Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the October 21 meeting of the Kitsap County Planning Commission. Thank you for your participation. The Administration Building is currently under a fire watch due to a malfunction on the building's fire alarm system. In the event of an emergency that requires evacuation, we will notify you directly and ask you to immediately and orderly leave the building through any of the identified exits. The main exit for this room is into the lobby through the set of doors to the far end and then the two entered through.

Once in the lobby, please exit the building through the doors on your left or proceed down the stairs on the right. Exit the doors at the lower level. There's also a single set of exit at the front of the room that can be used for this purpose. I'd like to start with introductions.

David Vliet, Vice Chair, North Kitsap.

Kathy Meisenberg, North Kitsap.

Good evening. Richard Shattuck, Central Kitsap. Allen Beam, Central Kitsap.

Ashley Hall, South Kitsap.

Caleb Nelson, South Kitsap.

Danielle Dalfet, South Kitsap.

Tammy?

Tammy Bowen, North Kitsap.

Adriana?

Good evening. Adrian Hampton, Central Kitsap.

This is a hybrid meeting. Please silence all electronic devices during the meeting. If attending in person, please refrain from conversation with other attendees or staff during the meeting. If you wish to provide general comments or public hearing comments, you have four methods available. First, for virtual attendees, please raise your hand at the appropriate time using the raise your hand button at the bottom of the Zoom window. Your name will be called and the microphone will be unmuted. Second, call the attendees call in. The attendees can signal by pressing 9 on their keypad. Your last four digits of your phone number will be called, and you will be connected. You may need to dial 6 to unmute your phone.

Third, written comments and testimony can be submitted to the staff or e mailed to cjewelkidsap dot gov by 2PM of the day prior to the meeting. Please include the date of the meeting comments are meant for, your name, the agenda item or subject to your interest. The submitted comments will then 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 general public comments. These times are adjustable by the chair when appropriate. And I have the next step is to adopt the agendas.

I move to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting.

Second. Discussion? Comments? All those in favor? You now.

After that is the adoption of minutes. First set of minutes is 09/02/2025.

I move to adopt the September 2 meeting minutes.

I second.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Comment? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next is ten-seven-twenty five. 09/23. Sorry. September 23.

I move to adopt the minutes from the 09/23 meeting.

I second.

Comments? Discussion? All those in favor? Lastly is 10/07/2025.

I move to adopt the minutes from the October 7 meeting.

I second.

Comments? Discussion? All those in favor say aye. Passed. The next is the general public comment period for first comment period. Do we have anybody online that wants to talk?

Okay. Chair, we typically go to in person attendees first. We typically go to in person attendees first for public comment.

All right. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to comment? Going once, going twice. Is there anybody online that wants to comment?

We have William Palmer.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Okay. My comments are directed toward the remand. And one of the issues that in the remand is building housing units to accommodate the population, all income categories. What staff typically does not do is look at the option of deregulation as part of a solution to getting more housing units approved and housing units that are affordable to the median income group. I personally represent a builder who's trying to build in that category, something affordable to a lot of people.

And he's been held up on time after time, in some cases, four years waiting to get building permits. What and that's just intolerable, but a lot of it has to do with regulations that the counties adopted that they cannot seem to approve anything until all total compliance with regulations. But some of these regulations weren't needed in the first place, particularly storm drainage regulations applicable to rural areas. If the county's gonna propose a solution to getting something like 1,500 housing units built a year, then they're gonna have to address deregulation. That is the only viable solution to expediting permit processing in Kitsap County.

And yet, it's the one thing that will not be considered for a variety of reasons, most of which I'm aware of. But if you're going to address the issue and you don't have deregulation as part of the issue, you have failed the citizens of Kitsap County. I can go on and on about it, and I'll be happy to submit some comments in writing.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have other comments from online?

No further comments online.

No further comments online. I will close the general comment period and we'll open the proceedings with a brief for the 2024 comprehensive plan remit.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Carrie Salee. I'm a long range planner with DCD, and I'm here to give you a brief summary on the status of the county's comp plan at this time. What you warned me about. So in December, the county adopted the 2024 comprehensive plan.

That was a mandatory update that we had to do to comply with the Growth Management Act, RCW thirty six seventy a. And after we adopted the comp plan in '24, we were appealed by several parties in January and February 2025, future wise, mister Palmer and Yamamoto hydro seating. The issues that were were retained, for consideration by the growth management hearings board were those from future wise. So those are the only ones that we have to consider right now that were carried forward in the remand. And those were our planning for wildfire for wildfire protection planning and evacuation routes, multimodal evacuation routes, and also for housing capacity that we did not identify sufficient capacity overall or within the income bands themselves, specifically for extremely low, low and moderate income.

So and I'll get into those in more detail. So in August, the growth management hearings board issued its decision in order, which remanded the plan back to the county for further work based on those identified deficiencies for wildfire planning and housing capacity. So that's one track that we go on when we have our comp plan reviewed is if we if we have a remand. It's going through the hearings board and then back to us for for further work. At the same time, whether there's a remand or not, our comprehensive plan and specifically our transportation element is reviewed by the Puget Sound Regional Council.

And they issue a certification report specifically for our transportation element, but they also tend to call out other issues as well, especially if they are transportation related, even kind of peripherally. So we have two things that we're working on right now. We have the hearings board remand, and we have the PSRC certification report. And right now, we have a deadline to comply with the hearings board remand of February 4, and a deadline to comply with the PSRC certification by June. So for the growth management hearings board, the issues that they identified were that the land capacity analysis, which was done back in 2021, had failed to identify sufficient land capacity for housing in all of the income groups.

As I said, particularly extremely low to moderate income housing, and that's zero to 80% of annual median income. They also raised the fact that our land use element in the comp plan did not identify multimodal emergency and evacuation routes. They focused on wildfire planning here because wildfire planning is one of the things that they were making sure that we understood it was deficient, but the multimodal emergency and evac routes deal with all emergencies. So that would also be for an earthquake, a tsunami, some type of hazard such as radiation or something like that. It has to cover all of those.

And so as I said, the land use element also did not adopt planning tools to reduce wildfire risks. What they had suggested was that we either adopt the draft state wildland urban interface code that's in draft. It has not yet been finalized. We could also look at there's a national program called Futurewise that provides planning guidance and suggestions for defensible space and building codes. Or we could come up with a hybrid, or we could come up with our own.

But in any case, we're required by the GMA to adopt something to reduce wildfire risks in the county. So the actions that were identified by the GMHB that we need to address include revising our land capacity analysis to identify sufficient land capacity for housing for all income groups. So one thing that as we've been going through this, we see that there there are definitely certain things in the land capacity analysis that we can revise with a straight face, and things that definitely will help us get to where we need to be on housing capacity. We did not, address the residential potential of mixed use development in the zones where that's allowed. That was not included in the in the LCA.

So in areas where you can have commercial on the bottom floor and two, three floors of residential on the top, we only looked at that as commercial potential. We didn't actually look at the residential potential in those areas. We also are considering now that since we did the LCA, we've adopted new and revised standards for Silverdale. There's reduced parking. There's height expansion, increased height.

There are other things which are intended deliberately to densify that area, were not considered and which we are now considering in a revision to our capacity for that area. Redevelopment requirements, we were looking in the LCA as though all land, whether it was undeveloped, redeveloped, infill, all had the same requirements for dedication for things like new right of way and utilities. But we feel that that was actually a little bit too high, that when you are looking at redevelopment or infill, usually you have most of what you need there. You have your existing roads. You have your water and sewer.

And so new right of way for roads and utilities, it would be it would come in at a lower percentage of each of of those properties. So by using these revisions, we actually have been able to get to where we need to be, we feel, for the housing capacity, and we will be taking that these solutions forward. We will also be identifying the emergency and evacuation routes in our land use element. There will be policies. There may be maps.

There has been some concern that if we actually adopt maps and say, these are our evacuation routes, that, you know, it covers a lot of potential emergencies in different areas, and let's say we have a wildfire that jumps the highway and blocks it. We don't want everybody saying, but that's the way to go. That's the only emergency route. We want to keep flexibility. So what our emergency management department and our fire marshal is recommending is that we have policies that say we are identifying major arterials that we anticipate would be used, but actual maps we don't want to adopt.

That's not really fit for purpose. We need to have flexibility to reach out to the community at the time of an emergency, and provide that information in real time. Here's how you need to go, here are the shelters, here is where you can call for assistance if you can't evacuate, things like that. And then we are discussing at this time how we will deal with the state wildland urban interface code or similar standards. We know that we can adopt policies into our comp plan at the by the time of the deadline in February.

But we do feel that we are not going to be able to develop actual code development regulations and take that through the public process, through the planning commission, through the county commissioners by that time. It's actually about a three month process to get anything, you know, through once it's in draft. So we actually would have to have it done by a couple of weeks from now, and that's not gonna happen. So we are proposing to move forward with our policies and to address the actual development regulations at a later date, and we are still working with, PSRC to see if they will, be okay with that approach. So for the PSRC, separate issues.

They do say that they want all of the remand issues to be resolved, so that would be the housing capacity and the wildfire and evacuation planning. Where the hearings board pointed out that the LCA did not demonstrate, adequate housing capacity, the PSRC says, hey. But you also didn't demonstrate adequate employment capacity. And this is county wide as well as in certain as well as in Bremerton, we're over capacity, and in Kingston, we're under capacity. And they also pointed out that our transportation element did not include policy to include that air quality standards are met and that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

We did include policies like this, addressing these issues in our climate change element, And they're fine, but they actually just need to be in the transportation element. So this is not a substantive change that we're required to make. We just need to move where it lives. So we will resolve the growth management hearings board remand issues, which will satisfy the PSRC on that count. We are going to revise the land capacity analysis to address employment capacity in the Silverdale Regional Centre and the other incorporated UGA's.

We are going to probably need some additional time to work on that. We're not sure how we're gonna get there at this point, but as we work through that solution, we'll come back and update you on that. We're working with the PSRC on what they want to see from us and when. And we will include an air quality policy in the transportation element. So where we are right now, October, briefings to the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission on the issues, the work plan, the proposed actions.

In early November, we anticipate issuing an addendum to the CPEIS that was done for the comprehensive plan in 2024. Also in early November, we hope to have the public draft text and map changes released to allow public review and comment. And by November 30, we proposed to have the adoption of the work plan by resolution. That's a PSRC requirement that we have to adopt that plan so that they know we're working on it. We will come back also in November for Planning Commission work study, and then the commissioner's adoption of the work plan.

December, we would hope to have a public hearing with the Planning Commission. January would be the Board of Commissioners public hearing deliberations and with adoption by the board by the January, which allows us to meet our February 4 deadline. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Carrie, as we put the plan together, one of the things we did was the new tree canopy provisions. And one of the big points of discussion was how does the tree canopy provisions intersect with wildfire management requirements. And is that complicating our response to the wildfire issue? Or is that not a problem?

It has come up. It's not the issue for DEM, emergency management, and the fire marshal on what policy should we adopt, what building codes are we required to look at, and so forth. But it has come up in policy discussions because, yes, there's definitely tension between trying to preserve our trees and having to have defensible space and preventing wildfire from sweeping through neighborhoods. So that's something that has already been looked at, is we're going to have to do some serious analysis here.

I just have one other quick one. I didn't see anything in the remand that put at risk Silverdale's position as a regional center. Do we and so we're doing okay still in terms of moving forward and keeping Silverdale on track as a regional center. Is that correct?

Yes. As far as I know, there was no objection to the status of Silverdale. They were calling out that we didn't have sufficient employment capacity, but we do have conditional certification of approval provided that we resolve that. And so no problems that way.

Thank you. Other questions?

Hi. Just a quick question in regards to the evacuation routes and, the remand item on that. Is there is that regarding countywide, or is it specific to just Kitsap County? Because I know that it takes a coordination of efforts with all the local agencies, and I just worry about all the timing involved in coordinating that. So I was just kinda curious if it's specific to just Kitsap County as a whole, as an agency, or is it countywide, including all the local agencies?

That's a great question because it is really important to have multi jurisdictional, inter jurisdictional coordination. We are only responsible for what happens in unincorporated Kitsap County, but in reality, people are going to be coming from cities driving through the county and vice versa, and you can't you know, no one is going to say, well, you know, if you came from Bainbridge Island, you have to go a different way. So, yes, that's one of the reasons that it probably is going to take longer than we'd like to work out our response, is we need to do that jurisdictional coordination and make sure that anything that we adopt, whether it's in policy or in mapping, is going to be consistent and not contradictory to what other cities are doing.

