Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the 01/06/2026 meeting of the Kitsap County Planning Commission. Thank you for your attendance and participation. Before we begin this evening's proceedings, I'd like to remind everyone this is an official meeting of the Kitsap County Planning Commission conducted in accordance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act and Robert's Rules of Order. We ask all attendees to remain respectful through the proceedings. These proceedings are intended to provide a fair and orderly opportunity for all voices to be heard on the audio record.

Please refrain from cheering, clapping, calling out, displaying signs, any behavior that may make it difficult for others to hear or follow the discussion. Such behavior can also be intimidating to those who may wish to express differing opinions. If disruption occurs, any planning commissioner may call for order, and the chair may call for a break. Disruptive individuals may be asked to leave the meeting room. If disruptive behavior persists, the chair may adjourn the meeting with an approved motion.

Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous, respectful, and professional environment. So, the first time in the agenda is introductions. And so maybe looks like we got is everybody here in person today? That's awesome. Adrian you wanna start us, Adrian, down that way?

Sure. Happy New Year, everyone. Adrian Hampton, Central Kitsap.

Kathy Meisenberg, North Kitsap. Cain Fenner, Central Kitsap.

David Vliet, North Kitsap.

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

Caleb Nelson, South Kitsap.

Danielle Dalfa, South Kitsap.

Wow, it's great to have all the commissioners here present and account for. Well, I'll try not to fall asleep during this next part, but it's our meeting participation in hybrid protocol. Please silence all electronic devices during the meeting. If you are attending in person, please refrain from having conversations with other attendees or staff during the meeting. If you wish to provide comments, please wait until the general public comment period.

We offer four methods for public comment. In person attendees, raise your hand if you wish to speak and you will be called upon. Please approach the podium and speak clearly into the microphone. Virtual attendees on Zoom, use the raise hand button at the bottom of the Zoom window at the appropriate time. Your name will be called, and your microphone will be unmuted.

Call in attendees, press 9 on your phone keypad to signal that you wish to comment. The last four digits of your phone will be announced, and you will be connected. You may need to press the 6 to unmute your line. Written comments and testimony. Written comments may be submitted to staff or emailed to cjewelkitsap dot gov, that's c j e w e l lkitsap dot gov by two p.

M. On the day prior to the meeting. Please include the meeting date, your name, and the agenda item or subject you are addressing. Submitted comments will be entered into the record at the appropriate time. For speakers, please state your name and the general area in which you live. Comments are normally limited to two minutes for general public comment and three minutes for public hearings. These time limits may be adjusted when appropriate. So having gotten that all the way, if everybody's had a chance to look at the agenda. Do I hear a motion to adopt the agenda?

I move to adopt the agenda as read.

I second. And a second? Any discussions, corrections, or additions to the agenda as presented? Okay. So, all those in favor of approving the minutes as presented, raise your hand.

And that's unanimous, so there's no one against or no one abstaining. Is there a motion to oh, I guess that's just we were amending it. So, okay, so that's unanimous. Sorry. Apologies. I'd say with that agenda adopted, we will move on to elections. Elections happen on the first meeting of every year. And so, it's really great that everybody's here in person for the elections. And so, I guess we're going to have Scott Diener from Department of Community Development come up to speak. And I might provide additional comments.

But, yes, Scott, if you could kind of give us background on this, that would be great.

Okay. So we do this once a year, so it's not a routine thing. So we sometimes we stumble a bit. But I think we've worked out what we need to do here. So our rules of procedure call that to the first meeting we adopt officers. The officers that we have are chair and vice chair. We the chair has some significant responsibilities. They've got to maintain order. They've to present. They've got to run an efficient and an effective meeting.

And it can be a hard, hard position to carry when sometimes things can get a little rambunctious, as we've seen in the past. So the chair has to be strong enough to do crowd control as well, and even adjourn the meeting if crowd control isn't working. So, I know that there's a number of people up there tonight that are capable of doing this. It's just a matter of whether they have the extra time and ability to do this. One of the consequences of being a chair and vice chair is that you do have regular meetings with DCD in advance of these meetings.

So, is a bit of an addition to your time. Those meetings are in person at DCD. So, if you're thinking about the chair or the vice chair, just know that there are additional time requirements. And at those meetings, we typically go over the agenda, make sure people are on the same page with what the agenda tells us we're going be doing and discussing. I don't think I'm missing anything else.

The election of the chair is done through an open motion, so somebody will make a motion that I nominate so and so for chair. And if somebody seconds, then you call for a vote. And all that is done and open. There's no secretive balloting or anything like that. And then once the vice chair is selected, then we can hand the gavel over.

I don't know if we actually have a gavel here at night, but we can

The virtual gavel.

Yeah, exactly. And if Yeah, maybe I can give a few comments. And if I miss anything, Scott, you can jump If that works? Okay. Yeah. We got to chat a little bit briefly earlier. So hopefully, I don't be overly repetitive to what Scott said. I mean, process have been to vote that many times as the Vice Chair is either seeking or becomes the Chair. And but that approach is not mandated. And regardless of approach, it is up to, you know, the board to nominate and choose their chair, whomever that is.

And with that, I just wanted to let the commission know that I myself will not be putting myself into consideration for the Chair position as I have out of state family commitments this year and last year that I'm needing to spend time with. So I'm not going to have the capacity to be in the running for any such position. And then that being said, with regards to the position of the chair and the vice chair, this was maybe stated by Scott a little bit, but the county, the Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, Department of Community Development, and

the

public expect present and organized leadership that has the strength to run effective and efficient meetings as well as control testimony time limits. And that's tricky, but it's good to get good at that early on, the two minutes and three minutes that we spoke to earlier with regards to those and to shut down meeting offenders or even adjourned if the crowd cannot control itself. Thankfully, we live in Kitsap County, a pretty peaceable place where people respect that. So, but, you know, if that does come about, it will be up to the chair to make, you know, take that on as it comes up, if it comes up. Let me see here.

I don't know if I have any other I think you covered everything else. Did I miss anything?

No. I think you're good to get the process started. Awesome. And we welcome in advance the new chair and vice chair.

Yeah. So let's go to our little cheat sheet here. Do I hear any nominations for the 2026 Planning Commission chair? Adrienne.

Yes. Thank you so much. I nominate Ashley Hall for the 2026 planning commission chair.

Do you accept?

I do. Am I not? Is that is this like white elephant? Like, I can't also. I think you're

I I

do. I'm so sorry. That's not not Robert's rule of order. But yes, I do. Thank you, Commissioner Hampton. I really appreciate that. Do I get to?

No. No. I just was just

I I I don't know. I don't know how that works.

Maybe not. Maybe there's

How can we nominate?

Female So, think it's good to know whether the nominated is willing to do it, but then there would be a second and then a vote.

Female Oh, okay.

Male Yes.

I second that nomination. My apologies.

And so she accepts. Is that correct after the second?

I did. Okay.

Thank you Ashley. Are there any other nominations from the board?

I nominate Adrian Hampton for the twenty twenty six Planning Commission Chair.

I second.

Okay. Great. Commissioner Hampton.

Thank you so much for the opportunity. I respectfully and politely decline. I will be on maternity leave come April. So surprise.

Congratulations. Happy for you. That's a new one in the middle of chair and vice chair. Nominations.

So in this timeframe, are you also nominating Vice Chair? No, think we'll

do the Chair first.

Okay.

Great. With that, I don't see any other nominations from So the we shall take a vote. All those in favor of Ashley Hall, assuming the chair position for the Kitsap County Planning Commission, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed? Any abstentions? I think it was a unanimous decision. So congratulations, Ashley.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.

Appreciate it. Congratulations.

Yeah. Thank you.

So with that being said, do I do the chair or just do I move this over to Ashley now?

You could do it either way. If you want to keep the flow, you could work through the vice chair.

I would love it if you would just Mhmm. Looking through the flow.

Just keep it working through the flow? Okay, great. Okay. So now we will move on to the time where we do nominations for Vice Chair. So are there any nominations at this time for Vice Chair?

I'd like to nominate Kathy Meisenberg for Vice Chair.

I second.

Kathy, do you accept that?

Yes, I'll accept.

Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? Okay. We will go ahead and close the nomination process for that then. And all those in favor of Kathy Meisenberg, assuming Vice Chair for the Kittyop County Planning Commission, signify by raising your right hand. Okay. Congratulations, Kathy.

So

to the new chair, should I just keep running through Ashley or would you like to run the meeting going forward? I would be happy to hand it over to you if you'd like to. Just as somebody who's chaired in the past too, like, everybody starts somewhere, so you're gonna be great at this. So we're really lucky to have you as our chair.

Thank you. Thank you so much, David. I really appreciate that. And I do have some big shoes to fill for sure with our commissioners that have preceded us. Okay. Thank you, Kitsap County. So the adoption of the meeting minutes is the next. So with that, do I adoption of the meeting minutes from the 11/18/2025 meeting. Do I hear a motion to adopt I don't have to read those meeting minutes.

Okay. Do I hear a

motion to adopt the meeting minutes from 11/18/2025?

Move to adopt the meeting minutes as written from 11/18/2025.

Do I hear a second?

I'll second.

Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? Hearing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes as presented, please raise your hand. All right, it is unanimous. Alright. So coming up next for us is our general public comment period.

We'd like to open that up, and just as that brings us to the first general public comment period. If you wish to provide comment on something not scheduled for a public hearing tonight, now is your time to comment. There will be an opportunity to comment at the end of tonight's meeting at the second general public comment period. Do we have anyone wishing to speak at this time that's present in the room? Yes, sir, please.

I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Ryan Winson. Yeah,

it'll light up red.

