Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Calling to order the December 15, 2025 Bremerton Regular Planning Commission meeting. First item on the agenda is a roll call to confirm we have a quorum.

Commissioner Powell. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Tift.

Here.

Commissioner Peterson. Here. And Commissioner Doering. I believe she's attending online. I'm here. Okay. Thank you. And Chair Wofford.

Here. Okay.

And Commissioner Browning's excused. Sorry.

is approval of the agenda. Do we have any amending motions for the agenda?

This is Vice Chair Tift. I make a motion to ensure consistency with current practices of the Berman City Council. I move to amend the agenda to remove item 5A, call to the public.

Do I hear a second? Say yes. Second.

Second.

okay so we have a motion from Vice Chair Tiff to amend the agenda to remove item 5a we have a second from Commissioner Miller all in favor say aye aye okay and any opposed motion passes okay agenda has been approved as amended next up is approval of the October minutes do we have a motion to approve the minutes of November

Oops, excuse me. Approval of the November minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of November 17th, 2025?

This is Commissioner Peterson. I'll move to approve the minutes.

Does Vice Chair Tiff tile second?

OK, we have a motion to approve the minutes from the November 17th meeting motion by Commissioner Peterson, second by Vice Chair Tift. All in favor of approving the minutes. Any opposed? OK, motion passes.

OK, the public workshop tonight will be on zoning code amendments. That's critical area ordinance shoreline master program. And landscaping presenting is Mr Garrett Jackson, planning manager with the city of Bremerton.