Thank you.

Other comments, questions? Adrienne?

Thanks. Thank you so much for the presentation. I just have two brief comments. On the topic of jurisdictional coordination, I was curious if this would go to or be reviewed by the Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council just because it is highly representative of our county? And then I have a follow-up.

So yes, it will. They will provide us feedback on the proposed solutions that we have. They'll be reviewing our proposed policy and code for consistency with the countywide planning policies. It will be the PSRC and the hearings board that will be making the final determination on certification and the remand.

That's great. Thanks. And then on the topic of greenhouse gas reductions as it relates to transportation, so you spoke to how those I think it was policy or strategy could be moved into the transportation element, but I'm curious if there's a way to maintain the integrity of that integrity of that within the climate element. Reason being, there just might be places where the climate element is already referenced or do you see what I mean? So just to keep that in there, I feel would be important. Is that something that you all are looking into?

Yes. And, you know, when I said that it could be moved into the transportation element, it can, but that's probably a little simplistic about what we actually plan to do. We feel that those policies were targeted towards climate change because of where they were put in the comp plan, and we wanna keep them there. But what we want to do is have mirroring or similar language that goes into the transportation element, but is focused more specifically on the effects of transportation. So a climate change focus in climate change, transportation focus in transportation, and adding some additional things about how alternative vehicles, reduction of exhaust emissions, things like that can benefit our greenhouse gas reduction plan and so forth.

So there will be policies in both elements.

That's great. Thank you.

Other comments? Hearing none, thank you very much.

Thank you, commissioners.

Next on the agenda is briefing on the housing requirements for Kitsap County.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Heather Cleveland. I'm a long range planner with Kitsap County Department of Community Development. And this presentation is a collaborative presentation about housing, especially as it relates to housing in the comprehensive plan. So that will be DCD's long range planning staff presenting that.

And then we welcomed our colleagues from human services to report out and to I guess inform all of us on their role in this as it relates to shelters and affordable housing within the comprehensive plan. So as it was mentioned by Carrie when she was talking about the comprehensive plan and the remand, that affordable housing aspect of it is a really important component. And we connected with human services early in the process, but really started to build a relationship when we organized through our Read Rome Rules program, a collaboration around the book Homelessness as a Housing Problem. And this was in May in Port Orchard, UGA, and worked with folks from Human Services on the different types of affordable housing, which they'll be sharing some of those projects with you today. And it's also I should I also wanna emphasize that this is the beginning of continued conversation because we can only take it so far when it comes to regulation.

When it comes to affordable housing, other things have to come in. There has to be other types of funding. If it's permanent support of housing, there's other players that need to come to to make help make this happen for Kitsap County. And with that, I'm going to pass it over to my colleague, Carrie, and then Jim, and then we'll pass it over to human services.

Carrie Silley again, to talk a little bit more about the comp plan and housing. So and and you may not you may all know all these things. I'm not sure. But this is this is also for the people who are listening in the audience and remotely. So just please bear with me while I go through a very brief rundown on the GMA and and how, it regulates housing in local jurisdictions.

The Growth Management Act, RCW thirty six seventy a. Local jurisdictions must plan for and accommodate housing that is affordable to all economic section segments of the population, and that housing must include a variety of residential densities and housing types, single family, multifamily, what we refer to as middle housing, which can be townhomes, cottages, things of that sort. And so the housing element of our comp plan must identify sufficient land capacity to project to meet the projected housing needs by each AMI income category. We talked about those those bands of income. Our housing policies must analyze and resolve the disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion in housing policies, and where possible remove those.

And the implementation of the housing element must be monitored and evaluated and updated as necessary to achieve our housing targets. This requirement that we have monitoring and evaluation is actually pretty new. With the adoption of our 2024 comp plan, we now have to do five year review and report to the Department of Commerce on how we're doing. So going back to our remand from August, the hearings board remanded the county comp plan partially because our land use element did not identify sufficient total housing capacity. We were short thirteen forty five units, that's county wide.

And we also did not identify sufficient housing capacity across all of our income categories, particularly from zero to 80% AMI, and that's eleven seventy nine of those units, zero to 80. So the hearing support said that the county had overestimated our redevelopment and infill potential, and also that we hadn't counted potential multifamily housing in commercial and mixed use zones. What I was saying about we weren't looking at mixed use development, something that's part commercial and part residential. And so the land capacity analysis must be revised to address these deficiencies, and we have that deadline of February 4. So our affordable housing targets, just so you can see kind of laid out where we're at here, zero to 30 AMI, the lowest income band.

We have nine sixty six units that were deficient. 31 to 80%, we're missing five forty two. And 81 to 120, which is considered moderate income, we're missing 166 units. And we're a little bit over. It's pretty non substantial, but 76 over for 120% AMI.

So you can see that we really are concentrated in the lowest end of where we are missing our housing capacity. So right now we have several housing goals that we need to meet in our comp plan. We have to have accessible and resilient housing. So we have to have housing that promotes the preservation, rehabilitation, and development of housing contributing to healthy and accessible built environments for everyone. Economically available housing.

We're required to ensure that a broad range of housing types are available to all economic segments of the community, demographic groups, and this would be resulting from both private and public development. Affordable housing, increase the supply of affordable housing units reaching out to both private and public development opportunities, and then we also want to preserve what we have, preserve the existing stock of affordable housing units in the county. Integrated planning of affordable housing. So when we're planning for transportation improvements, workforce development, emergency management, economic development efforts, we need to take affordable housing into account and include that in our priorities. Equitable access to housing means that we're prioritizing efforts to remove disparities in housing access, particularly for historically marginalized communities and households that experience disproportionate access and barriers, which requires also mitigation of risk of displacement.

Equitable treatment for residents that are currently housed. We want to keep them from becoming homeless by mitigating harmful practices that may put households at risk of displacement, and our ultimate goal is to make homelessness rare, brief, and one time, preferably nonexistent, in Kitsap County. And support services, increasing support, referral and connection to social services, because when people are well supported in other aspects of their daily lives, it also becomes easier for them to find and stay in housing. And I will now turn it over to my colleague Jim Rogers. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Jim Rogers with DCD Long Range Planning. One of some of the current implementation efforts we have going on for housing right now is reside in the Silverdale Center Plan, which is ongoing. We hope to increase housing density there and by providing some incentives. Some of those incentives are reduced setbacks, reduced parking requirements, looking at developing a transit oriented development overlay, looking also at public investment opportunities, and simplifying our design standards.

Another thing that we've been working on real hard over the last year or so is improving our process of permitting process times, and that's been going real well. Some future implementation strategies are coordinating with housing authorities and cross jurisdictional programs and resources. Some of what you're seeing here in this presentation tonight are kind of the kickstart of that. Explore allowing boarding houses, single room occupancy buildings and micro units. Looking at our zoned capacity, and is it available for middle housing in our UGA's?

We also want to look at evaluating surplus county properties as a potential for affordable housing projects and explore longer term affordability requirements for projects or developments that were incentivized instead of so that affordability dropping off after ten or twelve years, maybe it can be extended out. Explore the establishment of a housing focused community land trust is another way to get a public private partnership or something like that going. And we're going to also take advantage of the multi family tax exemption, which just became available to us here in Kitsap County just within the last year. And then also look at voluntary inclusionary zoning as an incentive. For monitoring and reporting, Carrie already mentioned that we have a five year requirement to report out to the Department of Commerce on our housing progress.

So we're going to take a look back over a five year period and hopefully demonstrate that we are that our policies and codes are developing the housing towards the targets that we are targeting and completing those goals. That report is due in 2029. That will be our five year point. And right now in our department, we're developing a tracking system to look at all of our goals and policies and provide annual reports to you and the Board on our progress in implementing the comprehensive plan. We don't want our comprehensive plan to just sit on the shelf and look pretty.

We want to actually implement those policies. And GMA is now requiring a report, particularly on housing. They want to make sure we're making progress there as well. And that implementation program will also inform our future strategies. So if policies or strategies aren't working, we can make adjustments in the midterm without having to wait until our next ten year update.

And now I'd like to turn it over to Human Services for their portion of the presentation.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Carl Borg. I'm housing and homelessness program manager. And our division works with 30% and below AMI. Wrong way?

There we

go. Our overview is we just opened up the Pacific Building, which is a 75 person shelter. It is the first shelter in the area that actually has what we call co sheltering, where we allow pets within the building. There are ten ten dogs, 10 cats, and then two, either rabbits or ferrets or something around there. It has a dedicated vet room where vets can come in and work with the animals, make sure they're being well taken care of.

And before they go into the building, they are assessed out in where they're living to make sure they'll work within the building. We run the point in time count, which is a yearly kind of In January, we go out, we find everyone that is homeless, and we do a count on them. We get all their information so we know where they are, what their issues are, what keeps them, what boundaries are. And then from that and during that particular time, we also run Project CONNECT, which is a social services fair. We run that once in Silverdale, which is the January 27.

The twenty eighth will be in Port Orchard, and then on the twenty ninth is when in Bremerton. Bremerton has the most services because that is where the majority of the unhoused population lives. Starting November 1, we run the severe weather shelters. So any time that the temperature drops below 32 degrees for over four hours, We open shelters at seven at night, and then they're open till seven in the morning unless the weather is severe enough then they can stay open longer. There's one in Kingston, one in Silverdale, one in Port Orchard.

We also have the Housing and Homeless Coalition, which is a coalition of everyone that works within housing and homelessness. There's over 80 organizations that work through that, and we run that through an executive committee. They're all volunteer, and they're the ones that actually put together Project CONNECT. We have a biannual grant cycle because our grants are through the Department of Commerce. So we do those every two years.

Currently, we're doing our five year Kitsap homeless crisis response and housing plan. So we've been working with Heather to make sure that everything that we have in our plan matches up with your plan as well. And then last we have our heart team. And the heart team is our outreach team, and their job is to go out and work with all of the unhoused population. They go out, they find people, they get them into services.

And as much as they can, if you look now, we do not have any large encampments within the county. We have smaller ones that are on private property, and we're in the process of locating those owners to be able to get those resolved as well. So our funding sources, the Consolidated Homeless Grant or CHG, and Housing and Essential Needs or HEN, That's funding approved through legislative process and processed through Department of Commerce. The affordable housing grant program, AHTP, and the homeless housing grant program, HHTP, are local document recording fees that have been authorized by Washington State Legislature, and they're collected through a fee on certain transactions recorded at the auditor's office. The CHG, we and the HEN program are all mandated through Department of Commerce, and we do have some of our own ability to do different things within our document recording fees.

So our CHG grant funds coordinated entry. In order to get into housing in Kitsap County, you have to go through the central coordinated entry, which is Housing Solutions Center at Kitsap Community Resources. Once they go through that, then they they meet with a case manager, and then they determine which shelter or which program is best for them. Eviction prevention, which is a newer program that was established during COVID, is to keep people housed. The most the ones that are most vulnerable get the funding first.

Rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, those particular programs keep people housed, majority of those have disabilities, so want to keep them housed. We fund the shelters. We fund housing and essential needs, which is a hen program. We do have a hotel motel program where if people if we find a family or a mom with a child or someone in there, we get them into a hotel immediately until we can get them housed. Or if the person's not available to get into a shelter right away, we put them in a hotel until we can get them in.

And then we have a transitional housing program, which is a step up from a shelter and it's housing that they would go into before going into the next step, which is permanent housing.

Hi, I'm Bonnie Tuffs. I manage the Kitsap County CDBG and HOME program, or we call it the block grant program. CDBG and HOME are federal funds that the county receives annually from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They're for projects to support low and moderate income households in our community. Kitsap County receives these funds because it qualifies as what HUD defines as an urban county together with the cities of Port Orchard, Paulsbo, and Bainbridge Island.

So we have interlocal agreements with those jurisdictions. We also have what's called a home consortium, and the city of Bremerton is part of that. We receive our funds annually after the federal budget is finalized, so sometimes it's very, very late in the year. We don't have our 2025 funds yet. We use an annual RFP process to award the funds, and those can go to nonprofit agencies, housing authorities, developers.