Right. Got it. I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Ryan Wixon. I'm gonna be joining you all on the next Planning Commission meeting. So I've been a resident of Kitsap County my whole life. My family lived has lived here since 1955 on Buckland Hill, so I'm excited to join you all.

Thank you, Ryan. We're looking forward to having you join us next meeting. Any other public comment in the room? Seeing none. Clara, do we

have anybody online? We do. Okay. First up is William Palmer.

Mister Palmer?

Okay. Presumably, I'm unmuted.

Yes, sir.

Comment has to do with the boundary line adjustment item that's on your agenda for work study. I've objected to any boundary line adjustment ordinance that the county would want to have proposed for the last twenty five years. My objection continues even today. First of all, in 2011, which is the last time boundary line adjustment ordinance was considered or at least changes to the land development code, the staff promised to provide a breakdown of what the issues were. It's been a long time, but I've never seen the breakdown of issues.

Second of all, issues that, by the way, that I'm they speak to a need for such an ordinance. Second of all, even though this appeared on the county's agenda or planning commission agenda back in September. It was put on hold at that time. Well, the next time it came up was December, and there was only a two week period for public input. And I get regular notifications from DCD about upcoming events or proposed ordinances.

I got no such notification And I have a hunch not very many people did either. One of my biggest objections to boundary line adjustment ordinance is that a process that now takes maybe a month working in the private sector will likely extend out to a year or more. That's what happened in Pierce County. It's what happened in nearly every place where a boundary line adjustment ordinance was thought to be necessary. There sands any of the detailed problems that might have been identified.

There's no justification for this ordinance. On behalf of the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners of which I'm President, I object to it. I also object to it on, as a consultant who's worked in Kitsap County for well over forty five years.

Mister Palmer, I greatly apologize, but we're past our two minute period. We're gonna have to move forward.

Okay.

I don't see any other hands up at this time.

Okay. Thank you, Clara. Okay. The next item on our agenda today is the 2627 docket presented by Scott Diener.

Bear with me for just a moment. That should go away. Right? Yeah. Okay.

That's just gonna Good evening, commissioners. We're here to address the first major agenda item, and that is a discussion of the 2026 docket and work plan. Real briefly, a docket is something that's required if we wish to amend the comprehensive plan, and a docket is usually a component of our work plan. We have a work plan that we envision to take most of two years to get done. But by the way our codes are written, can only adopt a one year docket.

And so that's what we'll be discussing tonight. There'll be three things that are really going to take much of our attention this year, and one of those is going to take the most attention that we've given our rural lands ever. I think probably the closest examination of our rural lands was when GMA was first adopted some, what, thirty five years ago almost? So it's been a while. So the first thing that we'll talk a little bit about here is the rural lands analysis, and Heather will introduce that and talk more about that.

And then the other two items will include the Silverdale Sub Area Plan and what that's what involved what is involved in that, and Jim will speak to that. And then the last thing which is probably the least significant in terms of overall time and scope is the Ilihi Community Plan. And I'll talk a little bit about that. That will be a pretty quick discussion. So with that, I'm going to key through the slides here.

So I've given a real brief overview of what we're going to be talking about. The docket, let's see if I've missed anything. If we have missed something in the docket this year, something critical, we can always amend the docket. That means coming back and amending the docket. So the docket can be reduced, it can be increased at any time in the year.

Obviously, you don't want to wait too long to do something like that because of the impact on the omnibus ordinance that is done in December by the board, reviewed by the planning commission, which needs to consider everything together in its totality for adoption. So what we're going to be talking about really is rural lands analysis. That's gonna be a big lift this year, and it'll it will result in policies, policy advisement. And, perhaps we'll see some policies in 2026, but for sure in 2027. Again, this will be the biggest lift that we've had with our rural lands in quite some time. Well, it'll be the biggest lift ever. So with that, I'll turn it over to Heather.

Okay. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Planning Commission. As Scott mentioned, the rural lands analysis is going to be a big lift, but we're really excited about it. It will help us with qualitative with our qualitative data by having also quantitative data. It was the need for this was really apparent to us when we were working on the Year of the Rural, and we didn't have the data that we have, you know, similar data for with the Billable Lands Report and the Land Capacity Analysis. That focus, as we all are aware of, is on housing, employment and population. Well, what about the numbers for conservation and other lands and data related to rural? So we don't have that similar data. We also don't have that data for rural.

We have it for urban growth areas. So that lack of data is what led us to, hey, we had more questions than answers. And with that, what I'm showing right here then, to compile data, observe and analyze, this is just kind of a beginning list of what we've discovered, which we already have at our fingertips. It also, it didn't fit in the rural and resource lands chapter, and nor did we have the time in the year of the rural to create a separate appendix to then add to that. When we're looking at the buildable lands report and land capacity analysis, that started several years before the comp plan process starts.

So we feel that this effort in looking at this data, we're not only going to look at it, we're going to create a framework that's similar, like I said, to the guidance for the Billable Lands Report and Land Capacity Analysis, but with these other types of data in mind. And these are just this is just some examples. More will most likely be discovered. So business analyst is a tool that we have that our data analyst and GIS person is really excited to use, which will help us look at population demographics and economic activity, specifically in rural. Development, so current status and future projections.

So when we're looking at our projections, our twenty year projections, where are we at with those? One, a related part of this is in the urban growth areas, but where are we with that as it relates to rural? And are we meeting that split that we're striving for between urban growth and rural growth? Land capacity and compatibility. So this has to do with when we're looking at our numbers, for example, for housing, and we have just over 2,000 projected in twenty years, that is literally the leftover.

It's not an actual calculation of what the capacity is in the rural lands. What is, you know, we did some basic calculations when we were looking at the reclassification request that would increase housing density in rural. It's several times that number, most likely. So we want to do an analysis of what could actually be built, what does that scenario look like, and then start to make some decisions about if that's our capacity, what are our options to do different things with that? And then also compatibility.

So a topic that came up throughout the rural the year of the rural and the rural resource lands chapter is when we have those denser areas, what is compatible with those? And how can we create some buffers or any sort of things in looking at that? Working lands and resource lands, this is a big topic for us in the rural and resource lands chapter. The idea of that working lands and the idea of an overlay for agriculture and potentially forestry, because we don't, as it's been mentioned several times, we do not have agricultural zoning. But are there some other tools that we could use in that this also ties to farmland preservation, but also economic viability, and we see an overlay as a potential way to do that.

What are the criteria that would allow for a property owner to qualify for that? Those are the type of things that we're going to be assessing, and then working with an Agriculture Advisory Council to see is this something that we would like to move forward with. It'll be agriculture and forestry, though it's similar, although we do have forest resource lands. We do have forestry practices that are outside of that. So looking at similar tools and what could that look like. Lamards and legacy lots. So this has come up multiple times. A state legislation passed last year that allows for increased density in Lamards. I appreciate that and we do want to look into it. It's where infrastructure already exists.

So if we can build increase, you know, the opportunity for up to four plexes in Lambert's where there's already the infrastructure is what is the capacity for that and what are the opportunities for that. Want to take a look. I will say also with all of this, it's also communicating with the communities to see is this something that they're interested in. Legacy lots, so that's been a large topic for us. When it comes to rural development and the idea of clustering, we have a significant amount of lots that are less than five acres.

And so what you'll be seeing in our data that we share with you is what percentage of those parcels are less than five. It's high. It's 70 or 80%. And I'm not talking about the number of acres, I'm talking about the number of parcels. So you'll see that data, which is kind of surprising to us, and where do those exist and what does that look like? So we'll be sharing that data and those maps with you. And then also perhaps, know, are there any barriers for development? What is happening with that? So we want to take a look, that's a big part of the history for Kitsap County. Urban and rural boundaries, again, looking at those transitions between urban growth boundaries and rural lands, it's something that came up throughout the year of the rural process conversations.

Wildlife corridors and conservation, this is going to be a big one that it's not an easy answer. We want to first know where those are, what will be our methodology to assess that, and then working with other partners, what are the tool and looking to prioritize that, and then assessing the tools to actually practice that preservation or conservation of those lands. And then finally, permit exempt wells and small water systems. So this is something that was brought up by the tribes to us during year of the rural. It was something we and so we do have some information.

And we will be a small part of this. I will say water is a big topic throughout Kitsap County, and we're just one piece of it. So you'll see some of the data that we have, but along the way we'll also acknowledge some of the other work that's being done with respect to groundwater management and other things and water rights. We will have a small piece of it, but to include that in a rural lands analysis is an important part of this work. As far as communicating this work moving forward, there'll be a project web page just like what we had for the Year of the Rural, but kind of an exciting thing that we're looking into is a GIS hub.

This is very data driven and map driven. And I think it's really great when we did the 30% draft for the rural and resource lands chapter, we were able to show those maps and you could see the numbers and the percentages. This will we're going to we're looking to present that in a very similar way. And not just for this chapter, but what can carry on and be on our webpage and helpful to folks moving forward. And also setting a baseline. So if this is our number today, what is our goal and how can we compare these numbers into the future? The 2026 Rural Lands Analysis, so this is the analysis part of it. It's very data driven. I will say the updates for the Planning Commission will be briefings to share data with you and to, you know, do you have any questions? Is there something that we didn't look into?

So, you know, we are looking at this fairly broad thing, but if there's something that we missed or you have a data source that would be helpful for us to add to this, this will be a time when we're not adopting at the end of the year this analysis, we're exploring and sharing the data with you. Then in 2027 is when, as Scott had mentioned, we'll be looking at policy recommendations. Here's

what

we found and then here's what we recommend and how it aligns with the comprehensive plan. And then finally, we applied for a grant at the end of last year. It connects and it's from the Department of Commerce and it connects salmon recovery. It's the salmon recovery through local planning grants. And so it intersects the work that we're doing with the rural lands analysis with salmon recovery priorities, and we won that grant.

