaps that we've discovered is the way that our code currently reads is that an Application automatically expires after a certain period of time or no action. And then there's no discretion to allow reactivation or additional extension. So we're building in some direct or authority with specific exceptions to that. And one thing with application expiration is in our current code, we allow 90 days for either a response to a notice of incomplete or when we return an application with corrections or comments. And then there's up to two additional 90 days that they could have to provide the information requested. That's a really long time. It's nine months. And for our workflow and everything, we decided to reduce that to 60 days with one possible 60-day extension. And that's consistent with some of the changes to RCW and the Local Project Review Act. So that's what we're proposing for changes as of right now for application procedures. And in our review procedures, we are adding some new permit types to address some of these administrative gaps like an actual application that would be required for a similar use determination or legal non-conforming use or structure as well as breaking out site development activity permits for specifically for multi-family development currently they are lumped in with commercial development and we have the data to support separating that out for multiple different reasons so the as i mentioned the expiration is going to mirror application procedures for when we identify that there's corrections needed on a permit application and then we have We have very limited language that addresses third-party review procedures in our current code, and it has proved to be a little bit confusing when we do utilize it. So we're expanding on third-party review procedures to hopefully provide a more clear and predictable process for both applicants and our staff as to when third-party review should be utilized and what the procedures should be And then some other things that we're addressing that have been sources of confusion over the years are how to handle applications that we get in the system when there is an active unresolved code violation on the parcel and how to handle dependent applications or multiple related applications for the same project. and phase development. So there's a lot of information that's going into 2104 that would be new. Oops, I went too far, let me go back. So, application sequencing and phase development, we are, there's, It's a huge point of confusion for staff when we get multiple applications, and one might be a land use, and then we have an environmental permit and an SDAP and building permit all for the same project. So we're clarifying some things on how those should be sequenced. and also specifying some procedures for when a development is phased and what should be done and that it should be part of the review and if it's proposed after a decision, what the process would be for that. But we also have dealt with consolidated review versus concurrent review and consolidated really is bundling multiple applications and having them run on a simultaneous track and concurrent would be that they're allowed to go in the system. They just don't have to follow all the same deadlines. And so there's procedures within both of those things. Consolidated review is a requirement that we offer. The applicant has to have the option to select consolidated review per RCW. Moving on to 2105, we put public notice, all the noticing requirements, into a single chapter so that it can hopefully be easy for everybody to follow. And one new thing as part of that is a notice of construction sign would now be required for our Type 2 SDAPs and timber harvests. And part of the reason why we're doing that is that there can be big gaps in time between a preliminary plot application and construction actually starting. And it can be really alarming for some of the neighbors to see trees going down. And so having, and historically too, since we've gone digital, We no longer have a physical permit that's posted at a site that people have to post and show that they have their actual physical permit at the site. And so we thought that this would be a good middle ground to let the neighborhood know that this is a permitted site through our department and to list a phone number in case there are any questions or issues. And here's an example of how we are trying to modernize some of our code. Obviously, it's not going to be pretty like this. It'll just be black and white. But we're putting in tables where we can. And so all of the public notice requirements would be easy for staff, the public, or applicants to follow by being able to reference a table like this. decisions so RCW with the local project review act they actually passed changes to the timelines it used to be just 120 days for any application type and in 2023 they passed Senate bill 5290 which was effective in 2025 that and it changed our timelines for different Well, it depends. Project permits that do not require any notice at all would be 65 days. And then those that require notice but do not require a hearing, we have 100 days to issue a decision on. And then those that require both notice and a hearing, we have 170 days. So we are updating our decisions and our timelines within code to be consistent with our CW, as well as addressing where there could be exceptions or extensions to those timelines. And also, similar to how we did the public notices and trying to clarify that and those requirements, we did that