And then the biggest thing to note is federal funds, lots of requirements. So we do a lot of monitoring with our agencies. Even past the contract closeout, we have what's called period of affordability for the projects to remain affordable. And so it can be twenty years or more. I'll let you introduce. Yeah.

Hello. I'm Joel. I run the SIA program, which is the community investments and affordable housing program. This is the one tenth of 1% sales tax program. That's the majority of the funds. There's a different, much smaller sales and use tax program that's way more flexible than the one tenth. That'll sunset in, like, 2038. But those two funds combined, post sales use tax, make up the Sia program. It started accruing funds in about 2022. This is this will be our third year of an annual grant cycle, so we just wrapped that up.

This will be in front of the commissioners next week. So it's the third year. We those monies we accrued from 2019 to 2022 is a very small amount. We awarded all of those funds in the past three cycles. So moving forward from this year on, the Sia funds will operate kind of, like, at a zero sum basis. We'll award the funds that we accrue every year. I will just go through kind of what Sia is, what CDBG and HOME are, kind of how they fit together to give you a sense of what they are. And then if it's appropriate to ask questions in the middle to kind of so we speak the same language. This is very grant based focus and program. So if you have questions, feel free to interrupt.

But kinda like what guides our program is a five year cycle. So this is the five year con plan. So this will also be in front of the commissioners next week. So this process started, what, December. Lots of community meetings we use.

So the needs assessment is a portion of that. It's a lot of data analysis that includes surveys with the community, HUD data, local data, all those all that aspect. Then there's the market analysis, which is just what is the market from both a buyer's perspective, seller's perspective, land use, all those things combined. And then the strategic plan, it really takes those two components and then makes us decide how do we address those those things over a five year period. And really that is the culmination of the con plan and that's the guiding document for a five year cycle.

But then zooming in a little bit, so then of that five year plan, you know, every year we'll make an action plan and a policy plan. And really, like, the universe of options that we create in that five year plan is then, like, chopped up into a single year. So in the strategic plan, we'll outline several goals. Every action plan will decide which of those goals is appropriate this year, which targets we'll we'll choose, and the policy plan is a little bit even more focused, where we get down to like how much money is available, where will we target all those things. It's kind like a funnel, if that makes sense.

And the CAPER is kind of a look back. So it is like what happened last year, what did we say we would do, what projects did we fund, and where are they. And then the participation plan is just a public plan that makes sure the public is aware of how we do hearings, how can they have input, what do the surveys look like, all the ways that they can engage with us as programs. As as of right now, these are the needs and the goals that we've established. So these will be from the commissioner next week.

Top needs from both surveys and all the data is affordable housing. This is of super wide need, obviously. So when we say affordable housing from, like, our three these three programs, we really mean sheltering up to unsubsidized, like, LIHTEC housing. So it runs the whole gamut of housing. Economic development enterprise, these are kinds of programs where we would pay an organization to host job training, all those types of things.

And public services, again, super broad, but specifically the CDBG program focuses on food banks, childcare, those kinds of services to mitigate costs to then really hopefully allow more spending towards housing. Goals, again, very broad. Preserve and increase affordable housing. Again, this kinda gives us maximum flexibility. So this is a five year goal.

It might change what kind of affordable housing each year. But again, when we say affordable housing, we mean from sheltering up to unsubsidized. Supportive services, similar. It kinda runs the gamut, but specifically with the CDBG program, we'll get into some examples later, but really kinda focusing on child care, food banks, like those level of services at the at the community level. And then number four, essential public facilities infrastructure.

These are really geared those things towards housing. So we're talking about impact fees, water, sewage, all those things that can bring down a cost of affordable housing development. So

this just shows you approximately how much we combined can put out to the community annually through our RFP process. As I mentioned earlier, CDBG and HOME are estimates, and so we do the best we can based on information from past years. A little bit different this year, but we're again doing the best we can. They are all grant programs, meaning when money goes into a project, it does not need to be paid back unless there is another financing that goes into the project that wants the local funds as a loan. In that case, we would do it as a loan.

We combine all of these resources together into the RFP process, which you may hear the term sometime, it's coordinated grant application process. So that's the process we used, bringing our funds together. So we look at them together for affordable housing, even though CDBG can be used for a few other things. Housing is a priority. And they really overlap, like Joel mentioned, running the gamut of different housing projects from the populations that they serve to the type of housing from home ownership or down payment assistance to rental rehab, all kinds.

In a project, there's not one single source of funds, so we look at ours as a piece of stack of financing that goes into a project. And often, it's the first that needs to go in to help get some other bigger funds, like tax credits or housing trust fund. But with the funding comes regulations, so it depends on the funding sources in the project, what will be the drivers. We have NEPA environmental reviews. We have prevailing wages, both state and federal.

And the list goes on and on. And then I already mentioned monitoring. We track that for anywhere can be twenty to forty years. So, all of them can be used for a variety of housing projects. The best use for CDBG is rehabilitation.

Joel mentioned economic development micro enterprise, which is a lower priority. And we have a small pot that can be used for public services. But rehab of housing, it can be homeowner or rental rehab. And some examples, there are the weatherization program. Kitsap Community Resources has a weatherization program to help homeowners with energy efficiency improvements.

Kingston Ridge is a property that Housing Kitsap owns that came in to us and will provide a new roof. It's a 43 unit project up in Kingston. Home funds and the one thing I should mention with CDBG cannot be used for new construction. So that's where HOME and Sia kind of tie together a little bit more. HOME can be used for acquisition, new construction, and direct assistance to home buyers, so that would be down payment assistance.

Community Frameworks runs a down payment assistance program that we have funded with Home Funds. And then Wheaton Landing was the acquisition of 24 units for households between 030%. And then I mentioned that Sia is very similar to home, acquisition, new construction, those kinds of things. It also does allow some things on the housing side that home doesn't, which includes operations and maintenance, and then some housing services. Some examples that we provided there is Evergreen Bright Start.

So that was a 30 unit acquisition from Bremerton Housing Authority, and it serves 60% below AMI. And the Meadowdale Trails and Meadowdale North, those are proposed projects that just received funding, and it's two sixty eight units, I think, total, that will be going in East Bremerton, Highway 303, and John Carlson area. I think that's it there. And so here are some pictures just to show you. So Wyatt and Madison, this is a project that HRB, Housing Resources Bainbridge, did.

It was the purchase of 13 newly constructed units, 11 for 60% AMI and below, and then two for 50% AMI and below. It was a total project cost of $3,900,000 and we put in $1,100,000 I touched on Wheaton Landing in East Bremerton, so that was acquisition of 24 newly constructed units, 23 for households with children in the Bremerton School District, 0% to 30% AMI. Between Sia and Home Funds, we put in just over $1,500,000 and the total project cost was $8,000,000 And then Evergreen Bright Start, again, 30 units, 24 units targeted to young adults, 18 24. And that project includes some wraparound services serving households 60% below. And that was $4,000,000 of Sia and Home funds in a total project cost of $10,900,000 So acquisition gets us units really quick.

So those were exciting to do this last year.

Awesome. So it gives a sense of the scale. I guess the numbers vary too, right? The projects go from rehab being one unit up to lie tech, which is the two sixty eight. Alright. So who's it for? So our programs are all completely AMI based. So CDBG is 80% AMI or below. Home for the ownership part homeownership part, that's that down payment assistance, that's 80% below. And then for rental properties is 60% AMI or below.

Oh, so 80% for just for reference. 80 or below for a household of four is currently $99,004.40. For 60% AMI or below is seventy four five eighty, just for reference. Thanks. And for the Sia program, so you'll see that, again, Sia and home align super well. Sia kinda prioritizes rental. It's much easier to do. So Sia is 60% AMI or below plus one of those other categories. Those are all pretty self explanatory except for the at risk of homelessness. That's pretty vague.

Generally, we just say anyone below 30% AMI is always at risk, but then there's some other caveats to that too. But generally, programs are all AMI based. Where can they go? So CDBG is county wide outside of Bremerton. Bremerton gets their own CDBG allotment. Every year they they do kind of a process we do with their own CDBG funds. For home, it's county wide. We manage all of the home funds. Bremerton gets a small portion of the county funds that have to go into Bremerton, but generally home can go everywhere. And then Sia is similar.

It can go everywhere. Paulsboro and Bainbridge have opted to collect their own sales and use tax. So Sia just prioritizes projects not in Paulsboro or Bainbridge. We were asked to include some barriers. So going through the con plan cycle, you know, we had talks with developers, community members, people we partner with and fund projects.

I thought it was interesting for you all probably. It's more your realm. Agency capacity comes up a lot. So typically, our programs go towards developers like housing kits app, BHA, people that are very familiar with development. I think lately we've seen more and more like KMHS, Kitsap Mental Health Services, PCHS, organizations that don't always get involved in housing, but they have other funding sources so now they can. So I think capacity, like making sure they understand the operations part. Sometimes it's easier to build a capital stack and like buy a building. There's not as much funding to operate those. So capacity is a big issue. Impact fees, again, where it's subsidized operations, just harder to to pencil out.

So those impact fees are much harder to make larger projects pencil out. So we hear that a lot. Planning and permitting timelines. This is really for those longer projects. They're like three phases. So building a capital stack to get all the funding necessary to acquire something or build it might take three years. So by the time they start the project to digging, maybe things have changed. So we hear that occasionally. And then just resources. What is out there, every layer that an agency gets to either acquire or build is just one more layer of, compliance.

So we hear a lot of it's difficult to balance five funding sources. Could you give us more so we could take less a year? Just generally, it's it's hard to make capital stacks work. Nice. Well, that's it. Any questions for any of us? CDBG, home, see you.

I have a question for you. I'm just curious with the affordable programs, specifically to the Wyatt and Madison, the Wheaton and Evergreen slide that you had up there. Are all of those units filled currently that are available?

Wheaton is still working on their lease up. So that's the most recent project. So they're still working on their lease up component. Wyatt and Madison, all those units are full. Evergreen Bright Star, I believe all those.

Maybe. I know it was 80 a few months ago. Yeah. It's probably full. Yeah.

And Evergreen?

Yeah. I think they were 80% full maybe, like, two months ago. They're probably full. Yeah.

Okay. I have a question for long range planning or PCD, DCD. Land capacity analysis, is that done by a consultant or is that done in house?

Hi.

The land capacity analysis is generally combined effort with staff and a consultant. We did have a consultant, think it's Facet Design who worked on that for the 2024 comp plan.

Okay. And so when you're making those revisions, that wasn't something that the consultant saw or reviewed?

Do you mean the revisions we're going to be making to comply? We do not have the ability to hire a consultant for this work.

Okay. How are the vacancies assessed and reviewed and the growth numbers estimated by trends? Is it just trends and census by chance?

You know, I don't know. I would have to get back to you on that.

Okay. I'm just kind of curious as to overall how the housing availability is assessed with vacancies. I know for me, I look around our county and we see a lot of mixed use housing going up in and around our county. And I also know that there's a lot of vacancies. And so I'm just trying to understand how that's balanced and how that's assessed.

I don't know if one of my other colleagues would have That's

a good question.

Yeah. Yeah. Or do you know? Okay. Do you No. Think we've agreed that we're going to have to get back to you on that question, but that's a very good question, and I will make sure that you get an answer.

Great. Thank you. Adrian?

Adrian, you have a question?

Yeah, thanks. I do. Can you hear me? Mhmm. Okay. Great. I was gonna chime in on the vacancy question and just bring up a general comment. And I hope my Wi Fi is hanging in there. So for the vacancy, I just wanted to share with the commission. The University of Washington College of Built Environments, they do regular vacancy reporting, so quarterly, and they do that across all counties of the state.

So that's mainly through an impart like, apartment market report, and they go by quarter. So if you looked at the 2025, you could look at all counties in Washington state and how vacancy rates are either growing or declining over time based on the, you know, number of unoccupied units to the number of, yeah, units that we have in our community. So that information is publicly accessible, and I'm I'm glad we're talking about that. It's one of and I believe we brought up the book Greg Coleman's book or Cole Burn's book, Homelessness is a Housing Problem, because vacancy rates is one of those key things that that book talks about. So, again, that number of unoccupied units.