We just heard just last week that we won that grant, so that will allow us to hire a limited term employee to help us. It's an eighteen month project. And then we'll also be hiring a consultant to help us with the GIS and data part of that. It's focused on salmon. However, any help that we can get with building this framework, even though it's going deeper specifically with salmon recovery, will help us overall with this rural lands analysis project. So we're really excited about that. And so yes, as Scott mentioned, this will be a big project, but we're really excited to move this forward and to keep you all posted on our progress throughout 2026.

So another project for 2026 will be the Silverdale sub area plan, which is the Silverdale Regional Center. We're currently at this is a project that's been going on for a better part of a year now, and we hope to wrap it up the summer. So this right now, we're at the about the 80% draft stage. So we're looking at some of the policies and guidance coming forward on that. That's under internal review now.

And we'll go out to the stakeholders group any day now. So if you've been on that stakeholders committee, you'll be seeing that very soon. We're also looking at design districts and consolidating. Right now, we have nine different design districts in Silverdale. We're hoping to consolidate down that to down to about three to provide some clarity and simplify those design guidelines.

We're also looking at redevelopment code. So how can we reduce barriers and make it easier to redevelop existing properties or even properties that are underutilized, like massive parking lots that aren't used. So that's something that we should see in the next couple of months is some draft redevelopment code. We're also looking at developing a way finding program to help people get around downtown, find their way, like from the transit center to Old Town, to the mall, things like that. And then looking at different community spaces and potential project sites for things like community centers, public spaces, small like pocket parks, combining stormwater facilities that can also double as parks, things like that.

And finally, we've done quite a bit of outreach on this project over the last several months. I've done several general public outreach sessions and stakeholder group sessions. And this project has also been to you and Board of County Commissioners a few times. In fact, here in about two weeks, I'm gonna bring that 80% draft to you for review and then to the Board of County Commissioners. So and like I said, we hope to finalize this plan this summer.

So the last element that's in this presentation is the Anatai, what we're calling for now, the Anatai Ilihi. And it says neighborhood plan, it really is officially called a community plan. So that's the Scrivener's. But the Anatai Ilihi community plan, this began with community interest, I'd I'd say probably going on nearly two years now, where there was desire by members just outside of Ilihi to be a part of the Ilihi community plan. Particularly, they were are interested in in the view protection overlay zone.

And so that's a zone that limits height of construction for certain structures that might impact somebody's view. They would like the boundary to be expanded to the south by Southwest. And this this was a supposed to be underway last year. You may recall that the framing of this was supposed to occur in in quarter four of the docket. One of the things that we did last year at the beginning of the year was we presented a docket that was well, actually, the latter part of the previous year.

We presented a docket that was more than we were able to do. We thought we'd be able to knock out quite a bit, but then reality smacked us in the face. We had some appeals. We we didn't have any buffer set aside for our time, and so this program was not able to get underway. And so one of the lessons learned from this event was that we're trying to be more thoughtful in how we program our time and we're not making progress or promises about what we will get done because a lot of this collectively in long range will be kind of learning what we don't know, and there might be some hiccups and some steps forward and then back.

So but with respect to the Anatai community, we are going to be working on this and getting this underway. It's not terribly a large lift as we conceive it at this time, but we haven't heard from the community to say that for sure. The other thing that's not a part of this presentation, but I I wanted to also mention is that you'll be seeing a lot of code, in what we're calling rolling code. It's kind of an experiment, but what it means is that as code is developed, it's put to the planning commission, and then when it gets through the planning commission and it's put in front of board, at some point, we're gonna be bringing code right in behind that to the planning commission. And so we're calling that rolling code.

It may start with some administrative code, some things that are rather easy to approve and get through, not controversial. If it becomes controversial, it gets bumped off the list, kinda like what we did last year. So that's also gonna be a big part of our our program this year. And I'd like to introduce the planner, Garrett, who is going to be managing that. Garrett is new to long range, but he's not new to DCD. So he's another internal promotion, and we're excited to have him. He did work briefly for long range ten months ago about, more or less, almost two years ago.

Yeah. I've been here a

year now. Oh my god.

Alright. So time flies when you're having fun. But yeah. So that that's a big part of the big part of the program this year. So are there any questions about what we plan on doing with the docket or our work plan?

Commissioner Hampton?

No questions. I just want to say congratulations on the recent funding award from Department of Commerce. That's so exciting.

Any other questions or comments?

No question for me. Just another just a comment. I appreciated when just when I was in a previous city before on a different planning commission, when they were talking about underutilized lands, they generally were talking about natural areas maybe that could be developed. And while that's true, I'm glad that we're kind of use it sounds like we're using at least utilized plans as being like parking lots that aren't being used rather than like maybe plans that have some ecological services and can do other things. Thank you for that.

Yes. In Silverdale that's specific to properties that could be redeveloped into something much, much more than they are. Maybe they're old and ripe for redevelopment or maybe it is a very underutilized parking lot. So it's already been developed to some degree, but not at its best value.

Okay. I just before we move on, I just want to say I have a really deep appreciation for the approach to the rule ANS analysis. I'm super interested in that and seeing just what comes with the business analyst, the GIS. That's in my world, I live in GIS. And so it's just super exciting, and it's cool that you're gonna have a a hub for folks and to be taking, like, live real time feedback on different search parameters and just maybe different identifiers that people would feel would be key is awesome. So huge fan.

I agree. Thank you. And look forward to y'all's feedback, and I agree. And Cindy Reid, the hub was her idea, so I I look forward to you know, this will be a collaborative project throughout this year.

Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you, Heather. Thank you, Scott. And thank you, Jim. We really appreciate your time. Okay. The next item on the agenda is a briefing on the comprehensive plan remand and certification presented by Carrie, DCD Long Range Planner.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for having me here tonight. I'm, first of all, here to give you a brief status update on the comprehensive plan remand. This was brought to you, in October just to kind of let you know what was happening with the remand, which, initially, we received in August 2025. And back in the fall, we were on a different time line than we are right now.

We had been given a very short time line by the growth management hearings board where everything had to be adopted by February 3. And given that our public process takes about three months, that gave us a very short window in which to come up with the analysis and amendments to support our our remand response. So right after we had our meeting with you, we actually were successful requesting a deadline extension. And so now the comp plan remand is due to be adopted by the June of this year, June 30. So, you know, hue, that gives us time to really work on developing as good of a response as we can based on the best available data and to make sure that we go through a robust public participation process.

So where we are with this right now is when we were on hurry up and get it done last fall, we did come up with draft amendments to respond to the hearings board, which would be incorporated into our comprehensive plan. And we also had gone through our land capacity analysis from the comp plan update. We went back and tweaked some of our methodology where it made sense, where to address certain code updates that had happened in that time, other factors that we hadn't considered appropriately. And we're we're close. We're very close to where we wanna be for the issues of housing and employment capacity.

Those were two of the issues that had been brought up, employment capacity by the PSRC and housing capacity by the hearings board. Those two were the ones that we looked at the most, And I think we're there pretty much on housing. We have a little more work to do, a little more refinement in our methodology. Employment, it's a little more iffy on that. We have we have been talking about our response with the PSRC, and they understand that we may not get exactly where we need to for some of our UGA's.

Specifically, we're looking at, Port Orchard, Paulsboe, and, Kingston. So, you know, we we are working to see, you know, what we can come up with in our response that is defendable. We have to be able to say with a straight face, you know, any methodology changes we've made can be supported in real life. So we're not just coming up with numbers. But what we may be doing there is it's possible that we could be also adopting a work plan in terms of policies and strategies in the comp plan to say that this is as close as we can get at this time.

And within this time frame, we intend to explore other options such as X, Y, and Z and come back in a reasonable time frame with our final response for consistency with GMA. So over the next couple of months, in January and February, we will be going back to our land capacity analysis. We will be running through a number of different scenarios, truthing the data that we rely on, possibly looking at some additional data to support our findings, and coming back again, with some revisions to our our policies, which are supportive of what we've been asked to do. Now last fall, when this came before you, you had provided some feedback to me on our wildfire planning and mitigation component that we were looking at putting into the comp plan. We had also received feedback about our air quality policy.

And those changes were made actually after the meeting that we had last fall, incorporated into a revised draft of the document, and then sent out for further public review. As mister Palmer noted when he was making his public comment, there was a two week public comment period in December. This was the second public comment period. The first one had been in October. And so that was actually thirty days, and so we wanted to we we followed the Planning Commission's recommendation that we wanted to get a little more public involvement.

We sent this out, to the Kitsap Builders Association and to the Kitsap Association of Realtors, sent it back for additional comment from the surveying community, and tried to, again, get some community interest and input into this evolving product. So what you're seeing in front of you tonight in terms of draft language, that is incorporating public comment, the input from the planning commission, and we're at the point now where we want to be sure that we are turning this around this spring. We will be bringing this for a public hearing with the board in March. The planning commission will not be involved in the the public hearing. There's actually an exception in the Kitsap County code that state remands can just go straight through the board, which is what we're going to do.

But we do intend to keep you fully apprised of what we're doing and to update you. And as always, you know, feel free to reach out. If you have any questions about what we're doing or where we're at or any concerns, please let me know, and we respond to that as well. But I'm happy to answer any questions about the comp plan you might have at this point.

I'm seeing no questions.

Okay.

Alright. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And

please don't leave. The next item on the agenda is a work study on the boundary line adjustment presented by Carrie, our DCD long range planner.