Okay, good evening Planning Commission and thank you. In the November meeting, the Planning Commission agreed to have a December workshop for the purpose of providing the public with an opportunity to have public comment on the proposed changes. So for anyone at home, the Planning Commission is a volunteer board. They volunteer their time here and we're very grateful that you took part out of your holiday season to be here tonight. We are here tonight to discuss the critical area ordinance shoreline master program and landscaping code. The Planning Commission for the orders of the day should consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony and provide direction on their proposed updates for a future public hearing. So just to review how we got here tonight, the Planning Commission in September started reviewing the shoreline code, critical area ordinance and landscaping with workshops in October and then in November. At the November workshop, the Planning Commission directed staff to start environmental review with the Department of Commerce and SEPA. That has started, which leads us to tonight, the December workshop, where we'll have an opportunity to discuss some lingering items from the November workshop before moving on to a public hearing in January. So in January we have a public hearing scheduled a joint public hearing with the Department of Ecology. So for process efficiency the Department of Ecology can partner with the city to have a joint public hearing. We've been working with our partners at Ecology throughout this SMP update process and so they will be participating on that January 26 public hearing. with a future city council study session and hearing to be determined for final adoption of proposed amendments. At past workshops we've covered with the Planning Commission the city's statutory requirement through the Growth Management Act to designate and protect critical areas including shorelines of the state to ensure that there is no net loss of ecological function and that we consider best available science when adopting our regulations. Our own comprehensive plan has goals and policies for the protection of critical areas and the urban tree canopy. At the last workshop, the Planning Commission noted some concern on how the public might know what critical areas are located on their property. And so with that in mind, staff worked with our IT department, thank you to Kelsey Donnellycott specifically, on creating a critical area webpage. At this webpage, there's a link to the Kitsap County parcel search and instructions on how to use the critical area layers, where the public can now visit the City of Bremerton webpage in order to figure out which critical areas are located on your property including descriptions of each one of the critical areas we regulate and a staff contact if you should have any questions. If the Planning Commission is interested, we can demonstrate at the end of the workshop. We also updated our shoreline master program web page to include all of the draft documents that have been proposed. We have links to each of the planning commission workshops, drafts of each document and legislative markup, as well as the documents that our consultant facet has prepared for us for critical areas, SMP, and best available science. We also note on our Shoreline Master Program web page where you can review a hard copy of the proposed code amendments. You can see those in our DCD offices upstairs or we also have a copy here in the lobby that includes the SMP CAO and landscaping codes hard copy and that picture is on the website too just to help people narrow down where it is in the lobby. So moving into some items that the Planning Commission was more interested in at the previous workshop. As we mentioned, our consultant Facet, who's a subject matter expert, prepared a gap analysis of our CAO. That's available on our web page. And at the September, October, and November meetings, we provided some more information on proposed changes. which includes tribal notification, updating definitions, public agency exception, and riparian buffers. If anyone's interested, please look at those packets or contact staff for more information. The item in the CAO that the Planning Commission wanted some more information on was penalties for removing trees without a permit. So just that we're clear on the geography of this item, It's if you're removing trees without a permit that are located in a critical area or critical area buffer. This doesn't apply to trees outside of those areas. And we it appeared as though the Planning Commission had a bit of sticker shock with the $9,000 per tree for a significant tree and $700 per tree for a non significant tree. And so they requested that staff look at other jurisdictions and potentially provide another proposal. Another problem, excuse me, issue that the planning commission encountered was how do you define a tree? At what point is a sapling considered a tree and should that carry with it a per tree penalty? So we looked at several jurisdictions that was noted in the Planning Commission packet. One jurisdiction having as many as nine different designations for sizes of tree penalties. Staff thought that this was excessive, but that we might provide one additional size for the Planning Commission to consider and different fines. So a significant tree is currently defined by the municipal code as eight inches, in diameter at a height of four feet above grade for an evergreen tree a deciduous tree would be 12 inches or more in diameter as measured four feet in height from grade and a revised tree from not excuse me a revised fine from nine thousand dollars per tree to fifteen hundred And for other trees not meeting that size, that it would be $1,000 per tree. With a smaller tree not carrying a fine per tree, but that it would still be subject to code enforcement and mitigation. As currently written in the critical area ordinance, any tree that's removed from a critical area without permits needs to be replaced at a three to one ratio. It's been the method that staff has implemented over several years. So that small tree would still need to be replaced and would still be required, excuse me, would still be subject to code enforcement, but there wouldn't be a specific dollar per tree amount. And that would be for any tree that's three inches or less in diameter from a height of four feet as measured from grade. So that's for Planning Commission to discuss. The Shoreline Master