What I appreciate about the projects shown on this screen here, you know, Wheaton Landing, Evergreen Bright Star, these are all projects that are community led, right, so by housing providers in our community. And I think that's a remarkable thing because they know firsthand what the need is. And I think they also know how long those wait lists are. So, again, just I champion the work in these creative solutions around trying to increase affordable housing in our community and also increase our vacancy rates so that, you know, if you have to move around in our community too, that option for mobility is also there for you, which is also incredibly important for anti displacement. So you're able to stay in place, stay in your community, close to the resources and services that you love.

So thank you all for the presentation. It's most appreciated.

I've, I guess, kind of across the gamut for everything. A couple of questions, thought thoughts and questions. Some of the some of the items in here, guess I maybe I'll just kinda talk, but some of these approaches to addressing affordable housing needs in Kitsap County, I'd be curious where these ideas are generating from. If you're if you are mirroring or mimicking or echoing a neighboring municipality, this the the drastic shortage in 30% and down AMI is not something that's unique to Kitsap County, and it's not unique to Washington. Almost every single county across the entire state has that's their biggest delta, and it's growing annually regardless of whatever programs that they're trying to put out and ways that they're trying to address it.

So my my curiosity is is, do we just does Kids Up County just repeat the attempts of King County and of Pierce County, you know, with, like, micro housing attempts was was not successful. Just things like that. So just just a thought, I guess, I had around that is, we have a lot of evidence to the contrary around that in particular. And then there's a couple of other things, like, around the microenterprise for economic, development as a priority. It was mentioned, and please correct me if I'm wrong on this, it was mentioned that, one of those things that's encompassed in that is, like, workforce training. Am I

So microenterprise business, by HUD's definition, is a business with five or fewer employees, including the owner. And the microenterprise training program is offered by Kitsap Community Resources. It's called the BEST program. And it's for folks that are interested in getting a business started. So it takes them through the process. And they work with mentors and peers and work on budgets and legal things and all those things. So that's what it is. It's really a training program to see if they could launch a business or expand a business.

So in no way does it support these folks with workforce training? Is To get not them set up?

No, it's not set up that way.

No. Okay. In a lot of other municipalities, I have personal experience with this. Workforce training is a beautiful gateway into launching folks into the next step up in their housing situation. And especially in King County, that is actually put on the developer when you're doing things like light tech applications, bond applications to work with the CBOs, community based organizations. And that's a requirement of that property of that site. And so there's just some more creative ways, and I'm not encouraging LITEC by any means.

It's one

of the most oversubscribed programs, that our country offers as far as affordable housing, but there's some, like, little glimmering things that we can take from that that might be supportive and and helpful. So really that those are just my only questions and just a couple of thoughts I had just around kind of the the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish here.

Yeah. And I just job training is eligible under CDBG, just CDBG in general. It wasn't found to be a priority for our funds, but it's public service. And we can only use 15% of our allocation for public service. So it's real we allocate about 115,000. And so But it is something for us to keep in mind as we look at different approaches for what we would use those funds for, especially as we move I mean, it's a five year plan. Maybe things will change. So

Yeah. And I think that's kind of what I'm getting at is you don't have to own that, your agency or even the county. Mhmm. There's other municipalities that are putting it on the developers themselves and community based organizations that are successfully able to kind of create these programs where it kind of comes off of the the main agency or, you know, for you, you feel the most responsibility, obviously. But there's just other avenues and other ways that have been very successful. So feel free to push that off onto your onto the folks that are working with you. Mhmm.

Yeah, I'll add, Kita, I know has programs. And I think what this also highlights is how much coordination and collaboration we need to actually hit these targets. And as Jim had mentioned, we have this five year report. If we're not nearing our targets, we're gonna have to get more creative. And I think the accountability that the state is requiring of us is gonna require us to be even more creative. And then I just wanted to respond to the vacancy. I think what we'll look into is how are those considered in the land capacity analysis. We'll get back to you.

Other comments? Questions?

Excellent presentations. Thank you very much. I think my question would be for maybe Heather or Kerry. I guess Kerry is talking about it. It's under goal four of the housing goals and it's something that is near and dear to me and it's why I basically have been in planning commissions for some time now.

And it's the preservation of affordable housing inventory and affordable houses because I've always it's always really been hard on me when I see a house being crunched or whatever to put up a more expensive home to see that basically affordable housing stock gone because you can't replace it. And I was at a was at a deconstruction conference this summer and an author architect who I'd heard this term before, but he actually coined it. And he gave a great talk about pre War II housing and how structurally how the integrity of the lumber and such in the houses are so strong. And he said the greenest house is the one that's already there. And I would almost add on to that probably the greenest and the most affordable house is the one that's already there.

So I guess my question to like the county and the commission is just to how do we incentivize a development community or landowners, homeowners to hold on to those as ADUs or to retrofit them because we are losing affordable housing each time a house is torn down. So I know there are private property rights and people can do what they want, but I'd love to see into the future some kind of incentives that incentivize people to preserve houses because you're not only preserving the house, you're preserving the fabric of that neighborhood or that area. Many times you're preserving the trees that have been there for fifty, seventy years. The neighbors, they all know the house. So don't know if there's a way to preserve that house and add additional capacity.

I don't know that's something that I'd be very interested in talking to somebody about. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there and I didn't know if the county has any kind of program with regards to incentivizing preservation of affordable houses. I

don't know about incentives, but CDBG does our programs preservation is priority as well. So the weatherization program that I touched on, and that's why that one's really important for funding because it keeps folks in a house that they can afford. It does minor home repair. Housing Kitsap also has a single family rehab program, and that, again, it does more than weatherization. So weatherization can only go in if the house is in a condition that can support the weatherization measures.

It's more of a cost benefit. But the rehab program by Housing Kids Up, they can do more extensive rehab. And so we look at it both from the preserving the house and keeping people in a safe, decent, affordable home.

Thank you. And I also appreciated the I love the idea of monies are going towards roofing because that'll be the I mean like the first thing like preserve a house is if it has a bad roof. I mean put a new roof on there you can buy yourself some time.

And both the rehab program and the weatherization program have done roofs. So they do that as part of those programs as well, not just for the rental properties, but for homeowner.

Okay, thank you.

And I just want to add, that's not a priority of ours at Kitsap County just yet, but I agree with you that it is important. But affordable housing and for that, that equals multifamily housing has been our biggest priority.

I think for either Bonnie or Joel, one of the things we heard a lot during the comprehensive plan process last year was the difficulty we had meeting our low income housing because we didn't have some of the advantages that cities have such as multifamily property tax breaks. We just heard that we did get something this last legislative session on multifamily property tax break. Is that a game changer at all in terms of moving forward?

So that's the multifamily tax exemption program. And that was just allowed through a state bill this year. And it's something that Kitsap County is actively exploring.

Right. So now it's

So it's allowed, but it takes administrative capacity to implement it. So that's what we're working on right now. Like who's going to run it? How will you know, because you have to pay, you have to run it, you have to oversee it. So where will that live? Is kind of what we're looking at right now.

Okay.

So how do we build that program? And also we're looking at the variety of programs, whether it's eight, twelve or twenty year. So there's different variables that are involved that we're assessing right now along with the administrative capacity to implement a program like that.

I guess what's a little confusing on this side is we heard so much about it last year that was really a barrier and a disadvantage. I say, oh, we got a lot to work on. That's great. But I would hope that would be a priority if that's a way to help developers build housing.

Agreed and it's actively being pursued right now.

Tammy, did you have a question?

Yeah. I just wanted to comment on the mixed use zones. I really wanna support the opportunity for our businesses and and housing to be together. I think that will strike a good chord with new business development in the county and to provide the support that it takes to start a small business and actually provide the color and the support that we want in our economics in our county.

Other questions? Comments? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That brings us to the work study for Silverdale's Center Plan.

Thank you. My name is Jim Rogers with DCD Long Range Planning. And I've got with me tonight a couple of consultants that we've been working with in the Silverdale Center plan. Taskeena Turrin is online now. She's with Burke Consulting, and she's been the project manager on this plan.

And we also have Fred Young with Parametrics, and he's largely been working on transportation, not just motorized, but also non motorized transportation in the Silverdale Center. Some of you have taken part in some of the workshops for this plan, so some of this will be familiar to you. We're going to take just a brief moment to review some of the public outreach that we have done with this plan to date and then introduce you to some of the concepts that are coming out of these latest workshops. And we hope to get your comments on your thoughts on what these concepts do they look like the right thing to you? Do they resonate with you?

We've held several public meetings and stakeholder workshops, And we think we've got a pretty good idea of what people are asking for based out of those workshops. But we want to run that by you and get your thoughts on that as well. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Taskeena. Fortunately, she's going to do the talking tonight since you don't have to listen to my terrible voice tonight. I apologize for that. So I'll hand it over to Taskeena and Fred.

Thanks Jim. Just to make sure, can everyone hear me okay?

Yes.

And can everyone see my screen?

Yes, you're good to go.

Good evening, everyone. As Jim mentioned, we're here today to share a status update for the Silverdale Center Regional Plan and Design Standards. I know that our time frame is short, so we'll keep the presentation brief and meaningful, and, hopefully, we'll have some time at the end for any questions. So we're just providing a quick overview of the background and some engaging engagement findings to date before moving on to presenting some of the plan concepts that Jim mentioned around transportation and connectivity and urban design and infill redevelopment. So very quickly, just to provide some background, our team has been working closely with county staff on updating the, Silverdale Center plan.

The vision for the center was last updated in 2006. And while many of the, original goals such as walkability, housing diversity, and mixed use in public realm, vibrancy still remains relevant, our efforts have really been focused on updating aspects of the vision for today's context and adding actionable detail through design concepts, specific policy recommendations, and updating design standards to guide future growth in the center. A major aspect of this effort is ensuring that the Silverdale Center retains its designation as a regional growth center by the Puget Sound Regional Council, which is critical for maintaining eligibility for regional transportation and infrastructure funding. As part of this effort, we are essentially building upon and coordinating past groundwork and long range planning done by the county, including the market study for the center that was done earlier this year, the comprehensive plan, Kitsap Transit long range plan, prior community engagement, and the prior design standards. The project effort has had three components.

As I mentioned, we've we began with revisiting and updating the vision and opportunities for the center, and we've been spending the last few months, on developing key concepts and recommendations for the center in alignment with PRC PSRC requirements and Kitsap County's comprehensive plan. And finally, after the end of this year, we'll be moving towards translating some of those recommendations into updating design standards for the center. I'll briefly go through some of the engagement that we've done and the feedback we've received. The engagement for this effort has been both robust, but also targeted and focused. We've had surveys, online workshops, as well as staff and stakeholder workshops.

I recognize some of you attended some of those workshops. And throughout the process, county staff, and our team have iteratively been updating closely after each round, validating findings and shaping the concepts. And I think I speak on behalf of my team that we have found in person workshops very productive and fulfilling, and it's been really amazing to see diverse representatives of the Silverdale community come together to define a future for the center. While I can't spend tonight presenting all of the feedback, a lot of it is summarized on the Silverdale central plan website, but I'll share some sort of reaffirmed consistent priorities we've, heard. The first is to strengthen East West connections, in the center.

That's between the mall, the hospital area, YMCA, and the Old Town, activating Clear Creek as a community green spine, providing more diverse, affordable, and attain attainable housing in the center, enhancing walkability, safety, place making, visual appeal, celebrating enhancing access to the waterfront. And throughout all our workshops and engagement, we have also heard, meant that maintaining Old Town's character is key, prioritizing a transit circulator in the center, as well as ensuring clear accountability of implementation as projects advance. Okay. With that, I will transition us into the conceptual planning and the design elements that start to illustrate how we've been translating some of the community findings in ways in which the Silverdale Center can evolve. Just

to

get us started, the foundations of how we've been thinking about this are sort of key urban urban design principles centered around a continuous fabric of walkable mixed use areas of the areas that I just mentioned, really connecting major commercial employment, residential, and civic destinations in the area while maintaining a strong relationship with the natural environment, particularly Clear Creek and the waterfront, and making sure that the plan supports diverse affordable housing choices, encouraging distinct place making. This was something we heard a lot that not all the areas have to look the same in the center and reinforcing existing strengths of the center rather than replacing them. With that, I'll pass it over to Fred on our team who has been leading the transportation and connectivity elements of the project.

Afraid we can't hear you.

Hear me. There we go.

Now you can. Yeah. Okay. As Toskina has alluded to already, early on in this process, we heard loud and clear that Clear Creek is important to this community, and that could then become a green framework for how we look at circulation within Silverdale. There are already trails through Clear Creek.