with shoreline decisions because each shoreline permit type has its own complicated path and whether or not ecology has final say or ecology can appeal our decision. And so, yeah, to make it a little bit more clear, we created a table for shoreline decisions and separated those out. And then something that's kind of a big deal that we will get policy direction on from the board next week, hopefully, is the proposal to remove administrative appeals to the hearing examiner. And here's our current process for, I did put a little asterisk down here that notes that this is not shoreline permits because there could be a separate appeal path if it is a shoreline permit. But our type one and type two permits, which are administrative decisions, Once those decisions are issued, an appeal could be filed to the hearing examiner, and then when the hearing examiner makes their decision, that decision could be appealed to Superior Court through the Land Use Petition Act. And that's with our Type 3, where the hearing examiner is the decision maker, the appeal would go straight to Superior Court. And what we're proposing to do is remove administrative appeals for our Type 1s and Type 2s and have our staff decision only go to LUPA appeal for those non-shoreline permits. And there is a reason behind that. And that's the, it was found through our legal counsel that our administrative appeals cannot be funded through permit fees. And so the general funds would need to fund any administrative appeals and not just hearing examiner costs, but staff time as well. So we will, we go to the board next Wednesday and we hope to get feedback and policy direction. But as currently proposed in our draft code, we would be taking out the admin appeals until we receive further direction. 2107 for enforcement. This is new. We have very little in Title 21 currently related to enforcement, but the Local Project Review Act does say that we shall adopt procedures to monitor and enforce our permit decisions. So we are addressing that by taking all of our enforcement procedures, including those for code compliance and code violations for unpermitted activity and consolidating them into this chapter so that we have similar procedures either way, whether it's a permit violation or an unpermitted violation, we would have similar protocols for enforcement. So that would look like having a notice of violation in order to correct a stop work order or even notice of noncompliance that would be recorded against the property. And then escalation could look like issuing a civil infraction, issuing civil penalties, going the misdemeanor route. misdemeanor did i say that right and permit suspension or revocation and then also having a mechanism for cost recovery should we need it when there's a lot of staff time or legal our deputy prosecuting attorney time too and then this is really heather's body of work but um and i know that she presented to you all about this recently But we are looking to do this all at once, where she's looking to similarly clarify and modernize some of these procedures that we do for site-specific amendments. And also, she was part of our last comp plan. identified some gaps, administrative gaps that we have with looking at mineral resource overlay or when one of the local tribes acquires a new piece of land and how that fits into our buildable lands or no longer fits into our buildable lands. So here's our timeline. I'm here with you guys today. We go to the board with the same information next Wednesday. Um, I have a presentation to the kids up builders association on this material on October 1st and we will open the public comment period October 5th. So that is when our draft code will be published and open to the public. Um, we, um, Intentionally have a longer public comment period, considering that there's no SEPA determination. We wanted to allow for public comment and to get the word out since it's a little bit different than development regulation and code changes. So our public hearing with the board won't be until October 26th. We built in time to do deliberations with them and then scheduled adoption November 9th, and the new code would not be effective until the first of the year. And something that we don't really do with these presentations that I think we should do more often is talk about what it takes to implement code changes. and the work that goes into it. It's a lot. Just this, that's not a change to our development regulations. We're going to have to update some things within our permitting software, permit application portal, all of our external facing documents, all internal procedures, staff training, process mapping, work with our outreach group. So there's a lot of work that goes into code changes, and that's Part of why we intentionally built in kind of a two-month delay for the effective date to give us time to implement the code changes. So what success looks like. I mean, applicants would know what to expect and when. Our staff. would also have the same understanding and have consistency in our processes. The public would easily be able to refer to this section of code and understand why a certain permit type went through a specific process. Um, and our, you know, our decision makers have the ability to have a clear and defensible record. So at this time, I will open it up to questions. And then if you guys have any feedback or specific comments, I'd ask that you email those to Clara. And then we can include those as part of the record for when we go to the hearing with the board.