Program. There are a couple of items that the Planning Commission hasn't reviewed to this point that are fairly minor, but we'd like to go over those. Once again, our consultant has prepared a gap analysis that's posted on our webpage, and the September, October, and November packets have more information on those items. Specific updates include cultural resources, shoreline maps, allowed uses and shoreline designations, and other items. What the Planning Commission hasn't reviewed to this point are largely aesthetic items, a document cover and mapping. Right now, the cover for the SMP is essentially a Word document level cover. But thank you to Aaron Stewart, who's a community member who helped us upgrade our aesthetics on our comprehensive plan documents and sub area plans. And we have this new proposed cover for the Shoreline Master Program. And then mapping for within the SMP. Right now, a lot of the maps are of kind of a lower quality. They're a little blurry and harder to read. And there's been a lot of instances of roads changing, particularly in the Jackson Park area and in Gorst. Address changes, street changes, and then any subdivisions or lot line adjustments that have happened since the SMP was adopted. You can see here proposed existing current maps and proposed replacements where you can see the parcel lines much clearer and the print much more clear as well. So none of these shoreline designations have changed beyond what we have mentioned to the Planning Commission in past workshops. But we find that this aesthetic improvement will better help the end user, particularly on seeing where these parcel lines are located in relation to the shoreline designations. For the landscaping code, there was some question previously brought by the Kitsap Building Association on when landscaping should be required. The Kitsap Building Association noting that it should be required when 50% of the assessed value has been surpassed by project valuation. Meaning if the improvements that you're doing to your site exceed 50% or more of the valuation of your property, then that should trigger landscaping. Accordingly and based off of feedback from the Planning Commission, staff has a revised code section in the packet which includes landscaping being triggered when a proposed remodel or change of use is valued at 50% or less of structure value. excuse me, that's when you would be exempt. You would also be exempt for maintenance and repair projects, but not when new surface parking is proposed. So if your project is valued at 50% or more of your structure is not a maintenance and repair project and is proposing new parking, landscaping would be required. The Planning Commission asks that we look at other jurisdictions and noted in the packet are the city of Poulsbo, which triggers landscaping when a building or parking area is proposed or to be expanded. Olympia, which triggers landscaping when 50% of the property value has exceeded. Bellingham, which triggers when a remodel exceeds 50% of the structure value and Everett, which a remodel would be in excess of 35% of property value. So staff feels that the proposed amendments are a good middle ground between what was requested by the KBA and the jurisdictions that we've provided examples for, also for the Planning Commission to discuss. And lastly, there was a question from the Planning Commission on what the costs of these improvements would be. If we're acquiring this type of landscaping, how much is that going to cost the end user and could that be prohibitive to development? So this is a bit tricky because site landscaping can be site specific. So we decided that the cost to replace one parking space with landscaping would be a good modular landscape area that could be replicated dependent upon the size of the site. So if you have a site with 100 feet of frontage, you'd be required by our new code, if you choose to participate in our alternative program, to have two street trees. So 100 feet of frontage, you could think two street trees, you could be replacing two parking spaces with street trees. So with that in mind, that was the idea behind replacement of with landscaping on a parking space by parking space basis. Staff, thank you, Kelly Lambert, for doing the work on this. Staff, got three quotes, one estimating that the removal to saw cut, jackhammer, and remove the asphalt, install topsoil, install bark, and one tree with no irrigation would be $1,700. The second quote, $2,250, and that included two shrubs. And the third estimate range between $4,500 and $7,500, and that included about $1,600 for curbing. So there's three quotes. I mean, that's why it's always a good idea to shop around and ask for what best suits your needs. But that being said, this lack of irrigation is another code allowance where you could provide like a gator bag, a slow release bag for water if you have a drought resistant tree. And that's a way that you could save costs over time. and another way for the city to encourage drought resistant vegetation. So we feel like this is a reasonable cost assessment for installation of street trees that would scale to dependent upon the size of the project. The orders of the day are for the Planning Commission to consider the proposed amendments, receive public testimony, and provide direction on the proposed updates for a future public hearing. Before going forward, I would like to mention that staff has received just today two comments. One comment from the Suquamish tribe, it's their division for archeological and historic preservation, where the Suquamish tribe concurs with the proposed amendments for cultural resource preservation, historic preservation. We could see more comment potentially from the Suquamish tribe. We haven't heard from their biologists yet, And then about at 430, when we were setting up for the meeting, we did receive a comment from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. It's a fairly lengthy comment, and staff hasn't had very much time to review it. But it is provided to each planning commissioner. Staff proposes that with the public hearing, that any new language that we would be adding to the code, we would call out for the planning commission to consider. And if the planning commission is comfortable with changes that arrive from comments that we've received, then we could proceed on with a recommendation to the city council. And that's how the packet would likely be arranged at that January public hearing. Happy to answer any questions.