There are some other trails. This could start creating the framework for mobility as well as development. There are many communities across North America that use trails as a focus for development of housing and other small commercial activities. So this is something that could be done absolutely along this corridor. And I think there's some examples coming forward as we get to the housing section.

So using this as a framework for walking and biking. And then next slide. Expanding that out to across the whole of Central Silverdale, looking at a low stress network for walking and biking. So there are streets all over. Most of them are not that great for walking, as you all know.

And so there are opportunities that I'll talk through in just a minute about how we can think about reallocating some space along those right of ways or expanding how development might happen along some of those right of ways and thinking about accentuating that frontage zone for improving walking and biking. Next slide, please. So one way that we are proposing to look at evaluating using a performance metric of level of traffic stress for these corridors is based on something that WSDOT has implemented. So about three years ago, Washington State DOT implemented a complete streets policy, which is actually quite strong across the nation. It's really an advanced way of doing this for a state DOT.

And it works really well, really nicely at a local level as well. So this is where you look at roadway characteristics of traffic volume, speed, and degree of separation for people walking or riding bicycles, and you can use that very objectively to come up with what is called level of traffic stress. And this is a really great way that we can start analyzing streets and seeing what types of facilities would be appropriate for those specific streets. So this is something we'll be recommending in the plan as a performance measure. Next slide please.

Looking at some of the near term opportunities is what we are showing here. So the map on the right, the green the dark green lines and the light green lines show projects that have happened within the last ten years or are in process of happening now. So quite a few of the major corridors have had a lot of work done on them. However, there's a gap. Number one here where the big red circle is is a gap in Silverdale Way that hasn't had any improvements done in recent memorable history.

So the sections on the left show the photo, and the sec top section show the existing conditions. So right now there's five lanes, two lanes in each direction and center turn lane. That right of way existing is about a 100 feet wide, and the outside pieces of that are used currently for parking for private businesses and adjacent to the corridor. So there's not a great use of public. Well, you could argue that it's not a great use of public right away and that we could start thinking about how to reallocate that, those fringes off to the to make a better condition for people walking and or riding bicycles while maintaining the same level of traffic moving through the corridor down the middle.

So we're actually adding capacity to this right of way. We've selected this segment because one, it does need work. Two, it would provide a walkable connection between Old Town and the mall, which is really something we heard about people wanting to be able to make that connection. Next slide, please. Another near term opportunity is thinking about transit and helping people get around in that way.

So the map on the right, the bright colored orange line is more or less what is shown in the Kitsap transit long range plan with the addition of a loop that extends down to Old Town. So that is something that could be implemented at some point once money is found. Additionally, there was a very successful walk on ferry pop up that happened over Labor Day weekend. And there's opportunity to continue that and thinking about how that connection to Bremerton could provide another extension for people to access Silverdale. One thing we did hear is that that pop up ferry would only be successful or be most successful with the addition of some sort of shuttle that could connect people from parking at the mall or other places to that ferry.

So some combination of a shuttle with a ferry could really accentuate mobility within Silverdale. Next, please. Long term opportunities. There are many, but this one I want to talk about along Silverdale Way at the mall. So this is right in front of the mall.

The right of way has narrowed at this point. The existing public right of way is about 80 feet. The top section and the photo on the top right show more or less what is out there today. And I wanna show two local examples that really show how that corridor could actually be transformed into something that is a desirable place to be and maintaining that same level of mobility for people using cars. The second section down, number two there, is an example from Lake City Way in Seattle.

This is State Route 522, and there are two lanes of traffic in each direction, very similar to Silverdale Way. But the right of way is about a 100 feet wide. And so with a 100 feet, you could add significant tree cover, provide really great pedestrian facilities alongside, and even have parking lane within that right of way and really high quality bus stops. So there's a lot of flexibility that could happen there, but that's a local example. The next one down is Bothell Way.

This is a bit more ambitious, but what Bothell Way looked like twenty years ago is more like what Silverdale Way looks like today. And this is a really fantastic roadway to be on. It's about a 140 ish feet wide right away, so there's a bit of, work that needs to be done to think about how to extend there. But this is what's called a multi way boulevard. So it maintains through traffic down the middle, two lanes in each direction.

The narrow lanes off to the side are for local access and parking. Still really low speed, low volume, provides a very good buffer from that pedestrian frontage to the faster traffic that's moving down the center of the right of way. Bothell has radically changed in the last twenty years and it is a highly walkable, highly desirable place to be. There's no reason something like one of these two options couldn't happen on Silverdale Way. Next slide. And finally, the last thing I'm

gonna talk

about is parking. We know we all know there is a lot of parking in Silverdale in Silverdale that does not get used most of the time. So how do we better utilize that space, better maximize that space for people? And that could be housing that or other mixed use developments that Taschina is gonna talk about in a bit. We came up with the we talked a lot about the concept of park once and walk.

So what are those little walking opportunities now to connect destinations? I have to believe there are some out there. And kind of are there could that be augmented by the shuttle, ferry, etcetera? So I think there's some opportunities in the near term to work on that. And then probably a little longer term because there's cost associated with it, thinking about parking structures. So how do you consolidate that large footprint of parking into a more consolidated space? And then as you're doing that, think about what that frontage of that parking might look like. Maybe there's a commercial frontage or other frontage that really makes it a personal space to be again. And with that, I'm gonna hand it back to Toskina. Thanks.

Thanks, Fred. I'll quickly run through some slides to talk about some of the urban design and infill redevelopment considerations and concepts we've been working on. So building on those mobility and design principles that Fred just went through, we've been examining where infill can best occur in the center. We particularly, we've been building upon the market study that was conducted earlier where which identified key vacant underutilized and publicly owned parcels in the center. These areas became the focus of our infill design concepts guided guided by the principle, again, of enhancing and working with the existing urban fabric rather than overwhelming it, and also using sites that are more likely to redevelop.

So this is a conceptual plan that is still in working phase. Again, this is a translation of the community goals that we've outlined and also the hard work and productive sessions we've had with the staff and stakeholder workshops. So this conceptual plan is focusing on connecting of sort of the big four primary areas I mentioned, including the mall area, the creek, the hospital, the creek going down to the waterfront to Old Town, and it's really centered around creating, again, working through those new street connections that Fred mentioned, new public open spaces, and open space linkages to create a continuous walkable network for the center. The gray here is representing sort of future medium to modest density residential and mixed use development in different parts of the center. And then the black here is also infill redevelopment, but it's being particularly referenced as more smaller scale multifamily homes that are more community oriented along the creek.

And then some of the green spaces you see are sort of carved public spaces as a result of the urban design fabric. These are some examples of how incremental redevelopment could play out, again, mainly in the form of medium density two over one, three over one buildings in key, vacant or underutilized areas. And the main goal here is to use these to activate edges, carve public spaces, and create that comfortable pedestrian and multimodal environment without overwhelming, the current network or, overwhelming the neighborhood scale. So, again, these are just some examples, and this presentation is available online if, anyone needs to see closer. We also examine certain specific building opportunities, along sort of major connecting streets.

Currently, these are, faced by, large parking surface, surface parking lots. So really thinking through what are some types of infill development that can start to help, activate, those edges and, connect them, to the different areas. So one type of building we've been looking at are liner buildings. These are sort of lower low scale small footprints that can be retail with some housing on top, if needed, that can start, to sort of line major streets and networks, connecting the transit stop, to the creek, to the mall, to Old Town. And we've really put some thought into how, these, liner buildings can use existing, area in the center, while still keeping parking and also while, thinking about how they re, relate to existing development in the area.

So this is an example of how current existing conditions look like in the center, specifically Silverdale Way, and then how liner buildings could help activate those edges. We've also taken a deeper look exploring how incremental compatible infill development could look like in two certain areas, specifically the parcels around the mall and the creek as well as what we're calling old town transition, so Upper North facing Silverdale Way. And this is a concept, of the mall and creek area illustrating some of that infill and urban design elements, how they can take shape, keeping in mind that this is just one of many ways to achieve the community's goals of walkability, in a public realm. This concept, looks into taking those large surface parking lots around the mall, and we've had several conversations with, various stakeholders and representatives, including mall representatives, sort of thinking about how we can envision, the mall both in terms of the existing, activity as well as new housing, smaller block patterns, and East West connectivity to the creek. So this concept envisions higher density multifamily housing near the mall, again, smaller scale housing near the creek, as well as opportunities for expanded public realm.

One of the key elements of this concept, we would say, is what we're calling the urban street condition, which creates this distinct retail environment, that both serves the interior and exterior of the mall, transforming that that current area into a more community focused public realm. This is something we heard in our community surveys as well as the community workshop and our stakeholder workshops. So this really becomes both a public realm conduit, but also something that can drive economic activity and vibrancy for both the mall and new development around. These are some of those liner buildings that can help activate the street, activate Silverdale Way. And these are just some representative images to show how that public realm and retail activity can spill over to the outside connecting to the creek.

The second area that we looked a little closer at was Old Town, again, making sure we're reinforcing community feedback to preserve the block structure and the character of Old Town. So really thinking through gentle, incremental, and gradual, infill development that is also compatible with the area. This includes, again, gradually going from smaller scale housing development to larger scale that starts to front that Silverdale Way and that area that Fred was mentioning that could become a key connector of both the mall and the Old Town. Again, these improvements aim to strengthen the connection between the historic core and the waterfront while preserving the area as well as looking for opportunities to create new public open spaces and trails, including an opportunity to daylight, Strawberry Creek. Just a note that we were told that this is this alignment is slightly off, and we are making adjustments correctly.

A key takeaway from the engagement, again, was, as I mentioned, really thinking through compatibility. So we do not want to, you know, make abrupt changes to the area. So the focus of these are more modest scale, how, mixed use development we're showing, as I mentioned, are by Silverdale Way, and this is just an example of how that could be in the future. And we're showing sort of a three over one, with more with a with in the future if Strawberry Peak was daylight and we could have sort of a green trail running along, as well as future street improvements that Fred had mentioned, including a protected bike lane without taking away any drive lane aisles. Okay.

That brings us to next steps. So the next phase of our work will be taking these concepts and translating them into more specific policy recommendations, including regulatory updates, opportunities for public private partnerships, funding opportunities, and implementation actions, including a framework for design standards. Our immediate next step is to consolidate all these materials so far into a draft, for PSRC certification by the, end of next month. As we develop the policy recommendations and action items, our team will be building, and leaning extensively on the feedback that we received from the September. We received a wealth of amazing productive feedback from a diverse group of representatives from the Silverdale central area, and their input will help us translate the overall community vision and design concepts into more concrete actionable items that we can prioritize.

So, just like the community engagement, I will not be able to use this type to share all the feedback that we got in that workshop, but this is a snapshot of some of the high discussion items, including prioritizing a transit loop as Fred mentioned, prioritizing complete streets policy and implementation, revisiting parking requirements, addressing private property limits on connectivity, prioritizing workforce and middle income and housing for the area, relaxing regulations for incentivizing development, really understanding how we can think of this area through transit oriented development, support higher density. I think this was already spoken about today in the previous presentation, but really looking at all the opportunities we can for economic development and financing, and really thinking about the right partners, to, public private partnerships to really take this forward, but also making sure the community is involved, as projects advance. Some other considerations that we heard both in the workshop and going forward, as we complete the plan is making sure we are coordinating with existing projects. There's a lot of great work that's already been done and ongoing alignment with Kitsap County's long range plans. We heard a lot about housing growth and infrastructure considerations.

There's a lot of zoning changes that are happening around the area, a lot of housing growth that will come around the center that is not necessarily in our study boundary, but we can take this plan to incorporate and think about and strategize how we can think about that future. And lastly, making sure we are aligned with PSRC requirements so we can redesignate the center and, make it, eligible for funding in the future. Alright. That's that's all we had for you. We welcome any questions or comments if there if there is time.

Thank you, Taskeena.

Now I'll just go back to

alright. I'll keep it here.

Okay. Thank you very much for that great presentation. It's pretty exciting stuff. A couple of things that hit me. Well, first, I like the small scale infill for Old Town and kind of trying to preserve part of Old Town's character. And then before I came to Kitsap, I lived in Bothell and I lived just a couple blocks from that on page 22 that multimodal Bothell Way. And I guess it is cool. I guess I would recommend it's more cool if you have a very compact car and you know how many pickup truck. I don't know how many police calls they've gotten probably for doors getting hit or whatever. So it is really cool concept.