Thank you so much, Cecilia. It was a great presentation. Do we have any questions or any? Sure.

I do have a question, and maybe you can provide some clarification before I email my question in further length to Clara for consideration. The two 90-day extension periods that you talked about, you're going to change that to one 60-day extension, is that correct?

Yeah. So essentially right now applicants have up to nine months to provide a response to whatever information we've requested. With the proposed code changes, it would go down to a total of four months.

So it would be two 60 days, correct?

Yeah, an initial 60 day with one 60 day extension.

Okay. And is that before permit issuance? That's like a request for information?

Yeah, that's just the application process. Okay. Yeah.

Can you go back to slide 14 for just a minute? I think it was 14. It might have been 13. Okay.

I don't know which one there is.

Slide 13.

You'll have to let me know when to stop.

Okay. Yeah.

This one?

Yeah. So I guess my question is, when that state law came out that you guys had a certain amount of days to deal with permits, that was probably quite a... a lot of stuff was going on in DCD because there's a lot that you have to deal with in a certain amount of time. And I also understand that's probably why there's a certain different amount of days for different types of projects. So I know that you're not taking this to us for any sort of deliberation. I was just wondering if it might make sense if you're changing the two extensions that you provide to a project applicant if you could have a tiered approach based on the amount of technical stuff going into a project similar to the requirements that the state has for you guys. Because I know that a timber harvest minor is a lot different than a subdivision of 700 homes. So I'd hope that the people with the more technical projects have enough time in 120 days. Even though that would be a lot for some projects, it might not be a lot for others. So that was my only point of consideration.

Thank you for that feedback.

Do we have any other questions or comments? Please.

One on Title 21, I can appreciate wanting to delineate and give more information and help from the public. I think that'll be definitely helpful. A question I did have is regarding pre-application requirements. maybe specifically for those type two and type three steps, if that's been considered, um, requiring that for that consistency with concurrent or, um, with the review. I don't know if that's maybe something that would help in going through with that since those are typically the ones that have multiple different permits or applications with that. Um, don't know. I will email it to Clara too, but maybe it's something to look at requiring it.

Yeah, I think, I understand where the benefit would be, but it may be more appropriate as a change to that specific development regulation to require that meeting. Does that make sense?

Yeah, that makes sense. Just feel one for the developer or the individual or the applicant, but as well as the county and parties involved to know that maybe there's going to be some overlap because you might have one person that has to review all three of those permits and it's one project. one person, so if it's all in one, maybe it helps clear up the blurred line for everybody, I guess. But just a thought.

Thank you. Do you have any other comments or questions for Cecilia?

I just was curious about the changing of the right of entry language and how that will affect the homeowners.

Oh, so we currently have right of entry language within Title 14 for building and fire code as well as Title 12 for stormwater code. But that does not address other permit types that are not covered under those titles. So we are broadly putting it here because we have specific application types where a site visit may be warranted during the application process to confirm some of the site features, wetland buffers, you know, things of that nature, or if there's tree removal proposed, ensuring that the trees are flagged consistent with the site plan before we approve and issue it. So it's more to be consistent with procedures that we have that are covered under other titles and also making sure that it's clear upfront to applicants so that it's not, you know, it's sort of a legal thing that if we don't have that within our code and then it's an application type that's, you know, not covered by the other chapters that do allow for right of entry, then that could put us in a vulnerable position if we do need to make a site visit.

All right. Please.

Thanks for the presentation. Yeah, just to Commissioner Bowen's question there. So, and maybe this is getting too much in the weeds, but it would be interesting to know, like, when you have the right of entry thing, but, you know, somebody has a gate that says no trespassing or whatever, I know that's usually kind of a hard, that's really, yeah, so it's kind of, I don't know how that plays out, but so it's interesting to have that language proposed.

Yeah, so in I don't have the full language in front of me, obviously, but it does go into, um, and it's also reiterated in the enforcement chapter as well, where it's, um, right of entry as allowed by law. So if somebody has no trespassing up on their property, then having this language within our code does not mean that we can automatically enter.

Okay.

Thank you. I'm doing one more.

Yeah.