Thank you. Yes. We also had brought the draft boundary line adjustment code to the Planning Commission last fall. This is a code that we've been working on since spring of last year. This is something that we were requested to do by our leadership to respond to numerous problems that we've had over the years, not an overwhelming number, but enough that it comes to our attention that boundary line adjustments have been made that create problems for the owners of those properties and then future buyers.

And so I wanted to go back and just kind of give a little update about how we got there and what exactly we're trying to achieve. I hope this won't be repetitive for any of you. I know we have one new commissioner and another one in the audience who may not have been involved in the process previously, so just to bring them up to date as well. A boundary line adjustment is an adjustment of a property line between one or more properties. It's not a subdivision, although we've had issues where it can be treated as a subdivision, which is unfortunate because that doesn't actually result in legal lot configuration many times.

At this time, Kitsap County does not have a process for review and approval of boundary line adjustments. We're the only county that has no code that specifically addresses BLAs, and, that has created some problems in the past when people have gone to their consultant, have drawn up new boundaries. We've sometimes ended up with properties with split zoning, which is not allowed. So maybe one half is commercial and one half is residential. We've had lots that can be too small in area or in dimensions for the zone in which it's located.

It can retake the boundary lines back so that any structures on the property now don't meet setback requirements. We've had lots that end up being split across right of way, which we don't do that either. So there's a number of issues where nonconforming lots, nonconforming development has been created through the BLA process. And then, of course, there's really no way to undo that either. We don't have a process to correct BLAs.

So over time, it seemed like the best thing to do would be to try to develop a boundary line adjustment code that would make it easy enough for people to be able to come in and do a ministerial type one permit to just have a review, a simple straightforward review by our planning team and make sure that what they're proposing to do won't create any problems for them in the future if they want to develop or sell, and then for an innocent purchaser, that that doesn't create any problems for anything they want to do. So I would be happy to walk through the draft code with you if that would be helpful, Or if you want to let me know if you have any questions you'd like me to answer, at the outset, I can do that. Please let me know what you prefer because, again, I don't wanna be repetitive over what we talked about last time.

Is there a preference with the commissioners? Like to walk through? Yeah, can we walk through that, Carrie? Yeah. And then is it possible to bring that up, Clara?

Yeah. Just give us one moment. We'll have that up in a moment.

Yeah. Sure thing. Thank you.

And you're wanting to look at the new code. Is that correct?

This is attachment a Okay. The new code, first of all.

Can I ask a question? With the Attachment A, you were mentioning that Kitsap County doesn't have any boundary line code as it is currently?

Not code that specifically addresses BLAs and a process for doing them. That's right.

Okay. So this current boundary line adjustment code that says it's for the new Kitsap County chapter 16 o four, the only what's there currently is in black, but you're amending it and adding the red as changes to what is already existing?

No. No. And thank you for asking for that clarification. What is in black is what was brought to the Planning Commission last fall. And then the changes that we've made since the last time you saw it are in red.

So you can see how it's changed since that time. So to walk through it, section a, this is attachment a, is the purpose of this code, which is to provide an administrative process for reviewing and approving adjustments to property lines. And as we said, this is intended to be a type one ministerial permit, the simplest permit that we could provide for this process. Excuse me. Applicability and exemptions.

It applies to BLAs between existing properties, and it also addresses mergers or aggregations. So when you have two properties and you're adjusting the property line back and forth, you can also merge two properties, and that comes under a BLA as well. Property, generic term. It applies to all lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions unless we use a more specific term in here or otherwise it's contradicted in the code. There is a process in state law for for resolving boundary line disagreements, that are settled by a court.

This does not apply to those. We are not trying to preempt a court's role. Section c adjustments prohibited. Alterations of the area dimensions or locations of basically what is nonbuildable property. Tracks, easements, vacated right of way, taxable strips are not permitted through a BLA.

So you can't enlarge an easement or an unbuildable tract and suddenly make that a buildable lot. However, vacated rights of way and tax title strips may be combined with one or more of the abiding properties, which are developable through a property combination, aggregation, or merger as described in this code. Adjustment of a property shall not be permitted where the separate properties are on either side of a road or right of way. And no boundary line adjustment shall result in a property that crosses a zoning district, the urban growth area, overlay district, tidelands, or jurisdictional boundaries to prevent regulatory issues. Section d, as I said, the BLA will be processed as a type one ministerial decision.

The department director is the approving authority. E, review criteria. We have a number of those. I wanted to be very specific, provide very thorough and detailed guidance, so that when a member of the public, a property owner reads this, it's pretty much laid out for them what they can and cannot do. Number one, no additional property tracked parcel or division results from the adjustment.

This is not a way to get around the subdivision regulations. All resulting properties must comply with the applicable zoning standards for total area, buildable site, dimensions. There are some exceptions here when you already have a nonconforming property. Oh, thank you. Sorry. Is that page two? It is.

Okay. There you go.

Thanks. Actually, I think we're there.

Okay.

No new public roads or extensions of public infrastructure would be required at the public expense to serve any new lots or new lot configurations that are created by a BLA, and that's important. We don't want to have a BLA done where it suddenly cuts off access to water, sewer, or roadway access requiring additional utilities or roadways to be extended in order to serve a property. No conflicts with existing platter permit conditions are created. All easements, access, and utilities are kept or are properly modified. And importantly, no adverse impacts on drainage, critical areas, water supply, septic systems, access, or utilities must result from any BLA.

The resultant parcels must have a building site and suitable access. So and one of the things here about having a a suitable building site, we would not allow a a property to create or a property owner to create a property that didn't have it with building site where you would have to come back when you actually wanted to develop and say, we need a variance. We can't develop here because our entire site is critical areas or something like that. We want we don't want to do a variance for a property when what we could have done in the beginning was to do a BLA that that conformed with critical area setbacks just in that one example. So we're gonna try to to make sure that that these situations don't result.

And for the protection of future buyers, the department requires recordation of a statement to that effect that a variance is not required and will not be given solely to develop a property that had a BLA. Down to number eight now. The adjustment can't be part of a concurrent or sequential series of property or be it boundary line adjustments, which would result in the creation of additional lots, tracks, or building sites or otherwise circumvent the subdivision regulations. So in other words, you have a lot here, you make an adjustment. You have a lot here, you make an adjustment.

Over here, more and more. You might you might have started out with one big 40 acre parcel and several over here that were very small. And by doing some BLA magic, you end up with a number of lots that that it the the effect is that you did a subdivision, and they may or may not be in compliance with the development regulations in the code. So we wanna make sure that doesn't happen. And also when someone is actually coming forward with something that looks like a subdivision, that they're going to be contributing appropriately towards the improvements for utilities and infrastructure that are needed.

This regulation is not intended to prohibit doing BLAs within a recorded plat. That's permissible as long as the BLA does not modify dedications, roads, easements, notes, or other features that are shown on the the face of the plat map or recorded conditions to the extent that if you did such a thing, it would require a formal plat alteration. We don't want to get into that process through a BLA. The properties that are submitted to us for a BLA must be reviewed by the Kitsap Public Health District prior to approval. We want to make sure that anything anyone's doing does not create an issue in the rural area especially for future development in terms of septic system location and function.

We don't want to see something where someone comes in and does a BLA that goes within his neighbor's septic drain field, or even worse, you know, their well protection area, things like that. So this is something that was requested by the health district actually, was that every BLA be sent to them for a review. And finally, the criteria, there is a time limit on doing subsequent or sequential BLAs. None of the properties included in an approved BLA may be further adjusted or altered within a period of five years. The exception would be if you come in and do a short plat or a subdivision, you go through that formal process, that is allowed.

Can I

ask a question on that? I was just curious where the five year number comes from.

That's already in the code in state law about coming back to re subdivide a short plat. And we did the five years because we thought it would be consistent and it made sense not to do it for a longer period of time. And we didn't want to make it so short that it really wasn't consequential. So we went with the five year limit just as it would be if it was a short plat asking to re subdivide a short plat. No, you've got to go through a full subdivision application. Thank

you. I actually have a quick question as well. Yes. Does that run with the land or with the owner?

The boundary line adjustment? That five year period? It runs with the land. Okay. So if I bought

a property that the previous owner did a BLA on two years ago and I wanted to do an additional BLA, I would have to wait three additional years after I bought that property to do that?

That's right.

Okay. Okay.

And it's the same for a short plat.

Okay.

It runs with the land.

Okay. Thank you.

Section F is property combinations or mergers. We talked about that a little bit earlier, that in addition to moving property lines around, you can merge one or more properties into a single property. We have a few criteria here as well. Properties before or after adjustments may not be separated by a dedicated right of way. So we're trying not to create lots that are split by roads.

Properties that do not individually meet current development standards may be combined to create a conforming lot. So if you have a, let's say, very small lot, doesn't meet current zoning, so does your neighbor, you can combine the two of those together and create one conforming lot. Vacated rights of way, tax title strips, maybe combined with one or more budding properties, not a problem. Revised legal descriptions must be recorded with the county auditor. So we want to make sure that's properly documented.

And mergers do result in new permanently established properties. This is not the same thing as doing combinations for tax purposes, which is also allowed. You own two adjacent properties. You can get a from the auditor basically saying that these are treated as one for tax purposes but that does not formally subdivide your property. And here we want to be sure that we understand that if you do a merger through a BLA, it is permanent.

Question on this section. I was curious, are survey documents and survey maps considered the same thing? The reason that I'm asking is I just noticed in the staff report, page three, second to last paragraph, it speaks to approve merger merge mergers, sorry, require recording of revised legal descriptions and survey documents. And I was just curious if that would like a survey document includes a survey map. Then the reason I'm asking is because it's crossed out in the code.