I can see our work much better in areas where they have very small cars or even like European types of communities. But I do like that. But maybe if we do something like that, maybe make the driving space a little bit wider. And then when we see you guys in the future with regards to the Strawberry Creek and the daylighting along the whole the city of Bothell again, there was something called Horse Creek, which goes right through Bothell, right next to this boulevard actually. And I'm sure it was very expensive and it'd be a lot more expensive now to build.

But it'd be cool to see some for the commission to see some pictures of that because I think that was very successful daylighting, very expensive, but it's pretty cool now. So thanks for the great presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I know all of the work that you put into this was it's very well thought out, and I personally appreciate it. This is kind of in the field in which I work in personally, so it was very exciting to see this. It was a bit of a deja vu because Bainbridge Island did a similar project called Winslow Tomorrow. It took three years.

It was very lengthy. Unfortunately, it ended up on a bookshelf collecting dust. But, I have promises, and, I I'm really, excited about what the county is envisioning and what they're putting into play to see this through. I think that we all can agree long term ideas have to start somewhere, And having those goals and biting off those small steps along the way to end up with a bigger project is exciting. With that being said, complete streets, you can go to Bainbridge Island, North Madison.

Madison was just redone through a complete streets program. And it's very exciting because there's bike lanes, there's walkable sidewalks, there's even little small snags of greenery in between the bike path and the sidewalk. It's very nice to see communities putting forth monies and projects that really keep people moving and the flow of cars and pedestrians and bikes working unified together and being able to keep all the traffic and those options available to families who are going to school and to downtown businesses, catching the ferry and whatnot. With that all being said, I know these projects cost money. So how is that being discussed?

Because a lot of these larger projects, you know, money has to start being part of that conversation. So is there discussions about maybe local improvement districts, business improvement districts with this project? I just kind of wanted to know, like, what are the plans that you've been discussing about funding this project?

Yeah. I'll let Tasquina expand on that, but we have been talking about transit overlay districts using tax increment financing, maybe testing that. I know you've had a list of some of those incentives that we were going to try to bring forward. I know you shortened this presentation a little bit and took some of that out, but maybe you could expand on that a little bit.

Yeah. Sure. No, I think Jim is correct. With a lot of the conversations we've been spending on with the staff workshop last month was really focused on actionable items for funding and partnerships. And there was support for looking at TIF, looking at opportunity business opportunity zones, thinking about public private partnerships a little closer using design standards for sort of development requirements. And then the complete streets, was a interesting conversation, and I'll let, Fred, maybe, expand on that a little more.

Sure. So in the state of Washington, local agencies that have a complete street policy in place allows them to access funding through the Transportation Investment Board. And this is I'm not sure how Bainbridge paid for Madison. I can't remember. But it's possible that they went through that process to get grant funding outside of funding.

So that is something that we are going to put forward as a recommendation is that either for Silverdale, it could be for Silverdale itself has a complete street policy. And we can provide more information about what that means, what that looks like. But that opens up opportunity for grants funding for transportation projects from various state programs within WashDOT and within the Transportation Investment Board. So that's kind of critical. This is also why we're recommending that you use a level of traffic stress that models after WashDOT's policy, because that is criteria that they use for a lot of their programs to select projects.

There's another program within WashDOT called the Sandy Williams Connecting Communities Program that is very new. It's only a couple years old. And it is focused on current and former state right of way highways, state highways. Silverdale Way was a former state highway. There is funding to improve through that program to improve walkability and bikeability on that corridor. So these are all opportunities that we'll start incorporating into the recommendations.

And I would just add that since Silverdale is a regional center, we do qualify for grant money through PSRC and historically have been getting about $2,500,000 per year for transportation funding in center. So we'll continue looking at that as a resource.

Other comments?

We have Planning Commissioner Hampton online.

Please.

Thank you. I had the opportunity to participate, and, yeah, I appreciate this update. I was actually just looking at this slide, and I noticed under the urban form vision or infrastructure and environment, I don't see stormwater infrastructure listed. I in the conversations I was a part of, I know we talked about that in great length, and I think it'd be just great to add it to this high level slide. I could see how it could be kind of themed into functional green space. But just because of the importance of its function, it'd be great to call it out separately.

Yeah. We definitely include stormwater in our analysis and in our planning. We did have to trim down some of the words that we used on these slides, though, just for brevity purposes. Thank you.

Other comments? Thank you very much.

Thank

you. Thank you.

That brings us to the 2025 of the rural deliberations motions. Before we, start into deliberations, we will have a short presentation from staff.

Thank you, commissioners. I am Heather Cleveland. Okay. Good. I read the title and I got a flashback that it was the other presentation. I'm Heather Cleveland. I'm a long range planner with Kitsap County Department of Community Development. And I'm here to provide updated presentation directed towards the deliberations that we'll be having. And I also have here with me my colleague, Jim Rogers, to help me coordinate what will be happening tonight. So the agenda that we'll go through in this brief presentation is process and timeline, the deliverables again that we'll be discussing, and then the deliberations and next steps.

So an update is one update since the last time I presented is the equestrian facility code has been postponed to 2026, so that won't be part of our deliberations this evening. The document, the comment summary and draft deliberations table were posted on October 14, and you should have received those, with your materials. And then tonight, we'll have we'll have the presentation, deliberations, interactive discussion and recommendations from the Planning Commission, and then looking to adopt the findings of fact with that table with your recommendations. And then to conclude, after concluding tonight, we'll proceed to the Board of County Commissioner hearing, which is on schedule for November 10. And the updated deliverables based on these recommendations and staff recommendations will be published on October 27 in advance of the hearing with the Board of County Commissioners.

As a reminder, the three deliverables and then there's multiple components within two of them but the Rural and Resource Lands chapter, which is part of the comprehensive plan the proposed code updates, which are agriculture and childcare and then finally the reclassification requests, of which we have three. So these next few slides just go over some of the things that we heard, be it through comment or testimony that we have included in our deliberations table. It includes wildlife quarters and habitat connectivity, the advisory councils, rural walkability and bikeability, climate change element, tribal lands, cluster development, water resources, rural data analysis, and the equestrian facility. With respect to the code deliberations, you'll see on the table hours of outdoor noise. We received comment on that and then also a language, and we have staff recommendations for both of those.

And then with respect to agriculture, we have an updated staff recommendation on the agricultural building exemption and the noticing, which I'll go through on the table in more detail. And then just as a quick reminder that these are the rural reclassification requests that we received. The Scrobot McCormick request is to go from rural wooded to rural commercial. And it was rural industrial or rural commercial, but our recommendation includes rural commercial. The Moran reclassification request is to go from rural residential to rural industrial.

And then the final one, Stokes Campbell request, is to go from rural protected to rural commercial. And then some of the deliberation topics that we've included in the table with respect to each of these. So concerns about intensification and demonstration of unmet need. And then our tentative recommendation is for approval on this. And then and then the oh, did it skip ahead?

Yes. And then for the Moran, deliberation table includes addressing the code compliance, which we did talk about a bit two weeks ago, and also the critical areas. We have updated this to be a recommendation for conditional approval. We have some more details in the deliberation table with respect to that. And then finally, the Stokes Campbell reclassification request, deliberation from the testimony and comments that we heard was the concern about critical areas, previous denials, and change in circumstances.

And we are moving our current recommendation is conditional approval for this reclassification request. And so the next part of the process will be deliberations. And so these are with the deliberation table, these are the next tables. And I'll just go through this, and then I can open it up in just a moment. I've already shared the next steps in the process.

So November 10, I've mentioned that. That's the hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. And that's when the public comment closes. So we will be summarizing all the comments from the twenty third September 23 through November 10. All those com comments from the second to the twenty third will be added then with those future comments combined for a summary presented to the Board of County Commissioners, and then we'll have the deliberations with them on November 24, working towards December 8 adoption. And with that, I'm going to shift over to the deliberations table and

Do we have any questions before we start deliberation?

Heather, would you mind just sharing with me what the condition of the approval for Moran was? Was it just to remediate the existing code violation?

It's also in the deliberations table, but, the conditions so it was an interesting process to us to come to this that we're separating the the code violation from our process. And the question that was asked, at the last, deliberation was, is the property owner cooperating? And the answer is yes. And so we receive fee so we're separating that from the process. So the condition for us is including that northern the property the parcel to the north, because without including the parcel to the north, it would be an island. So that's the condition that we've included. That we I should say that we added.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions before deliberations?

I just have one follow-up question to that. What does the property owner to the north think about all this?

It's the same property owner.

Same property? Okay.

Yep. So it would have been more complicated if that wasn't the case, but it is the case.

I thought there was a wetlands concern on that property as well.

So we there are wetlands on that, and a wetland delineation report was provided. But our where we stand on that is that's project based decision. So this is programmatic and we're looking at different criteria that's not related. So whatever project they propose to move forward with is when that wetland and the critical areas ordinance that would guide that would be a part of that

process. Thank you.

Other questions? Questions? Adriana, you have anything? Considering no further questions, do I have a motion to proceed?

Yes. Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion to begin deliberations. And it would be as follows. Consider by paragraph and recommend adoption of the changes to the twenty twenty five year of the rural deliverables, including rural and resource lands chapter, agricultural co agriculture code, child care code, and Strobot McCormick Lands Company, Moran, Stokes Campbell reclassification requests as presented by staff and as potentially amended by the Planning Commission in these deliberations.

Do I have a second?

Second.

The motion has been moved and seconded. We can now proceed with deliberations by paragraph.

Okay. Just give me a moment while I try to figure out how to open that and share that screen. Just one moment.

Up. And when I'm

oh, it's right here. I see it. Wanna look at? Okay, so what do is this is the copy that you've already received. And there was two changes that we've had on this screen that are highlighted in yellow in bold.

So I'll point out any of those updates. They're minimal. But I'll go through and read this, you know, with respect to the summary of the issue and then our staff recommendation. And then my understanding is then with each line item, you will do your deliberation in either adopt our recommendation or change it. And then once we're finished, you can add to what we've already proposed any additional topics for discussion. I just want to make sure that that's an agreeable way to proceed.

And we're going through the three sections.

That's right. Yep. Line by line. Okay. Just want to start off by thanking everybody who's provided feedback on this process.

It's very helpful to us, and we welcome it. The first topic is wildlife quarters and habitat connectivity. This is a topic that I'll acknowledge we did talk about throughout the process and multiple times, specifically with Kitsap Environmental Coalition and Port Gamble's Sklallum Tribe, and it was an omission on my part that it wasn't included in the first place. So I appreciated that it was acknowledged multiple times, and I did let the groups know that I heard them and I recommended that they comment about it so it would help us include this. So the summary of the issue, all wildlife quarter and habitat connectivity to the add wildlife quarter and habitat connectivity to the chapter with specific specificity to identify and map corridors, identify key species of concern, and link corridors to allow movement of species.

So with that, we are proposing to add the goal to protect and enhance wildlife quarters and habitat connectivity in Kitsap County to support biodiversity, allow species movement, and maintain healthy ecosystems while balancing rural character and land use needs. And then the policies, identify and prioritize wildlife corridors and habitat areas using best available science and regional coordination. Policy, collaborate with state, tribal, and regional and local partners to support long term habitat connectivity. Policy, develop and adopt a wildlife corridor plan that identifies, prioritize, and protects critical wildlife corridors and habitat connections across Kitsap County. And then the two strategies.

First strategy, conduct countywide inventory of wildlife corridors using the rural lands analysis and other mapping tools. The second strategy, identify key species of concern and document their habitat needs. And that ends the first line.

Is there

a time frame for these steps?

Not as part of the Rural and Resource Lands chapter, but I will say when something includes a strategy, which will when we get to the bikeability and walkability, there isn't a strategy just yet on those. But when there's a strategy, it's something that's more immediate. And another piece that we have on here that's identified in our work plan for 2026 is the rural lands analysis, which will include some of the work that's described here. And then also I'll say that the coordination is an important piece of this because we're not the only ones working on it. We want to collaborate with others who already have data and share that information.

So I guess for timeline though, this would be added to our comprehensive plan in the Rural and Resource Lands chapter.

Questions? Okay. So is this the whole section?