Will we be able to? Is there any way to present this to us just as maybe a briefing when you guys have something drafted in that maybe mid to late October before it goes, just for us to see it? Absolutely.

Yeah. I know this is just a presentation, and it's hard to envision without seeing the full draft code. And we did not want to, since we're still working on certain pieces of Title 21, we did not want to make it public yet.

Sure.

But once we do have draft code that we are publishing, I'd be happy to come back and share that with you all.

That'd be awesome. Thank you.

All right. Any final questions or comments for Cecilia? All right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Cecilia. All right, bringing us home. Mr. Jim Rogers doing a work study on the Silverdale Center Plan project.

All right, good evening again. My name is Jim Rogers, a long-range planning supervisor, and we're going to go through the Silverdale Center plan just a little bit, just a brief overview, since we now have a final draft going out for review, and before it comes to you for a public hearing. Well, here we go. So a little bit of the contents, the draft plan contents. We'll look at the document organization, how the goals and policies are organized, discuss a little bit about the implementation priorities and next steps. Excuse me, so a little bit about the history of this plan. You've seen it in various stages. We started out in the spring of 2025. We did numerous community and stakeholder workshops, and we also conducted a market study for the Silverdale Urban Growth Area. That all fed into design concepts and workshops in the fall of 25 through the spring of this year. and then the creation of implementation strategies. Going forward, and even after the adoption of this plan, we'll be working on doing some additional community outreach and developing design guidelines to help implement this plan. So those are not coming to you for public hearing yet. So right now, we're just talking about the center plan itself. But going forward, we'll be looking at the design guidelines in more detail. So the final draft plan has been updated from the previous plan. It has an expanded vision to incorporate some key area concepts and transportation concepts, as well as public space priorities that the community and the stakeholders outlined. We integrated a lot of that, in fact, all of that community and stakeholder feedback and did a lot of updates to the goals and policies, particularly highlighting some catalytic type projects and implementation priorities for those projects. And then it just has a refreshed look and feel featuring more graphics and visual information and a lot more narrative explaining the what's and why's of how we've derived these goals and policies and a really good explanation of the public input that went into this, developing this plan. So the documents organization starts out with a kind of a executive summary or snapshot of Silverdale Center. And then a little bit of a background about the past efforts and past visioning efforts of the plan. And then goes into, so we have several different sections or what we're calling chapters in this plan. So in chapter two is the visioning and concepts. That's all updated. We looked at things like different areas like the mall and the creek corridor, Old Town. looking at transit-oriented development, public realm and transportation improvements. And then we go into the process, and that was the timeline, and again, expanding on that engagement process that went into developing this plan. and some of that community and stakeholder engagement. And then finally some Silverdale today, which outlines the existing conditions, what's on the ground today. And a lot of that comes from the market study that was done in 2025. Then we get into the goals and policies, and those goals and policies are broken down into five different sections, one for urban design and community, connectivity and mobility, environment and climate, economic development, and finally housing. And then each of those sections has its own goals, policies, vision statement, and potential catalytic type projects and actions to kick those projects off. And then finally we have an implementation section which outlines the priorities and general timeline of some of the actions. So just kind of an overall look of some of the concepts you might see in here. The overall vision remains largely unchanged from previous plans, but we did have a lot of input and community engagement and stakeholder meetings, so we expanded on that. We updated the plan, focused on adding detail to those vision statements through urban design and development frameworks. including area concepts like that you see in the mall and the creek corridor there on the right hand side. And also coordinating key transportation projects like that on Ridgetop Boulevard there in that picture. And then again, each section has its, each or each topic area has its own set of vision statement, its own goals, its own policies and strategies, and coverage of some catalytic type projects, and some actions that would help implement those those projects and so based on the plan update and engagement process the goals and policies were revised new new languages added where appropriate and some of the big key priority actions identified within each topic area And so you're not expected to be able to read this, but that's just kind of a snapshot of what one of the goals looks like. This one is for a complete transportation network. And then finally, the implementation priorities. Some of those short-term priorities are listed here, but the table itself has both short-term, mid-term, and long-term projects or actions. But some of those short terms are to update the adopted design standards, which we're working on and we'll bring to you later in the year and hope to have adopted by the first quarter of 27. to consider implementing a 12-year multifamily tax exemption program, to strengthen collaborations and partnerships, to advance the vision and area concepts, so collaborating with businesses, property owners, some of the anchor institutions like the mall and the hospital, regional agencies, and community organizations. And then to explore funding for key transportation projects, so additional funding beyond what we're able to get today. Conducted parking study to see if we are either over or under parked in certain areas. collaborate with Kitsap Transit on circulator routes. They did implement some just a year or so ago, but they also recognize that as Silverdale grows and depending on where housing starts popping up first, that they might need to adjust those routes, and so they're very open to that. develop a complete streets policy, which I believe Public Works has underway right now, and coordinate public parks and public spaces with stormwater, because a lot of times stormwater parks can become public spaces. And then finally, creating a wayfinding framework for the area to help people get around and understand what's going on. So some of the next steps is you have the final draft of this in your packet. That will go out for public review. We'll post that on the website probably tomorrow or certainly by Friday when SEPA goes out. This will come back to you for a planning commission hearing on September 15th, so hopefully you've had a little bit of time to – to review the plan and provide comments yourself, as well as the public will have had 30 days then to review it, or more, depending on if you were part of the stakeholder group in Silverdale or how often you've been to some of the public outreach events and seen the draft plans. um and then we'll take it to the board of county commissioners for a briefing in october hearing in november and adoption either the end of november or early december so right now i don't know if you have any questions about the process some of the feedback that we've gotten from you so far has gone into this plan but again i'll just reiterate that you know if you can if you find any implementation priorities and that need to happen to ensure alignment with county goals or highlighting areas of the draft plan that could be clearer we'd like to know that and identifying key elements that might be missing such as important ongoing initiatives or considerations that would be some of the most helpful feedback we could get from you and of course the public. So with that, I think that wraps it up. It's very good to be at the final draft stage of this project and I know you've had had your hands in it in several different uh forms and uh many of you have been part of those stakeholder meetings and uh we appreciate your feedback and everything that has gone into this plan so far and hope that the public hearing will go well and we can move this forward and to adoption