Okay. Revised legal descriptions, yes, we have to have both the original and the resulting parcel legal descriptions. Maps, we heard back from the surveyors community on that, and it is quite a bit more expensive for an applicant to have it actually mapped out and then have that formally recorded. It's easier and quicker for them to do a legal description. So we considered that. And okay, that makes sense. We can live without the survey maps because the legal description would be what ruled in any case.

I see.

And yes, a legal description that's recorded would be considered a document, a type of survey document.

Gotcha, thank you.

I'm gonna tail on that question. When you have it notated as submittal requirements, I'm presuming that the outline of what needs to go into the application is somewhere else rather than in this code. But are you going to be requiring a survey with the application? So is the applicant gonna have to provide a legal survey to present to the county for review prior to this being approved or whatever their proposed plan is?

That's not the intention. Again, we're trying to make this a simple process, and we rely on the expertise and professionalism of the local surveying community to provide accurate surveys, accurate legal descriptions of both the before and after configurations of the properties. And we wouldn't be reviewing them in any case. We don't have the expertise, we're not licensed to review a survey and say that isn't right. So what we're looking at when we take it in is we're looking at it against the zoning code, the subdivision code, things that we are able to review and enforce. So does that explain at all?

I'm just trying to understand if an applicant comes in and is proposing a boundary line adjustment and they don't have to submit a legal survey of their property, It's just an idea, and then that's what you're approving or denying?

No. They do need to have a survey, and Okay. They do have to have revised legal descriptions. And that is what the BLA that is what is going to be approved and recorded.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is that the boundary line adjustment application isn't approved yet, so an applicant is paying for the services of a proposed idea and plan that could be denied. Is that correct?

I see what you're saying. One option, is at the end of the code, is that an applicant is encouraged to come in for a pre submittal meeting, a conference to talk about issues and what they want to do and how their properties would look once they were configured and talk about zoning requirements and other things like that, we would prefer that so that mistakes like that aren't made. But yes, as with any permit application, you can propose something, but if it doesn't meet regulatory requirements, it won't be approved.

So an applicant would come in for like a pre application and pay for that service to get pre approved or have the planning department review their proposed idea prior to? So that would be an added step and an added cost.

It would be it would be an added step that's optional. At least has as it's written right now, we're not proposing to make that a mandatory requirement. We're just advising that it's probably helpful to come in and make sure that what you want to do can be done before you do spend all that money on a surveyor.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see. We're down to G, legal lot determination. When a BLA is proposed, we will go back and look at the history of the lot to see how it's been adjusted or subdivided in the past. And the requirements for legal lot determination may be satisfied if these lots were previously determined legal under a process that we already have in 1662 or if the the adjustment resolves discrepancies in how the lot was created.

So we're trying to basically bring nonconforming or not legally created lots up to code, up to standard, and recognize them as legal where we can as part of the BLA process. Section H, that is what Commissioner Meisenberg was just asking about, an hourly rate conference. Applicants are encouraged but not required to schedule a meeting, which is basically the same thing as a pre application conference to make sure that we can support and approve, although it's not a pre approval, it's an advising type of meeting, but that we could support what you're proposing. And then, yes, Section I, the submittal requirements will be specified in a BLA application guide to be developed, and the submittal checklist and forms will be prepared by the department. Recording and signature, finally, within one year of approval of the application for a BLA or a merger, The applicant's required to record all of the final documents with the auditor, including the survey map that's signed and stamped, revised legal descriptions, and any deeds that are required to convey sorry.

I'm sorry, everyone, that are required to convey a property interest. The notice to title and the recordation will be at the expense of the applicant, and all of the signatures that are required have to be, obtained prior to recording, and that's the auditor, the treasurer, and the department director. So before I go into the other code document, let me just stop and ask were there any more questions about this one section.

I was just curious, is there a process that might already be somewhere else in code where if the application is not approved, there are steps that applicant can take to understand potentially appeal. Do you kind of see what I mean, that decision?

Yes. And hopefully, we wouldn't get to that point. Because first of all, if we get something in as a permit application that doesn't meet our requirements, whether it's what they're actually proposing on paper or if they're missing certain documents, we're going to notify them. We're going to put it on hold. We're going to say, you know, this is incomplete or insufficient.

We need you to revise this or submit this additional information so we don't just send it back and say denied. But but but, yes, there is there is always a process for appeal as well if you are dissatisfied with the decision. And I would have to ask what the appeal process would be for a Type one ministerial. I don't know. We'll have to get back to you on that.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Okay. Is there anyone else?

Question about the difference between attachment B and an A. I want to be sure I ask my question at the appropriate time.

Attachment A is the brand new section of code specifically dedicated to boundary line adjustments. And then we had to go into our land division and development codes as well to make a few tweaks to bring in consistency between the new sections of code and what already exists.

Okay. I think I'll ask my question now.

Right. Attachment B is revisions to existing code only.

Okay. I'm looking at the attachment C that shows the public comment. Beginning page two there's a matrix of commenters.

The

first page shows four commenters and the columns show how their comments were incorporated for revision. So the document we've just been looking at with red, as I understand. The portions in red are reflecting how comments were then incorporated into the new revision.

Actually, okay, it's a little more complex than that. Let me make sure I explain it correctly. Attachment C is the full set of public comments received on the draft code. So it's everything verbatim. At the end of the public comments, we have the boundary line adjustment draft code proposed changes from public comment. And that's a one page document. One, two, three, four. Four comments on it. And those are the changes that we've made based on public comment received.

Okay, good. And so that first page has four comments that reflect how those comments were then incorporated into the code attachments A and B we were just looking at or A that we were just looking at.

That's right. And B

we were about to.

That's right. Because we received a number of comments. And while all of them are part of the record and have been reviewed in for the Planning Commission's review as well, when we provided this revised draft code, there were only a certain number of changes that were like, hey, that's a great idea. Let's do that. Let's put that in a revised code. So I just wanted you to see, you know, as well as the full set of code, I wanted you to see what we did in response to public input.

Right. Okay. I understand. Yeah. There were 18 comments altogether. Right? And so four of those comments had contributions that you incorporated and the other 14 then you did not incorporate any part of their comment. Is that right?

That's right.

Okay. We also And also ahead. Go ahead. Well, yeah, I'm thinking the BLA code proposal as it is stands to benefit the survey industry most because every BLA is now going to be required to execute or conduct a survey. And so if I'm a surveyor I'm thinking this will be beneficial.

It'll help my revenues. And so when I see that the preponderance of surveyors opposed. And I'm thinking, why is that? So I actually spoke with three surveyors and a civil engineer to boot just in the last few days and asked them. I asked the one whose comments you incorporated.

And the one whose comments you incorporated, in fact, said he acknowledged he's probably the only of his peers in favor of adopting this BLA code proposal. And I asked him why. And he said, well, stand to benefit economically, among other reasons. But not to put him on the spot, but he openly conceded this. There is an association of land surveyors that when I spoke with the other surveyors, they said that they are a liaison to the public, to the county, to others as a mouthpiece and a go between to rely on for suggestions and such.

And they were not notified of this proposal, the association wasn't. And they noted that there were earlier last year notice went to a couple of individual surveyors. And then later last year notice went to a couple of others and it wasn't uniform. And so the surveyors who stand to benefit most economically in their opposition leads me to think we should understand what their opposition is. And the general sense was look the problem that we're trying to address is small in relation to the cost involved.

That was the gist of it. And so when looking at this attachment A and attachment B, we've only got four commenters whose comments were incorporated. I would think that we would benefit from the input of the trade that most stands to benefit from this proposal to include their comments more. Only one is incorporated. And the other comment, if I can, that was uniform among all of the surveyors that I spoke with and the civil engineer, it's a very short time frame.

And it's not clear to me why the time frame to review this is so short. It would seem an opportunity to be thorough because once this is passed, then it's codified, right? And so we should get this right if we're going to. And so I would be in favor of allowing at least at the very least more time so that more comment could be incorporated. I would like to see more red on attachments A and B, if I may.

Are there particular revisions that you would like to see? Or are you saying solely that you think there should be additional time for revisions to be suggested? Because when you say you'd like to see more red, I don't know exactly what that means, unless you're giving me an idea of where you think deficiencies are or where other things should be addressed.

The latter. I think there should be more time. If the experts say there should be more time, I think there should be.

Okay. I'm not disagreeing with you. This one did have two public comment periods, and we did bring in the surveyors that we connected with from the outset. They helped us develop this code to the extent that they were willing to do so. I think you're correct that the majority of them expressed a dislike for the idea of having a BLA code at all. So we understood that we could work with them and get their ideas and feedback, but we were very unlikely to get any type of consensus that this was a good idea.

Understood. Is it appropriate to make a motion that we allow more time to review?

I would like to finish my presentation before that happens, if that's okay with the chair.

Yeah, please do.

Okay, thank you. And I'll go through it quickly, because I know this is becoming complicated, a number of issues that have been brought up, which is great. We want this discussion.

And it matters.

Please

take the time that you need. Don't feel like you need to rush. So it does matter. Okay.

Thank you. The last thing I had to go through was attachment B, and that is the new proposed, excuse me, not the new proposed, the revised code that's being proposed to existing chapters sixteen, seventeen, and 21 for consistency with the new code in attachment A. Is that something that we could bring up? That is attachment B. Thank you.

In attachment b, looking down at the bottom of the first page, we made a couple of deletions, section G in sixteen sixty two fifty. We want to make sure that we're not trying to look back at previous actions that were taken for BLAs or tax parcels. We are providing a new path to take those actions. So we don't wanna talk about a BLA that, you know, was legally created through a tax segregation and so forth. We want to go solely with the criteria that are in that is in the new code.