This is the first line, yep. And we're going to go through line by line.

Okay. So I move that we approve the or recommend the language as prepared by staff. Second.

Do we need a vote?

Yes.

All in favor? Unanimous.

Okay, I'll move on to the next line. I'm gonna combine well, no. I'll go they'll be quick. So the Forestry Advisory Council topic include community members and various interest groups. This was raised to us, And the staff recommendation, I guess it's more of an acknowledgment, so this could be from the Planning Commission no recommendation, or you could do something different.

But I will say we agree. And this is so sometimes in a comprehensive plan or a chapter, things are it's a twenty year plan, so it could be in the future. This is actively being worked on right now, especially as it pertains to the rural lands analysis. And so a proposal has already been prepared and shared with our leadership at DCD and leadership at Kitsap County. And yes, this does have a cross section that includes a variety of partners and stakeholders that are involved in forestry, including large timber, small timber industry, KEC, it's realtors, developers.

We really want to understand as we work on the rural lands analysis, what's the future of forestry and the timber industry as Kitsap County. So my short answer is yes, we agree and it's included in the current draft proposal.

Questions? Comments?

Is there a summary or a deadline as to when you'll have these advisory committees selected and implemented?

So our goal is to have them for 2026. But it's a matter of if they move forward as a working group, you know, is organized and led by staff, or if it's a county commissioner appointment and led that way, that's I think the question. But I think no matter what, we agree that we need to organize that for the rural lands analysis. So my short answer is the 2025, early twenty twenty six. But what exactly that looks like, we're not sure. But we are planning to move forward with something either way.

I guess my question is twofold. That the advisory committees are established, so when you get ready to do the agricultural portion that you're postponing, there's an ag advisory council established to do that.

We agree. And that goes to the next line, but then also with the code update postponement, there's a that's separate, and that will be a working group, not an advisory council, but an equestrian facility code working group that will continue through that process. So that but that's separate from the advisory councils that are formal and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. And those two that we're recommending in this is for forestry and agriculture. And I will say that the agriculture includes equestrian representation. But that we can include it in the plan, but adoption of that is out of our hands.

Other questions?

Do I have a motion? I move the Planning Commission make no recommendation with regard to the Forestry Advisory Council.

Second. Discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.

Next topic, Agriculture Advisory Council summary of issue include community members and various interest groups. And again with this one, agree assessing the draft draft proposal. I will say that the initial proposal, this has been worked on by the agricultural community for now going on it was a year and a half before we started the year of the rural, and so now we're going into two and a half years. And that didn't initially include that as part of it, so we had a conversation with the Agriculture Working Group Steering Committee this morning in our meeting on how to include that the other voices in that. So we're acknowledging that right now, and it including, for example, perhaps Kitsap Environmental Coalition as an advisory role, perhaps not a voting member.

So that's kind of that's what's being discussed right now. So I want to acknowledge that we heard that, And we're talking with the group and looking to add that to the proposal for the Agriculture Advisory Council.

So it'll show up in the next draft?

For the Agriculture Advisory Council proposal, yes.

Do I have a motion? I move that we make no recommendation with regard to the agricultural advisory council.

I second.

The reason I suggest no recommendation is we haven't seen the language. We don't know who's on this. I think staff is going to do a great job of putting the right language in there. We'll let the commissioners look at it at the time it gets there.

Agree and understood. And I think I wanted to include this in the deliberations table so that folks know that we heard them and it gets to a level of detail that's not part of the chapter, but also I'm acknowledging how important it is. Any

further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? One opposed? Motion carries.

Next topic, rural and walkability rural walkability and bikeability. The summary of the issue adds strategies, connections, and safety is important. Our staff recommendation with this is strategies that are not feasible at this time will need to create future strategies in concert with Kitsap County Public Works. So this is an example of something we're simply not ready for, but we wanted to include this in the Rural and Resource Lands chapter as it is an has been identified by the community as an important topic. It's just not ready for the strategy level just yet.

How will that show in the chapter?

So no change at this time. So we have it in the chapter, but it doesn't have a strategy. Meaning, like, we don't know yet what specific next steps will look like. And I'll acknowledge we don't have that because it's really hard. It's really hard to accommodate bikeability and walkability in rural because as we were talking about complete streets in Silverdale, not an option in rural.

It's not even an option at times to have a shoulder. So we're acknowledging that the density isn't there to fund those type of projects. And then on the flip side, I'll also acknowledge in chatting with my colleagues and friends who do the salmon recovery work, increased pavement increases runoff which can impact salmon. So we want to acknowledge the importance in what we heard from the community with respect to walkability and bikeability in rural, but also we're acknowledging that it is a tough it's tough. It'll be tough. So we don't have specific strategies at this time.

Do we refer to or acknowledge what public works is doing with biking and countywide biking trails?

We don't, but that's something that we could do. And I also will say, our under so that could be something, yep. And that would be very beginning, and not acknowledging something specific. But yes, I believe they're updating their non motorized transportation plan at this time. So to connect with them on that and keep our eye on how that ties into rural could be a strategy. Yes.

It would at least acknowledge that they're working on it.

I agree. And that's not included at this time and it's a good

idea. Yes ma'am.

Oh, so you have a section, though, for goals on that. Correct? Like, says goal walkability?

It's a broader goal than that. But I can open it up and take a look.

Yeah. I was just reading it. It says goals enhance rural walkability and bikeability by promoting compatible land use. So that's in there. Right?

Right.

We just aren't being specific about it.

That's correct. What they're asking for and I understand why they're asking

Can you just pull it up?

I can. Yep. They're asking for more specifics that we don't have yet. But the idea of connecting with something that is specifically happening, like the updating of the non motorized transportation plan, is a specific step.

Right. But you actually say that. You say and the non motorized transportation committee. Here, just pull it.

Thank you. Oh, good. Check.

Okay. But if you can I'll open it. Really quick. Sorry. It's on page 22. Thank you. There you go. Am I reading the wrong one?

Here it is. Oh, there it is. Yep. So Yes.

We didn't

if you I mean, you're stating pretty much all the things. I agree you don't have a policy, but you're saying that there's a goal for the policy.

That's right. And I think the strategy part, what we were just talking about, is already included in the goal. So there is something. And I think what they were actually asking for is even more specifics. We simply don't have that at this But

at least we are

It's mentioned.

We're saying it's a goal.

That's correct. And it is already mentioned here. Thank you for catching that. I couldn't I couldn't remember. And now we have the document over open, which is really helpful in case we need to reference it again. I see Planning Commissioner Hampton.

Yeah. So I was curious, question. I might make a recommendation. Is there a way to explore synergies, or strategies aligned with Kitsap County's target zero to prevent injury and other serious traffic related conflicts?

Yes. That's something that we could add. That's not included. And I will say, anyone who's worked in improving bikeability and walkability, that's the angle where the funding exists. That's a starting place. So, yes, that is something we could add either as a policy or a strategy. I'm open to either one, and that's that's doable inclusion.

Okay.

I'm gonna tail that question. Is that are you speaking of the ADA requirements?

I'm not. I'm speaking of Vision Zero, which has to do with traffic, safety, accidents.

Correct. Same.

Okay.

Just really quick, wouldn't ADA requirements, because it's a federal overarching concept, always be part of this no matter what without even stating it?

I think so, yes. But if you want it to be more explicitly implied in there, but it is part of when we talk about walkability and bikeability, yes, it's multimodal.

And required.

And required. Right.

I just have concerns about the way that it's written because ADA is a big item of focus with a lot of local agencies. And so I was just, if we're gonna make the assumption, then we'll make the assumption, but it almost seems like it should be clearer.

More explicit?

Yeah.

Okay.

Do we have a motion for proposed change to the wording?

Sir, I motion to recommend the exploration of strategies that align with Kitsap County target zero to prevent in injury and other serious traffic conflicts in rural communities with emphasis on ADA accessibility.

Did you get all that? Can you say that slowly so we can get it?

Apologies.

I have oh, I have explored the exploration oh, sorry. Is that sorry. If you could just start from the beginning. And this is a strategy. Correct?

Correct. Yep. I motion to recommend the explore exploration of strategies that align with Kitsap County target zero. Slow one moment. Okay. To prevent injury and other serious traffic conflicts in rural communities

Okay.

With emphasis sorry for the large words, but

That's okay.

Poke it, ADA accessibility.

Emphasis on ADA accessibility?

Correct. For the recommendation of my fellow commissioners. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have a second? Do we have a discussion? Well, we got to get a second first.

I'll second it.

Okay. Now discussion.

The one concern I have with specifically focusing on AD, I think that's a great goal. But when Clear Creek Trail was being built out, you remember the big promoter of that was Tex Lewis. And he repeatedly came to the Central Kitsap Community Council and said, look, if I'm required to build this to ADA standard, it will never be built.

That

there is a place for ADA, everybody agrees. But there's also needs to be some ability to say, wait a minute, we're going to promote walkability in general. Maybe we can't do that if everything has to be ADA. So that's just information I was provided by the person with the Coty Creek Trail in And may not be relevant anymore, but I want to add that to the conversation.

I wonder if with that said, we could change emphasis to consideration of ADA accessibility. Okay.

Again, I would move to amend the motion to change it from to consideration of ADA as opposed to say that is the only thing to do.

Is there a second?

I think we have to be careful with the term walkable, because ADA compliance is that very term, walkable. It's not walkable.

Right.

I think what we're doing is we're just because this isn't actual code, it's just that people take all of this into consideration. And so I think with your statement of adding that a different word is a good idea. But it doesn't you're not changing the walkable code. All we're doing is saying we're considering it.

But noted what you said just the same. But I think you're not proposing to change it, but noted just the same. Okay.

And I guess I Just on experience of litigating issues, again, this language does matter.

So we need a

I second Richard's motion.

Any other discussion? So this is where it gets a little muddy.

I have discussion, but I think it's on what Adrian said. Am I able to discuss it now? Okay. I just was trying to keep it

as concise as possible.

Do we need to even say anything about rural since we're doing the year of

the rural?

Or is this because it's going in the code and we're talking about rural things?

I think in I I my answer to that is I think include rural because it is so I know that this isn't in the rural resource lands chapter, but I think it's important to keep that word. Just like I call it the rural lands analysis. You know, I keep using that word intentionally. So I propose to include it.

Any other discussion? Can you please read the sentence that we're going to vote on?

Yep. Adding a strategy adding the strategy, exploration of strategies that align with Kitsap County target zero to prevent injury and other serious traffic conflicts in rural communities with consideration of ADA accessibility.

All in favor of that language? Thank you. Unanimous. Passed.

Next topic, climate change element, summary of issue, use best available science and avoid clear cutting. Our staff recommendation, to better understand, especially in local context, and discuss with future potential forestry advisory council. So essentially no change at this time, but we are noting the comment that was made.

Questions? Comments?

I motion to make no recommendation.

I'll second. Discussion? Comments? All those in favor of no recommendation? Pass.

I just want to note my opposition.

Oh, one opposition. Sorry.

Next topic, tribal lands. Summary of issue. Acknowledge tribal lands and acreage. And this is in yellow because and then the bold is what I added to it. So this is in progress. We are using assessor data to compile the tribal land data. I want to acknowledge that we're going to work with the tribes to better understand the way that we see tribal lands. Is that the way that they see tribal lands? Also, is a request from one tribe and not multiple tribes. So this is something we have to move forward with thought.

I don't know that we'll be able to include it in the chapter, but we are working on having that discussion right now. Then another topic came up when this was brought up, is we also don't acknowledge, you know, with respect to acreage, our military installations in Kitsap County. So those are two we want to acknowledge that we're working on. If they don't make it into the rural and resource lands chapter, it will be a part of the rural lands analysis and included there. We're just not sure that it can get past the finish line. We don't have the data right now. It takes time to pull that and have those conversations. But we at minimum want to acknowledge the request and also acknowledge that, you know, in looking at when we break down our zones and these types of things, that these are also important to acknowledge, especially for Kitsap County.

Do I have a motion of recommendation?

Adrian has. Adrian?

Let's see.

Sorry. I just lost my notes here. Alright. So I would move to recommend a new section under the background of the chapter to have a new section titled tribal lands and treaty rights all in its own right, if you will. But I also want to appreciate the conversations and consultation that you've had with tribal representatives related to this plan.