Does anybody in the public have comments on this public workshop?

We do have two attendees online. If either of you would like to speak, please raise your hand now. Okay, neither attendees have raised their hands at this time.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll now close public testimony. And is there any feedback, comments from the commissioners? One no, one yes. Mr. Tiff.

um the tree the tree finds can you go back to that slide so the small tree it says it says other tree is eight inches or less it really needs to be eight inches or less or greater than three inches because three inches is There's a there's a bracket missing there for. You see what I mean less than 8 inches in diameter for evergreen and 12 for a deciduous tree but the small tree is 3 inches or less so technically it should be. Less than 8 but greater than 3. The way that reads right now a 3 inch tree is still subject to a $1000 fine.

We can look at refining that language. I think that currently it covers the intent but we can look at a way to put that a little more clearly if it's not translating well. That being said that three inch mark we are looking for public comment on. Some might consider that a fairly large tree to be exempt at four feet in height to be three feet excuse me three inches in diameter. So we are happy to present that to the public to get to get further comment. and to clarify that language for the Planning Commission.

Okay. Commissioner Peterson, what was the previous number we had? What was the previous threshold?

So previously it was binary, a significant tree and a non-significant tree. So we added this extra tier as the Planning Commission had some concern about when a tree should be fined.

What was the bottom, how many inches? Was it four inches?

There is really only significant tree that is defined in the municipal code. So either you were a significant tree or you were any other tree. So this three inches is new that you would not receive a fine for.

I reviewed an old forestry manual I had, and four inches was always the threshold between what we considered a tree and not. And I mean, I've seen old growth scotch broom and ivy that was uh three inches almost and um i i know we we want to write up rules here that that prohibit you know purposeful violations and i'm just worried that at three inches we might get somebody accidentally uh getting a thousand dollar fine um i'm i'm in favor of increasing the the penalty for the significant tree but i also maybe think that like like commissioner tiff was talking about the last meeting we don't want to have people accidentally violating this we want to catch purposeful violations so I I'd maybe be in in favor of of increasing that small tree threshold to 4 inches, but I'd also be in favor of bumping the significant significant tree find back up a bit that's that's my feedback anyway.

Just for clarification is Scotch broom considered a tree.

is not i know this is any other comment yep um last time for a significant tree we had a fine of nine thousand dollars which you which i think i reacted to is fairly pretty significant but On the other hand 1500 is kind of like parking ticket almost that seems it seems low to me you could could easily be a cost of the development by taking a tree down so I don't know whether even 5 or 6,000 might be minimal compared to the cost of the project but 1500 seems too low to me. For whatever it's worth.

Commissioner Miller, yes, I would agree with Commissioner Tiff's comments. I also agree with the comment on the three inch tree, whether it's three or four, that it be differentiated from the eight inch diameter tree so that that doesn't get confused with what is going to get a penalty and what is not going to get a penalty. But I do agree that the significant tree The penalty at $1,500 seems too low. Certainly $9,000 seemed too high, so somewhere magically in the middle that will make everybody feel good. I also like the idea that even with the smaller tree, which, you know, is going to grow into a larger tree at some point, if smaller trees are removed without permit, that they are still subject to the civil action and the mitigation and the replacement at a three to one ratio.

Any other comments?

Commissioner Powell, I agree with Commissioner Miller and Peterson on the fine. that it should be significantly higher than 1,500 and maybe 9,000 was too much, but it needs to be a penalty that is a deterrent.

Commissioner Doering said in the chat that she believes that a 1,500 to 3,000 range is good.

So there's a couple of items we're looking for consensus on. One is the size of the small tree. And I have an up or down, you know, hands up or hands down. If you would prefer raising the size of the small tree to four inches and less, if planning commissioners, would you mind raising your hand? All right, we have three. Commissioner Doering?

Yes, her hand is raised.

Okay, so that being said, we have a majority of commissioners that would be interested in having that small tree defined as four inches or less. I'll work with Commissioner Peterson on getting the source material, if that's okay. Commissioner Peterson? Excellent. And then the fine for a significant tree being raised. I've heard $3,000 and $5,000. This is kind of an open question, which I'll say, is the Planning Commission comfortable with a fine of $5,000 per tree for a significant tree? Hands up if you're comfortable with that number, please. And I have four, it looks like. Doring?

Doring does not have a raised hand.

Okay, so we would have a majority of commissioners comfortable with that $5,000 mark. Are we comfortable moving forward from that item? Okay. And then once again, staff can refine that language on a small or medium tree to make sure that it's a little more clear on what the intent is. Were there other items to discuss here?

Okay.