Badger line adjustment definitions, that's the next section below. A definition of what a BLA is, just making it clear that you wouldn't be allowed to adjust more than five properties at any one time. And that also is a restriction that's consistent with what we have for short plats. Well, not us, but generally a standard short plat is five lots or fewer. You can expand that to nine.

But we think that if you're trying to do tweaking here between lots of more than five lots at once, we probably need to have that in a different process than just a simple BLA. And just made some clarifications in here about exactly what you have to do in terms of meeting zoning and other development regulation requirements. Definition of abutting, we wanted to make that consistent with the code that we've proposed. And in the review authority table, we have just added a single line which allows this to be reviewed, and this is on page four. And it won't change.

Thank you. Thank you. Right at the top, that's line 36, boundary line adjustment is added as department director approval type one ministerial project. And section 21 repeats what was previously edited here in, title 16 for consistency purposes. So as you can see, these are all cleanups for consistency between different titles, making sure that we have one established review process under consistent requirements, and that we have no contradictions which would create a problem for either the staff or the applicants in the future.

And that concludes walking through the code, but I'm happy to go through anything else that you may have questions about or go back to commissioner Fehner if you wanted to discuss any of these issues further.

Thank you, Carrie. Commissioners commissioner Meisenberg.

I am I'm curious under the section adjacent property. So if a applicant has a boundary line adjustment or with a type one permit, are you notifying the adjacent property owners around that boundary line adjustment about the change? Is there a requirement for that with type one?

I believe that a ministerial type one does not require no. They've my coworkers have confirmed that there is no public notice requirement for a type one ministerial permit application.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Hampton.

Thank you. And thank you so much for walking through this with us. I just wanted to confirm, so in the executive summary that you provided for this topic, that there will be a public hearing in February 2026?

That's right. This is scheduled to come back to the Planning Commission in just a few weeks, actually February 3 for a public hearing, and then it will also have a public hearing before the board.

So thank you for clarifying. So it's just an opportunity for additional to hear from the public additional time there. So that comes next month.

So appreciate that. And thank you for going through this painstakingly, patiently and methodically. As I understood from the last meeting there was public comment that was closed. But the public hearing then is what, only verbal opportunity? What is the public hearing and how is that different from what we previously had?

When people submit public comment during the public comment period and by the way, everything becomes part of the record. If you submit something the day before the hearing, the day after the hearing, that becomes part of the record. But we try to limit it to certain time periods because we have to get a draft finalized and sent for publication, for public review to the Planning Commission and the board. We have to cut off the date at which we're going to be making changes to every draft. And so by having a comment period, that means if you submit written comments, we can take your comments into consideration for the draft that's expected to come out or the report that we're going to issue.

We can't take verbal comments unless it's at a public hearing, but you can also submit written testimony at a public hearing. If you come and you have a report for us or you have a letter, anything like that, we will also take that.

I guess I'm short on the difference between the public comment and the public hearing. One, you can make changes to the document and the other, is it different?

No. Public comment is your opportunity to more informally provide written comments while we're in the process of preparing the documents and reports that are going to be presented to you at a hearing. And so the hearing, anybody can walk in and say whatever. It depends at what stage we're at, what they're talking about, how much we're able to review that before we have to come forward with the next iteration of an ordinance perhaps. It's just it's two different forums for presenting public comment.

They look and sound very similar.

You could read your comments into the record, but you only have two minutes.

I see.

And so if you have something that's comprehensive that you want us to read or understand, you're going to give us a study, let's say, then certainly I would say submit that during the public comment period so that we have time to digest it. And if there are things that, hey, those are great ideas, they should actually be in the final draft. We have time to do that. But we also listen very carefully to the verbal testimony that we receive at a public hearing. Often we get more people coming out for something like that. They like to be able to see the commissioners in person, have face to face interaction. So again, it's just a different way of making sure that people are heard.

But you can submit written comment during the public during a presentation at the public hearing as well.

You can. It's not going to be read out. Not going to put it up and present it or anything like that. But you can submit it, yes.

Male Okay. Understood.

Are there any other comments or questions for Carrie from the commission? Commissioner Nelson?

Just just more of a comment. Can definitely appreciate DCD trying to utilize this code for compliance with zoning and nonconforming lots among a few other things. But, obviously, every BLA is not of same shape and size in what they're trying to do. Some are much more complex and some are very standard Being have gone through many of BLAs with surveyors, going through a legal description, creating a BLA, there's there's a lot in there that the average individual may not necessarily understand. As a whole with this code, it seems to me that it opens a door for, obviously, the county to review the BLA in a in a different fashion, yet I don't I don't see that the county maybe necessarily has somebody that is as a licensed surveyor, maybe it takes to read a BLA and to review a BLA appropriately.

It really doesn't seem that it has that capacity, which it's kind of alluding that it seems like that's the path it's going down versus just is it applicable? Is it not creating a nonconforming lot? Is it not splitting up two parcels in a different zone? It just seems tough to be able to do that where maybe the way it's written.

No, that's a really good point. Don't want to make it clear that's not what we're doing. We do have a county surveyor, and he did provide input into this process all the way through, but that's not his job. It won't be his job to do BLA review.

Male And he's not a surveyor.

He is.

But it would be the director that would be to my understanding, you said the director would be the one that would be reviewing these?

No. That's where I wanna be really clear. Staff will review the application, make a recommendation to the director who will make the decision, but we're reviewing solely what we have authority to review in the code. We are none of us are licensed surveyors, and we're not going to be I don't think that lot closure is correct.

Correct.

We're not going to be doing that. We're not going to second guess the professional work of surveyors. And that's why they carry heavy insurance, is if anything ever should happen where it turns out that the survey was incorrect, that goes back on the surveyor not on the county. So we're looking solely at does this comply with zoning? Does this lot have access? Things like that. We're looking at the quality of the survey description or legal descriptions at all.

So would DCD staff consult with the county surveyor who is a PLS on these reviews?

That's hard for you're kind of asking me to speculate on something that we don't have a process for yet. I don't know the answer to that.

I gotcha. Okay. Okay.

Ahead. Hi. Hi. I just wanted to clarify just for myself and for people doing a BLA right this second, like without this code, they have to hire a surveyor, and we still need to have a legal description. Correct?

Are you saying if somebody, as of today Yeah. Wants to record one tomorrow

Yes. No. So we've so in Kitsap County, we're allowed to do this change without accessing a surveyor. Like, I could just draw a map, and that would have been the end.

And people have done that. They have created their own legal descriptions. They have drawn their own maps. And whatever gets recorded is what we have.

And so what we're trying to do is clean it up by having a surveyor write the legal description so that we have legal descriptions when people do these things.

Correct. And also, simply to take it through a review process so that anything that's going to cause a problem in future is identified before you do spend the money on something like this. And then you have a purchaser who potentially can't do anything in their property, and they're really mad. So we're trying to head some things off before they happen.

Right. And my understanding, some of what people are saying they don't like about this is that there were very few mistakes in the past is their opinion. I don't know if that's true or not true, but that's what I was reading. But by having a surveyor and a legal description, it does minimize any conversation moving forward.

That's the intent. That's the hope. Yes.

You say that people have written their own legal descriptions? Like the meets and bounds description?

Yes. I've done it myself. I admit. I did a boundary line adjustment fifteen, sixteen years ago. Did my own map. Did my own legal description. Recorded it. There it is. It was legal.

And there's no way to undo that?

I'm sorry?

You you made the comment there's no way to undo that if there's a mistake made. If you had if you had written incorrectly.

If I had done it incorrectly, and I certainly hope I didn't, then the purchaser of the property would have to come back to me. There's no surveyor to take responsibility for what I did.

Okay. I've heard you say that there's no way to correct the BLA once it's done.

I'm talking about in the code that we're proposing. There's nothing in here that talks about reversing a BLA or unmerging a lot or anything like that. No.

Well, in the scenario you described, you could though, right? If you had incorrectly noted the legal description, you could go back and fix that?

Not in any simple process. I couldn't just go if this code is adopted. No, I couldn't just go and record something over

If the code is adopted, but I mean today before the code is adopted, you could go back and fix your typo and the legal description.

I could do a new recording. Although I don't own the property anymore, but yes, in theory.

So today it's a simple fix. With the code adoption it would be more involved. It would probably be just as involved as making the BLA to begin. Hire your surveyor. Write the legal description correctly and things like that.

I think it depends on the circumstances. You know honestly I don't think I can address a hypothetical like yes that would work or no that wouldn't work, because we're talking about a number of different possibilities why a survey would be incorrect, recorded incorrectly, described incorrectly, things like that.

In any case, if there's a mistake made, there's a process to go back and fix it. Right? I mean I was talking with one surveyor who said that for example somebody wrote it in a way that they were moving a line between this is contentious, where the two neighbors didn't get along but they needed to do so. And accidentally wrote it so that they were switching houses.

Oh dear.

One's house was nicer than the other. And the guy went to make a contention that okay, your house is my house. They were able to fix that.

Mhmm.

So if that that in an extreme is able to be fixed. I'd be hard pressed to find a scenario we couldn't fix something that under the process as it is now, couldn't be fixed.

It's an interesting discussion that I don't know that I can you know respond to you satisfactorily at this point. Because I am personally not aware of complaints about we accidentally did a merger or I switched houses with my neighbor and now I need to switch them back. So I'm sorry but I can't really address how that would be done.