And so if that's not appropriate, I would understand that. But I feel as though and I'm moving away from my motion. But just to explain, in the current draft, as far as individuals, stakeholders who are consulted, tribal representatives are included in that chunk. But I believe it would be more appropriate to have an own section to acknowledge tribal sovereignty, a proper land acknowledgment, an acknowledgment of tribal lands. So that would be my recommendation there.

I agree with what was just stated, but also under rural land use designation and zoning, would it be appropriate to just have a statement saying that you're looking into the tribal lands or not?

I think both. I think what Adrian proposed and then what we currently have, I think is a twofold.

So put it in both places.

And

what would that say?

She has a motion, right? Or is this still discussion level?

Yeah, don't think there's a motion. Yeah.

I think it's still being formed.

Just wanted to talk about it with her.

Yeah.

Do I have a motion for tribal lands?

Not yet. Sure.

Oh, go ahead.

Well, I have a motion for a new section.

And then I think the other motion, if it's combined, would be to what we have here, to add tribal lands and potentially military installation to the chapter, data to the chapter under the section that you've mentioned.

Under rural land use designation and zoning. You just had it up on the screen It's like a second on page nine. So it would be in both those places, her motion

That's right.

As well as adding a line at the bottom of this section.

And this section on nine is what we're referring to? Yeah. Yep. But you're being more specific. Correct.

So do

I have a motion?

Alright. So I'll restate. I move to recommend a new section under background of chapter titled tribal lands and treaty rights.

Do we have the words correct now?

Yes. I think there's also a bunch of elements to include in that section. Is that something that we also want to talk about? Or are we okay with just the addition of the new section?

This would be appropriate time, I believe.

I agree. I think to make sure that I understand, would if you could add it, that would be helpful so that I don't misunderstand.

Again, I am happy to stand corrected based on your conversations with tribal representatives. But so to include acknowledgment for tribal lands as a type of land. Recognizing oh, sorry. Recognizing and supporting tribal cultures.

Okay.

Meaningful tribal consultation in rural resources and lands policy decisions and protection of cultural resources.

Okay. And then this the sec it's a twofold here then. I just wanna make sure I get the second one. Let me hold on. Let me get this sorted out here.

And then, new section. Could you restate?

Yeah, I just wanted to add what you had said at the bottom of that page nine section. I forgot what it was called just now, but

It's I the rural land use designations and zoning.

Oh, perfect. And then so at the bottom of that section, to acknowledge that you are accessing and compiling the data for the tribal land and military. I don't know if military is the right word, but you said.

And question on, I'm just curious if they should go together or if they should be separate. I just, I don't know the answer to that myself.

I would be fine if they were two separate lines.

We can make them separate. They would be separate. Right. They're not

They're not the same.

They're not the same. So I can just copy and paste this and have one for tribal lands and one for military. Yep.

I just want to make sure that it's in that section so that since you added all those numbers.

Chair, I have a question, just a clarifying question to maybe is for I guess for Adrian, just like are we talking about current tribal land boundaries? Or are we talking about 1855? What are do we need to clarify that at all in here? Or are we just talking about talking about it?

I would defer to staff for that question, but it came as a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Believe the staff might have further explanation.

Yeah, so it's a good question. And I think that's why this is going to take some work. Because also, to what end are we including this? We want to be authentic with what we're including. So I don't have an answer for you at this time, but I think acknowledging both is the answer. But how we go about that, I think we can acknowledge it. That part is doable. I think the harder part is the data and the numbers. And that's going to be more difficult. But I think, in short, the answer is both.

Acknowledge the history and the current boundaries. But that actual data of acres is what's I don't know if we'll be able to include it this time. So I think the language as it stands is open enough for us to have those discussions and figure out hopefully land on on a good spot.

Can I have a reread of what you've typed so we can make a motion? Yes.

Recommendation to include new section in background of chapter, quote, tribal lands treaty rights, unquote, to include acknowledgment of tribal lands as a type of land, recognizing and supporting tribal cultures, meaningful tribal consultation in rural and resource lands policy decisions and protection of cultural resources. New section in rural land use designations and zoning, assessing and compiling data for tribal land. New section in rural land use designation and zoning, assessing and compiling data for military lands.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

Adrian?

Is this acceptable for a motion?

Yes. I can read them together just to make it simple. And for combining. Sound good? All right. I motion to recommend

You don't have to read it. If you what they've typed is acceptable, you can make a motion for their typed. All

right. I make a motion to recommend a new section as presented.

Do I have a second?

I second.

Do we have discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.

Next item, cluster development. Summary of issue cluster development is an urban development tool. Our staff recommendation, essentially no change. The intent is not to encourage it, but to explore it. Staff agrees with the concern, but acknowledge it's a tool for rural development described in the Growth Management Act.

So we include this in the chapter and it was brought to our attention that that is an urban tool. I've also acknowledged in previous presentations the number of legacy lots that we have and lots under five acres. We're including the language, it's part of GMA, but we also we're acknowledging we're not I don't feel that our language is currently so strong that we're encouraging it. We're looking to explore it at this time. But also not striking it out.

Could you just show us where that language is?

It's in the development section. Strategy continuously monitor development in the rural area regarding clustering, legacy lots, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative land use techniques to ensure they are working as intended.

I just have one comment on clustering. When we were invalidated, our plan was invalidated in the early 2000s. One of the issues for invalidation was that we included provisions allowing clustering on 20 acre lots to be a more robust development. Argument was, well, we're going to preserve the area around. We'll put that in open space.

And again, was one of the reasons we were invalidated. So the word clustering since then has always been a concern to me, just to make sure that we don't fall into that same trap that we fell in back twenty years ago. I would vote to support staff, but that would be my concern as you're looking at this going forward.

Can I ask what you mean by explore it?

When it comes to the rural lands analysis and we're looking to for conservation and preservation opportunities, the idea of clustering is something that we'll look at. But we agree with what was just stated, that it of concern and might not be the right tool for Kitsap County. The reason why it's still in there is it's a tool that's often mentioned in the Growth Management Act. So we're acknowledging the concern that was brought forth and continues to be. So it's something that we'll explore.

You know, when it comes to transfer of development rights or any sort of exchanges, it could be clustering a lesser so, higher than one dwelling unit per five acre. My point is, there's a variety of ways that we can explore it. We don't want to take it off the table, but we're acknowledging we wanted to include this in the deliberations table, the comments that we received with the concerns about it, but not completely because I I don't think we're ready to say no clustering in rural Kitsap, but we that's why it's on there to explore.

I

move we adopt the language as proposed by staff, or recommend the adoption language as proposed by staff.

I second.

Discussion? Question? VICE I

have a question.

VICE CHAIRMAN So

also on page 17, it does say we might have already talked about this, sorry if I'm repeating this, but clustering may be allowed where appropriate. So I just wanted to point that out for commission. Perhaps there's a language change there. So clustering may be allowed where appropriate. That seems like it would be a a come down to a staff determination. Is that correct?

Because it's in the comp plan, it's there isn't anything being proposed at this time that that's specific. But back to the rural lands analysis, where it's appropriate is where that's where the analysis that would be part of the analysis. And it could come to the conclusion based on everything that we've just heard that it's not a good fit for Kitsap County. But if you're looking to if you're looking at however many acres and you wanna preserve a section of it, and you do it you're looking at potentially a transfer of development rights, that's how it would be that's how it would be looked at. And I guess the term where appropriate is is truly it is it's where it is appropriate.

So it's that trade that trade off with conserving and preserving lands, and then having increased development in a section of it that would and this is this is I hate to even say too much, but this is it could lead to a policy that's a net zero density increase, but targeted areas where you could have development where it is buildable but you're protecting, for example, aquifer recharge or these other areas and prioritizing that. That will be all part of the rural lands analysis. So the clustering isn't it wouldn't be how we would look at it is not a tool that would be used anywhere. It would be targeted. But this language doesn't say give any commitment to that. But it lends itself to how it would be analyzed.

That's helpful. Thank you.

So

the motion is to

accept staff's recommendation.

Yeah. Have recommend language as proposed by staff.

All in favor? Opposed? One opposed?

Water resources. Next topic. Add policy under rural environment in quotes, identify and protect natural areas contributing to aquifer recharge. Our staff recommendation is identify and add policy under identify and protect natural areas contributing to aquifer recharge. So this was a recommendation that was given to us very specifically, and we agree with the recommendation essentially.

What is that policy?

What is the policy? Identify and protect natural areas contributing to aquifer recharge.

I guess what does that policy look like?

So that has to do again to that ties into other programs that are currently happening, for example, and also the salmon recovery plans. All of this is very connected. So when we're looking at the rural lands analysis and where those aquifers are recharged are specifically identified land where I guess it would be a priority to protect them. And then what tools are in place to help prioritize that and use tools such as like the transfer development rights or other tools to not develop this, but develop over here. Because when it comes to aquifer recharge area, those are highly sensitive areas where you wouldn't want certain types of development happening and to protect those. I hope that makes sense what I said.

This is part of the code that actually the specifics are already in place. The aquifer per recharge areas are part of critical areas ordinance. All you're doing is saying putting the goal after we've already got the ordinance in place protecting it.

Yes. And I think as it relates to the rural land analysis and acknowledging those, yes. So it could be nothing new, but it is part of the overall. And this was a proposal, this was what was proposed, and we don't think it does any harm. And it is something that we'll be looking at, will be considered in the Rolans analysis.

So to that point, should we have a policy and also Kitsap County code that speaks to the aquifer recharge and the protection of that?

We do.

I know, but she's asking is it duplicative?

Yeah. Do we need the policy? Well,

I will say I was agreeable to the proposal of this because it will be part of the rural lands analysis. It may be already acknowledged in the critical areas ordinance, but when we're talking about our zoning and prioritizing protection areas, that's not included in the critical areas ordinance. As we look at rural resource, rural lands and resource lands as a big picture. So ours is more of a big picture and those being part of the conversation.

So does the code that's on the aquifer recharge areas currently in Kitsap County code not apply to rural?

It does. So we're not saying that it would impact the critical areas ordinance at all, but that it will be considered in a complete rural lands analysis as a component. But it all these types of this type of language is also brought up in the salmon recovery plan, and it could change nothing, but it has to do with that overall, again looking at we were talking earlier about the Billable Lands Report and the Land Capacity Analysis, and so we're looking with the rural lands analysis, we're looking at those preservation and conservation opportunities. So we don't want to disclude those. So I didn't think it would hurt to include this, even if it is recognized.

But other things are recognized in the critical areas ordinance too that we'll also be looking at streams, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas. Those are all environmental components, but this one was lifted up specifically that I didn't think but if you disagree, we don't have to include it. I just don't think it hurts to include it, because it will be part of our Rolans analysis.

I just have concerns that if we're implementing multiple documents saying the same thing, then if there's a change, then there's, you know, amendments to policies and amendments to codes and whatnot. So I was just trying to understand why we're adding another layer. But if there's a need for it, then, you know, there's a need. But I was just questioning having to If it's a duplicate. Yeah. Exactly.

Yeah. And the rural lands analysis isn't about more code. It's about looking at our land overall. So they're complementary, I would say.

So the motion is to

I motion to approve staff's recommendation to add a policy under identifying protect natural areas contributing to aquifer recharge.

Second.

Questions? All in favor? Passed. Opposed? Sorry. No opposition.

And then I just want to be clear, I put in here then recommend language as proposed by staff. It was the same, okay. This is a next one. Again, some of these are included to acknowledge on record that we've acknowledged them. So this is rural data analysis or the rural lands analysis.

Assess rural zoning designations. Oh, so, yes, the specific topic was rural data analysis, the summary of the issue, assess rural zoning designations from 1998 to current designations. And we acknowledged that we will consider this in the rural lands analysis. And we we've also acknowledged this directly with the commenter. And this was this came from the Port Gamble Skollum tribe. And this was also brought up in our last deliberation, so I wanted to add it to the table to acknowledge that.

I move we make no recommendation with regard to this element.

I second. Comments? No comments? All in favor? Well,

comments? I

just want to be clear. Is it no recommendation, or is it staff recommendation?

I was going to say no recommendation. There won't be anything in the code with regard to this. It's an acknowledgment that there was a comment that the staff had heard it, but there's no recommendation to add anything to the code. So there's nothing for us to recommend to the commissioners at this point in time. That's my thinking on it.