Does anyone up here have any questions? Please.

Thanks, Jim, for your work on this and all of your attendance at the Central Kitsap Community Council and your special workshops. I don't think at the end of this anybody will be able to say that they didn't get a chance to speak their piece.

I would hope not. We've gone out for many, many events over the last couple of years and brought it to you several times as well.

Commissioner Hampton?

Yes, I echo that. The plan has really come to a great place, so congratulations on getting to this point. I think it's fabulous. As far as our feedback, would you want that now, or should we email Clara if we have any things that we spotted in response to your questions?

If it's lengthy, please send it to Clara. If it's something brief that I can take a note on right now, I'm happy to do that.

I think it can be brief. It's just three tiny little things, and I have page numbers.

Okay.

So let me see if I can go in order here. On page 37, it talks about just like some language, there's narrative around social and community context. So it talks about live, work, play. And in addition to live, work, play, I think it'd be great to add worship and age just to recognize our faith community and then our seniors in the area. My second point.

Worship and what? Age. Okay. Thank you.

My 2nd point is on page 73, where it's talking a little about health care. I think the hospital and the emphasis on health care and medical is really well done in the plan. And I think we could go 1 step further just to acknowledge the other health facilities that are in the area. So for example, we have like our community health center, there's Kaiser, there's pediatrics and other independent clinics. So I think just a acknowledgement of our robust healthcare network would be, yeah, would be great to incorporate in addition to just the focus on the hospital. Okay.

Thank you.