So the convention, this was the survey I was talking with you, was a fix. Even in this arduous circumstance, if a mistake is made there's a way to fix it under the current process. And I imagine under the proposed process there would be a way to fix it. It would just be as involved as it is to make the BLA to begin.

And that may be. But I can't really answer that. I'm sorry. I can try to get back to you in some hypothetical scenarios like that if you're looking for to kind of drill down to figure out how this would work.

Yeah. If you found a scenario that was under the current process before proposed legislation is passed under current process with a mistake that could be fixed that this process as proposed would have preemptively remedied. That'd be interesting to see.

And the thing is there is no current process. So that's what we have to remember is that there's no rules to follow right now at all. There is no process for review. So yeah, I can talk about what people could potentially do versus what they could potentially do or not do under the new code. And that's probably as far as I could take it.

I'm saying examples from the past that have informed the need for this, as you said, need for this regulation that would be an example of something that just couldn't be fixed, and under this proposed legislation would have been preemptively fixed. Remedied, I mean. If you come up with something, that would be interesting to hear at the next public hearing.

We might be talking about two different things because something that could be fixed under the current lack of regulation but would be preemptively fixed under the new regulation, that's not how it would work. Do This anything to anyone's current property unless you come in for a permit application. So it doesn't preemptively fix any problem.

And and that's what I mean. So you come in for a pre application, you discover that this can't be we headed off something that could have occurred and now didn't because we have this new regulation.

Okay, I understand.

And that was something that before was an error that if that had occurred would not have been able to be rectified. So you're looking at past examples that have formed the need for this regulation. I'm saying if you come up with past examples at the next meeting that you can demonstrate this is something that hasn't been able to be fixed and would have been discovered in a pre application. And so this proposed legislation would have addressed this problem that could not be fixed.

That is something I can do. I can definitely, just to repeat what you're saying, think, to come back with some examples of problems that we've seen from BLAs that were done incorrectly. That could not be correct. The types of problems that that has caused and how we have attempted to handle that and how this would or would not have been allowed to take place under the proposed code. Am I understanding you correctly?

Well, something that just couldn't be fixed.

I don't know that anything can't be fixed.

Oh, okay. That was my supposition, but

It may not be able to be fixed through a BLA.

Not be Say that once again?

Anybody can create a problem of any type. Whether all those problems with a lot being non conforming or illegally created or whatever, I don't know that all of those problems could be fixed through a BLA. This is not a proposal to fix all problems with lots that have been created by people. So

And this is a proposal to try and anticipate or prevent problems down the line, prevent unbuildable lots, prevent houses being switched, prevent issues that come up today.

Yes, Yes. Largely that is what it is intended for. It is forward looking. We're not trying to look backward here through this code and say, hey, all of these lots that have problems, this now applies to you and you're fixed. Can't do that. So yes, you're correct. This is trying to head off problems in the future.

And just to add, I hear what you're saying, I come back to the review criteria that you walked us through, and so I feel like that's a robust criteria. And so it could be that if you had additional recommendations of things to add to that list, there might be a potential to do that. But I feel like that criteria is very robust and perhaps preventing various problems down the line to what you're speaking towards.

Sure, sure. I'm not a surveyor, I'm not an expert, subject matter expert, but those who do, those who are, I think their comments are worth incorporating, if proceeded, yeah.

Are there any other comments or questions from the commission regarding the BLA? I Public? Oh. Public comments? Just one moment, sir. We're about to go to the second public comment. Yeah. Yeah. Just one second, sir. Thank you so much.

Just with the with the discussion that we've just had, I just want clarity for the folks in the room and folks online too. There is opportunity that's scheduled for February 3, a public hearing regarding the BLA boundary line adjustments and the public has opportunity to come and give a public testimony or a comment regarding that or they can virtually join us or they can submit written comment to cjewelkidsup dot gov if they would like to participate further in the process with the county. Does that sound?

That's correct.

Okay. Beautiful.

And in the meantime between now and the hearing, if any of the commissioners would like to submit written comment to me or feedback based on this meeting or just on your individual review of the documents that you've been given, I would very gladly take that. Not as public comment, but as feedback from this work study to assist the staff.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you. Appreciate it. Alrighty. So, we are now gonna be moving into our second general second and final general public comment period. And so looking for those in the room that would like to speak. Okay. I saw the gentleman coming up. Yep. Thank you.

Oh, I'll tell you what I am. I'm just here in Boston. It's all of me. I was just kind of in the area and thought I'd rest, but my name is Patrick a Broden, and I live at 7015 Saint Charles Lane. It's near Starbucks and the Walmart off the highway. Anyway, I I'm a retired professional civil engineer for the state of Washington, and I also know about the board of professional land surveyors and civil engineers. Now when I was a young engineer, I did what she did. I wrote legal descriptions, but guess what? I was okay with it. They were peer reviewed, and I felt good about it.

He's asking the right questions. You know, there's risk here, and there's also litigation in the state on mistakes that could be made. Just you just gotta kinda watch yourself a little bit. She's probably doing alright, but the thing is she's within the umbrella on a small lot as opposed to a big lot. I wrote a legal description for an entire city agency. I'm not gonna say which one in King County. I don't I don't want you to know where I work, but I did work with all the agencies and what happened was I knew where all the pins were. I knew where all the monuments were. I wrote that legal description that I took every piece of good information together but it still still had to be certified by a professional land surveyor. That's what the board says.

That's all I got to offer but please understand, he understands this is not something we're messing with. When we get bigger and bigger and bigger then you got risk. So that's it.

Thank you sir.

Hi there. I'm Anthony Jello. I live in Port Orchard area. And kind of backing up what he said, this is big, and I appreciate you all asking good questions. You asked about pre application fee, I believe, if it's refundable. And right now, as I understand it, it's not. I think it should be. I'm nonrefundable. There's at least a part of it for a couple of reasons. One, it makes a submission the whoever is proposing the project do this much more carefully and take it seriously.

And as a resident of Kitsap County, I like to know that's being taken seriously. And then there's not gonna be multiple BLAs put in all at one time. People are human. If it's submitted, it's easier to just act now and then later ask for forgiveness. And people have a tendency to do that after the mistake is already made. This helps avoid that. And residents, and I'm not speaking for myself here, residents of Kitsap County, I mean, we've seen all this development going on everywhere and frankly, we're sick of it. The people don't want it. Somehow, it keeps getting pushed through. But And I'm not anti development for development itself.

I had my own development company for what it's worth, but I took it more like an art not to put up cookie cutter apartments. But that aside, I do appreciate her speaking and proposing what she's doing. The other thing that was interesting was this quote unquote small BLA. And you brought this up too. I don't know what we really call a small BLA because there's always going to be parties affected one way or the other. Neighboring anything that's proposed, neighbors should be aware of any BLA in Kitsap County. Anyway, thank you for your time, and I appreciate the time to speak. Bye.

Thank you, sir. Sir, would you like to come up?

Thank you. My name is Bruce McLarensbury. I'm a president of Paulsboe. I'm a professional land surveyor licensed in Washington State in Idaho and federally surveyed by the Bureau of Land Management. Sorry to be very fast, but there are a number of defects in the current iteration despite when the, you know, when the latest process began.

One of them was was raised once approved. I'm quoting properties included in a BLA are restricted from further adjustment for five years unless formal subdivision application is submitted. This was drawn straight from the short plat state law, and that's because short plat and other subdivisions increased density. That's why there was that five year restriction. To apply that to a boundary line adjustment that creates no new parcels, it's mindless.

And yet that mindless, provision is still in this. And that's because this is a process that that no other profession can can supervise boundary line adjustments and fully thoroughly understand them and create them except the land surveying profession. There's there's a phrase about review authority. Gitsap County has no review authority, never will have under state law and the state law is RCW 58.17 o four zero six. All the other local jurisdictions that have defied that have defied it.

It doesn't give them the right to assume review authority. The current standard does not allow boundary line adjustments in tidelands. Well, what do you do if your dock is encroaching on somebody else's property? And if you can't correct a mistake within five years, what can you do? It says the code's primary purpose is to allow minor configuration of existing properties. Minor? So you can't do a major one, why not? Can I have a reason please? And it does include mergers. A merger is not an adjustment.

A merger is an elimination. And yet another part of of the proposal says that a record survey map is required anyway. So you merge property and I I think this came up, So you gotta file a record of survey for the tune of $849.50 plus the thousand dollars or fifth $1,500 that it cost the surveyor to, you know, prepare it when there's no pins being set in the ground. So it's ill conceived. There's no professional land surveyor reviewing the process.

Yes. You do have Ken Sunderman, professional land surveyor. He's in public works. He's generally would not cross his desk. So I'm against the whole idea.

I think it ought to be round filed, but I would still like the opportunity to contribute constructively if it comes to that. And I would reiterate something that came up very briefly. We have our profession has the Land Surveyors Association of Washington State. That is our liaison and when something comes up that affects our profession and the public that depend on us, It needs to the county needs to notify our association so that it can notify all of us rather than just notifying an individual here or there who may or may not relay things. That is the definition of surreptitious.

I appreciate your, I appreciate your comments, and, I have, 10/26/2025 letter that's lengthy. I hope you'll read it, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Are there any other comments in the room? Ma'am, please feel free to come up.

Test. Test. Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm learning quite a bit tonight. This has been very educational. I'm Christy Schultz. I'm working with the Initae Ilihi plan from the other side. I'm sorry Scott took off. I wanted to introduce myself, but that's okay. We'll get over it. Anyway, the objective that we have with the Inutai plan is to protect the entire region. We have developers coming in there. We think that there's some zoning that's erroneous. It's a it's a pretty big area.