We'll now... Sorry. Commissioner Tift. The way it's written, would the... you know the example we talked about was the former kmart parking lot in east bremerton as we have written this guidance would that have required um internal trees or trees in the in that space have we written it that way clear enough to where that would be required

I would need to I can confirm that with the planning Commission once I actually verify the numbers, but I'm very confident that yes, it would have triggered landscaping.

I can send out an email confirming with those numbers but I'm confident that's what our intention is to so you've got to have something that's either clear enough or I guess clear enough I would be the right words to trigger landscaping and in that space. So okay, thank you.

Last call.

Are we gonna talk about landscaping?

Mr. Miller.

I would like to bring up the slide on the landscaping. Not that one. That one, okay. The first bullet point, proposed remodel or change of use is valued at 50% or less structural value. I think that's, maybe you've written it the way you want it, but the way I was thinking about it is there would be another, one more bullet point. So I would change that to read a proposed remodel valued at 50% or less of structural value, comma, next bullet point would be a change of use, comma, next bullet point would be maintenance, and the last bullet point would be when no surface parking is proposed. Because the way it reads is that the change of use would also be valued at 50% or less of structure value. And I'm not sure that that's what our intent was.

Absolutely, and if the Planning Commission is interested in adding that additional criteria, that's perfectly acceptable. When we looked at other jurisdictions, we didn't see an example for specific to change of use. It was always when proposed changes, the valuation of those proposed changes, including a change of use, would be 50% or some other percentage. the planning commission directs staff that anytime there's a change of use say storage to business mercantile to office something on that order then that would trigger a change of use and landscaping then that is that is something the planning commission can direct staff to do but it's not typically something that we see in other codes

I apologize for the interjection. Commissioner Doering actually said yes to the 5K for the trees, if we could just modify that in the records.

Any comments on Ms. Miller's recommendation?

Commissioner Tift, i'm just having a hard time understanding that sentence about change of use is valued at 50 or less that means a very minor revision to the shouldn't that be 50 or more very minor revision to the change of use results in triggering the But what about a massive remodel that results in 100% of the structural value? That doesn't come with requirements? That sentence to me is confusing, 50% or less.

And if you read it in the code, it might become more clear where the director has the discretion to waive or modify landscaping requirements. in the following instances. So if your project is valued at 50% or less, the director can waive or reduce. If it's maintenance and repair, the director may waive or reduce. Or if there's no new surface parking, the director may waive or reduce.

Yeah, so just to clarify, Commissioner Miller, the top sentence is where the less becomes the key word.

I see that now, yes. Top sentence is the one that I was missing.

And if I can continue then, my comments about the change of use may be, I can see where I'm kind of maybe getting a little bit of cross-purposes here, but the change of use, possibly there would be a value associated to that as well. So that you can, if somebody's renovating an office building or a clinic or a restaurant and it exceeds that 50% rule, then it would trigger the landscaping if they haven't already got it in their parking lot. If they take a building and it's an old warehouse and they make an office out of it or a retail space and they make an office out of it, and they don't necessarily exceed the 50% value on the renovation, then the change of use might have a 50% value or some other value, but the change of use would trigger that with the value.

That's correct. And I think that that was the intent initially and including that change of use language is often a change of use requires upgrades to the structure which have an expense associated with them. And so that's why they were included on whether it is a change of use or a remodel. If it's not maintenance and repair, if you're exceeding that threshold, landscaping would be required.

All right.

Thank you for that clarification.

And Commissioner Powell here structure value. I don't know if it's defined elsewhere in the code. The structure value the perfect Kitsap County Assessor page.

It is there. The structure is valued separately from the land which and then there's a combined assessment also.

OK, thanks. If we could go to the estimate landscape page on the slide. My experience is that it's probably in the range of number three. It's the higher end. Especially when you consider all the different factors that you're Turn up asphalt. You're loaded into a truck. You're dumping it somewhere. You're importing topsoil. You're putting a curb around it to maintain the integrity of the asphalt. You're actually planting a tree. You're putting in mulch. I mean, there's three or four contractors involved in this, and it's probably in the midpoint of the 5,000, 6,000 range. And again, there's an economy of scale. If you're doing 100 of them, that's way, way less. If you're doing one, it's at the top end. My experience of it.