And then my third point is around Oh, it's on page 119 and it's 1 of the environmental climate goals. It's the 9 1. And I just thought it talks about supporting projects that increase air quality, et cetera, et cetera. Yep, that first one there. And so I think that's phenomenal that's there. And I think I would recommend adding for people and the environment because you could have projects related to the environment, but you could also have projects related to people such as like transit oriented development, that kind of thing. So just those are a few things that caught my eye. And then lastly, there's just a little bit of a font mix up on page 125. Under the header agencies, and I think just clarifying the collaboration that you would want to see from agencies in that sections, because it talks about. working with transit agencies for multimodal connections, and then lists partnerships with Tribes, Navy, Port of Silverdale, KEDA, but doesn't necessarily say if there's like a goal for that collaboration. So I think just like choosing that paragraph would be helpful just to identify what it is you actually want to get out of working with additional agencies and that kind of thing.

Got it. Thank you.

I hope that was short.

Do you have any other comments?

Kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Hampton said I was going to speak on behalf of. Just thank you for integrating in the medical community and the hospital. But I love the fact to also call out the other medical organizations that are in Silverdale because it's just absolutely a critical part of the community. So thanks for integrating that in.

You bet.

Last you presented to us, if I'm not mistaken, there hadn't been coordination or, not necessarily coordination, but there hadn't been conversation with the actual owners of the Kitsap Mall. Has that changed?

So it's been a one-way conversation. They have indicated that they want to see the final plan and that then they would try to align their plan with Silverdale's plan. But they didn't want to apparently, beyond the involvement that they had with their mall manager being at all the meetings and having some great input for us, It sounds like they didn't want to influence the plan, but they would rather the plan influence their development. And so they're waiting for the final product.

That makes sense. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it seems like a big, it's a big portion of a lot of this plan.

Because they want to develop to the community's needs and not the other way around.

Okay. Thank you.

Just to that, I had a similar curiosity because I just saw that on next steps and action opportunities on page 131. One of your second bolded items is the Kitsap Mall and Clear Creek area redevelopment of underutilized service parking. I was just curious. Where were you out in the conversation with mall ownership? I know that there's been a little bit of change at the Kitsap Mall. They just appointed a new manager of that whole area. And so I don't know if that's the same person you've been in communication with. But just curious, because the plan kind of assumptively kind of weaves that in as if that is a possibility where just Is that a possibility? I don't know.

Yeah, it does. And based on the conversations that we've had with the mall manager, or maybe it was the previous mall manager, it sounds like that that is something that they're leaning towards. They understand that the current model is not a good long-term plan. But they do want to see what the community wants before they start putting plans forward, really. But yeah, they seem to be very enthusiastic from what we've heard. Again, that's kind of secondhand through the mall manager, mall management. So I know they have multiple owners of that mall, and so that makes it kind of challenging. But the plan, it really just puts out these concepts or potential catalyst projects, but it doesn't lean on any one of those for success. It's just these are some of the things that the community would like to see.

Yeah, that was going to be my next question is how imperative is it of getting buy-in from the kids at mall? Like just devil's advocate that they just choose not to participate in any of this work. Would you still have a semblance of success in the outlying areas around this plan?

Yeah, I think so, because there's a lot that that the county can do like around the Clear Creek as far as orienting development toward that trail oriented development concept or providing better public amenities along the streets as they as they improve. So there are there are improvements that we can make, but we can't obviously dictate how developers redevelop. All we can do is provide the amenities that will hopefully attract that type of development and hopefully make our development regulations easier for that to happen.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Any other comments or questions for Mr. Jim Rogers? All right. See you none, Jim.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, this is going to bring us to our second and final general public comment period. Do we have anyone in the room wishing to speak? I don't think so. And online. I'm seeing nobody online either. As there are no comments, I will close the second and final general public comment period. And the final item on our agenda is for the good of the order. Do any of our commissioners have anything to share?

Nothing?

I do. I just want to say welcome back, Commissioner Hampton. You were so very missed on the dais up here, and it's just great to have you back and be here representing your district. Thank you so much. All right. All right. If there are no other items for tonight's meeting, I declare this meeting adjourned at 7, 12 PM. The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for September 1st. Everyone enjoy the rest of your summer.