Forest, as far as I can tell, I think it's, like, 60 acres, something like that. There's a lot of timber back in there, and it's not just flat timber, it is ravines. You know, it's like this. It is some sheer cliffs. We do have some landslides in the region. What has come clear to me tonight, listening to all this actually, is that we do not have the data that we need there. This is what's driving a lot of the problems. I think that the zoning was done erroneously in 2016, so we need to nail down data for this. And I think it was you that was talking about we have data from UGA's? We have a lot of it.

That was not me. Oh,

okay. I'm sorry. I'm sitting in the back. Anyway, the point being that although we are in the UGA for Bremerton, there is a real lack of data. I'm a biology teacher by certification from the state, and there's no overlays for things like critical areas. I personally was hiking through wetlands down on this property that we're trying to protect. And I mean, there's nowhere it's not acknowledged anywhere. The county has absolutely no information on it. We've got eagle nests out there. Those are being wiped on and off the website randomly.

Have eagles all over the place, actually. The point being that we don't have geotech, any geotech reports on the place. We don't have any aquifer report on the place. Ilihi and Inditai Creeks were both historically salmon bearing. There's no salmon in there now because no one cleans out the culverts. The culverts have all failed. So my point is that I am here I'm going to try to address this professionally. There's been a lot of passions around this here and at the city. I'm sure our reputation has preceded us. But I to do take this on in a professional manner.

I want to look at data driven stuff. We have LiDAR. We have a few things just here and there, but we don't have enough data to really give us a good accurate picture of how it should be zoned, whether it really belongs in the UGA or not. The map, even the map that Scott had up here with his presentation, it wasn't complete. The area we're talking about protecting is below that map. So anyway, in in summation, I just wanna say thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I hope to be involved. And also, real quick before I leave, there's a homeless encampment on this on the on the land too, so really appreciate someone at the county taking care of that. It's kind of frightening. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Alrighty.

That's the only reason I'm here. I was gonna talk after her. I didn't didn't expect that. Can I talk again?

I don't believe so, sir. I'm so sorry. We just we just give initially the three minutes.

Because my wife has adult family home there, and we enjoy it very much. Yeah.

Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank you so much. Okay. Any other comments in the room? Yeah. Ryan, please.

Alright. Now I got it. Is it Carrie?

Yes. It

is. I just have a few concerns and then a question. I'm not a professional licensed surveyor, but, a lot of times when I'm doing something that I don't have expertise on, I will phone a friend. And in this case, I would phone a professional license surveyor. When I was reviewing the the is it the appendix c? Is that what it was called where it had the public comments?

Yes. That's right.

I noticed that there were a lot of public land surveyors that had comments that they made. And like commissioner Fender was mentioning, a lot of them do stand to benefit in some way. If there is a requirement to do a survey, they would stand to get some benefit from that. So it's weird to me that many of them don't support the code, and many of them say that it can actually harm people. And so I'm just concerned about what type of tangible harm it could bring.

One of the concerns that I read talked about when you go to sell a property, sometimes you're you're aging. Sometimes you're getting relocated for work. Sometimes you're you're just in a hurry. You need the money. So creating something that creates more red tape and more financial burden in some ways seems prohibitive to me. And I guess I I just would conclude with a question. As somebody that went through this process successfully, we believe you did it successfully, would you prefer in the future paying thousands of dollars and waiting a while when it was something you could do simply?

You know, you're you're asking me a question as an individual, not as a planner, not as an employee. Correct. I'll answer it. Although, I I actually don't know if that's if it's an appropriate thing to do. Probably. Because there was no process in place for me. There was no one to review it. There was no assistance Mhmm. For it. And while I while I felt that as a professional planner, I could do the work required and that it would be accurate, I would have preferred to go through the county.

Now does that do you feel that that is prejudicial towards what I'm doing right now? No. I don't think so. This isn't something that I picked up and decided to do on my own. This was an assignment to me by the department and by our board of commissioners county commissioners. So, again, what you're asking me is as an individual, and I'm responding as an individual. I'm not speaking on behalf of the department. Just to be clear.

Sure.

Okay.

And and I apologize for putting you on the spot. And I I I appreciate the work that you've put into this project, and I think it has many many benefits. I would just like to see, more support from some of the people that it affects the most.

And, you know, I think that you brought up a good point, which is, let's say that, as you you brought up an example of someone who is elderly and needs to sell a property quickly or wants to sell a property quickly.

There's

always going to be trade offs. And you can say that being able to just go through a quick process might help a seller in that situation, but then we also have to look out for the welfare of the buyer who is also a citizen, a member of the public. And we have seen mistakes made which harm the buyer and then can come back on the seller. So we're trying to protect everybody, and there's no way to make that a perfect process. I admit that.

And, yes, there are trade offs. By creating any process at all, any permit, you have lengthened the time to have something recorded because I could go down with a napkin tomorrow and record something. Doesn't mean it's right. Mhmm. So, yes, there there are increased costs. There's increased time. But we hope that on balance, we will be more protective of the public welfare by having this in place.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And point of order, I just wanna remind everyone that this is the general public comment period. We have, concluded the work study at this time. So

Thank you, Clara. Okay.

May I just say that I wouldn't normally respond to a member of the public who had come up to make a comment and asked me a question Since Ryan is a planning commission member, even though he hasn't been sworn in, I felt that I wanted to address his concerns and answer him individually, and that is why I behaved differently.

Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you, Carrie. Are there any other comments in the room? Alright. Seeing none, are there any online?

Yes. There are. First, William Palmer. Mister Palmer?

Not sure what happened. I hope you can hear me. Yes, sir. One thing I did not hear was the magnitude of the problem in the proposed ordinance. I also did not hear anything that had to do with fixing problems like boundary lines that cut through buildings or are used as fence lines when a property line is not rectified.

Also, I did not hear anything that would say that if a realtor is involved in a transaction between two parties, usually more than one realtor is involved, and they're using a boundary line adjustment to fix one of those problems rather than go to court, in order to expedite the real estate transaction. I was told by, the director of the department, Rafe Wysham, that there was going to be an expedited process for that. And I did not believe him at the time, and I heard nothing tonight, in the staff's presentation that would indicate that, that was even an objective. I will submit my comments in writing, and they will come from the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. And we when we had Rafe Wysham as an invited guest, we weren't as polite to him as we should have been.

But it when we were dealing with the boundary line adjustment, our organization is totally against it. Now I realize that whenever an ordinance is proposed, the option of being against an ordinance, is off the table because staff's gonna go forward with the ordinance regardless of what the opposition is. So I understand that, but our organization is definitely against this particular boundary line adjustment ordinance, and we have been against it for years. And I already mentioned in my previous comments since 2011, staff has not done their job as far as I'm concerned. They have not documented the problem or the extent of it.

And so you're proposing an ordinance to fix something that may or may not be a significant problem. But it's another ordinance that's going to take time. It's going to cost the applicant a lot of dollars that they don't now have to pay. They do have to pay for surveyors and appropriately so. And the surveyors are very competent in dealing with boundary line adjustments.

So I fail to see what the problem is, why we need the ordinance. And, again, I'm against it. And my organization's against it.

Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Claire, is there anyone else online?

All right. Next up, we have Felician.

Felicity Ann?

Yes. Can you hear me now?

Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. My name is Felicity Griffin, and I live in. I wanted to talk a little bit about.

So vision twenty fifty supports the work of the Puget Sound partnership to promote a coordinated approach to watershed planning and restoring Puget Sound. Key strategies for helping Puget Sound include protecting open space and restoring urban lands through redevelopment and public investment. The goal of this document is to protect and restore natural resources. It also works to protect and enhance significant open spaces, natural resources in critical areas. This area contains wetlands, critical off aquifer recharge area one, geologically hazardous areas, priority habitat and species, tree canopy, old and sec second growth forests, prime farmland, and other features that make it imperative to preserve.

The parcel maps have contained these designations. While my parcel was downgraded to urban restricted, at the same time, my my neighbor was upgraded to urban low in contempt of the 2016 comp plan. We share a property line and have the same restrictions while theirs are more critical per the parcel slicers. The only difference in the properties are they have an open space taxation benefit while seeking to develop. Kitsap County deserves, at a minimum, the taxes paid on land that is considered for development if it is not going to be preserved for the benefit of the county citizens. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Beverly Parsons.

Good evening. This is Beverly Parsons. I'm from North Kitsap. I just wanted to say that I'm very excited to see the rural lands analysis being being conducted and especially glad to hear about attention to water issues and wildlife corridors as well as the GIS hub. I did want to suggest an addition to one of the other items. That is the list includes urban rural boundaries. And to that boundary issue, I would like to add the boundary issue with parks and open space, especially with our heritage parks. Thank you.

Thank you.

I see no other hands up at this time.

Okay. If there are no additional speakers, I will close the final general public comment period. And we will now move forward to for the good of the order. Do any of the commissioners have any comments that they would wish to share? Commissioner Hampton.

Thank you. So first and foremost, would like to thank those who attended in person today to give comment. We really appreciate your voice in this space and look forward to public hearing and also those online. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to the 2025 chair and vice chair. So Chair Alan Beam, who's not here with us, but and our Vice Chair David, thank you so much for your time spent in that leadership role. Sincerely appreciate it and look forward to 2026.

Any other comments from the commission? I would just like to make a couple of comments. I would first like to welcome commissioner Feder, welcome, and soon to be Ryan joining us as well. And just one last congratulations to commissioner Hampton. That's wonderful. I'm very excited for you. Yeah. Thank you. All alright. We have completed all agenda discussion items for tonight's meeting, and I declare this meeting adjourned at 07:41PM. The next planning commission meeting is scheduled for 01/20/2026. Thank you.