Again, last call? Any other? OK, go ahead.

This is Commissioner Peterson. Back to the critical areas ordinance, I see that Fish and Wildlife kind of agreed with the science review and disagreed a little bit with the buffer width reduction. and um i i at last meeting i i was asking if the suquamish tribe had provided any feedback on that um has that has that happened yet had they so we've had verbal consultations with suquamish tribe and with the department of fish and wildlife both of which were relieved that we weren't proposing um

reductions that are in excess of the current draft. There's other jurisdictions that have requested or codified, rather, larger buffer reductions that are possible. They were glad to see, and I'm uncomfortable characterizing other organizations that should be providing their thoughts and writing, but it's my experience that they were pleased to see that we weren't asking for more than what we are currently and that anything that would require more would be a reasonable use exception. So that's my experience in those conversations. We are still soliciting comment and would be happy to hear from our jurisdictional partners.

regarding landscape estimates commissioner doring states i imagine at commercial scale it will estimate three landscaping landscaping is expensive okay we'll now close the public testimony and go on to the business meeting

And first item of business meeting is chair report and this is my last meeting and I'm turning it over to Mr Miller. So thank you Mr Miller. Mr tips last meeting. He's moving on to City Council. And thank you for your service on this board. And. To everybody, I wish you a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year. Now we'll move to any other commissioners have a comment. Yes.

We just voted to remove the call to the public from our meetings. And I agree with that because we're volunteers and we're here to talk about these nuts and bolts policies. But if there's any city council members out there, It's my understanding that they're voting to remove that from a lot of the city council meetings, and I was just wondering if they're removing all general public comment periods from all city council meetings, or is there going to be periodic once a quarter? I just don't know the answer to that. I don't know what's going on. But I'm in favor of us removing it from our meetings. But if there's any city council members out there, maybe, I don't know, maybe consider receiving that public testimony sometimes. I don't know the answer to that.

Okay. Following this question, under new business we'll vote on removing commissioner doering said congratulations mr tift many blessings and thank you commissioner wofford happy holidays and happy new year thank you okay next item uh under business is the director's report mr garrett

And Director Spencer regrets that she couldn't be here tonight, but that being said, she would like to offer her warm congratulations to Commissioner, now City Council Member Tift. for moving on to the City Council from the current Planning Commission position. We're very grateful for his years of service. Commissioner Tift has served for 15 years on the Planning Commission and we wanted to commemorate that with a gift for Commissioner Tift.

Thank you very much. Wow. Thank you very much. I really learned a lot. It's a good place to learn about our city. So it's been very valuable and an enjoyable part of the last 15 years. So thank you for that. Thanks.

15 years is remarkable. Thank you. And that's all all the director's report has. Thank you.

Thank you. And building on that, those of you who want to replace Mr. Tift, please put your application into the city and be happy to review it. So in a old business, in a new business, yes. The amended bylaws have been presented, which were first introduced at the November 17th meeting. The amended bylaws remove the quote called the public for I was not on the agenda and also formalize the opportunity for the public to comment on items that are on the agenda. Does anybody in the public have comments on the amended bylaws? Do you see any raised hands? Nope.

At this time, there's no one raising their hand.

Okay, do we have a motion to approve the deletion of the call to the public as an item on the agenda?

This is Vice Chair Tift, and I move to adopt the amended Planning Commission bylaws as presented. Is there a second?

Commissioner Miller, I second.

With a Clerk, call the roll for a vote.

OK, we have a motion to approve the bylaws as presented. It was seconded. Right, the motion was made by Vice Chair Tift and seconded by Commissioner Miller. So all in favor of approving the bylaws as presented?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed?

Commissioner Doering, would you like to raise your hand if you are in support? Her hand is raised. Okay, motion carries.

Thank you. Next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on January 26, 2025. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.