HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/04 AGENDA FILE
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 ~ (360) 473-5280 c~ Fax (360) 473-5251
PLEASE NOTE - THE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE NOW BEING HELD IN THE NEW
"NORM DICKS GOVERNMENT CENTER" LOCATED AT 345 6TM STREET
* * * AMENDED * * *
NOVEMBER 17, 2004
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
1. PRE-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603
A. General Council Business
B. A 15-minute Executive Session will be held to "Review Labor Negotiations" per R.C.W.
42.30.140(4)(b)
2. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. in MEETING CHAMBERS LOCATED ON FIRST FLOOR
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Invocation
3. MAYOR'S REPORT
4. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Claims & Check Register {#AB04-234)
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Bremerton Police Management Association
(#AB04-235)
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. 2945, authorizing an Interfund Loan Extension from the "Equipment Rental & Reserve
Fund (510)" to the "Wastewater Fund (451)" in an amount not to exceed $2.5 million (#AB04-224)
B. Resolution No. 2946, authorizing an Interfund Loan Extension from the "Equipment Rental & Reserve
Fund (510)" to the ULID No. 2002-01 Fund in an amount not to exceed $500,000 (#AB04-225)
C.Ordinance [First Reading], adopting a new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and rescinding existing
plans (#AB04-231) Continued from Council Meeting held November 3, 2004...
D.Ordinance No. 4916 [Second Reading] Establishing the Property Tax Levy Amounts to be collected
for 2005 (#AB04-230)
E.Continued Public Hearing on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2005 City of Bremerton Budget (#AB04-232)
~ No action will be taken on this item...
,,E. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
~).f-- ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
Immediately following the regular business of the Council Meeting, a 30-minute Study Session
will be held in Council Conference Room 603 to continue discussion on the "FY 2005 Budget",
including a review of the recommendations from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
B Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special
accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the
Council meeting.
DATE SUBMITTED: 1l-1-04 BILL # [~'
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON ~ ~
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining Committee Meeting Date: ~ II ] Io /0 ~
Agreement between the City and Bremerton COUNCIL MEETiNG Date: 11-15~-04
Police Management Association Department: Human Resources
Presenter: Carol Conley, HR
Director
Phone: 473-5347
SUMMARY: Pursuant to RCW 41.56, negotiations have concluded between representatives of the
City and the Bremerton Police Management Association (BPMA) resulting in the attached Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). These negotiations have been discussed with Council in Executive
Session. This CBA replaces the current one that expired on December 31, 2003. The new CBA is for
a one (1) year term, beginning January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. It was ratified by the
BPMA membership on November 2004. Council approval is required to implement this agreement.
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Bremerton
Police Management Association
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Fiscal impact of implementing this contact for
2004 is $15,855 including retirees. There is sufficient money in the budget to cover the cost of the
contract.
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ~
CITY ATTO~EY:
F~ANCE DI~CTOR:
MAYOR:
FISCAL~GET: /~,~
~COMMENDED MOTION: ~Motion to approve42~ Collective Bargaining Agreement by and
between the City and Breme~on Police Management Associaion, January 1, 2004 t~ough December
31, 2004, ~d make the necessa~ amendments to the budget.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
Collective Bargaining Agreement
between
The City of Bremerton, WA
and
Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004
LABOR AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE
CITY OF BREMERTON
AND
BREMERTON POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
JANUARY 1,20043 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004_g
PREAMBLE
This Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 41.56 by and
between the City of Bremerton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter
known as the "City", and the Bremerton Police Management Association hereinafter known as the
"Association" for the purpose of setting forth the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment which shall be in effect during the term of this agreement for employees included in
the bargaining unit described in Article 2 below.
ARTICLE 1 ............. DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
1.1 An employee who believes that he or she has been the subject of unlawful discrimination on
the basis of political affiliation, age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, religion, national
origin or activity protected by RCW 41.56 shall seek relief through the City's Equal
Employment Opportunity Complaint Procedure or the appropriate state or federal agency
charged with investigating such matters and shall not process such complaints through the
Grievance Procedure of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2 ............. RECOGNITION
2.1 The City recognizes the Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for
the purpose of negotiations concerning wages, hours and conditions of employment for all
employees in classifications set forth in Appendix A and such classifications as may be
added to the bargaining unit during the term of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3 .............ASSOCIATION ACCESS
3.1 Association business such as handling grievances and other legitimate routine matters may
be conducted on Police Department premises provided that such business does not interfere
with Police Department operations and is authorized by the Police Chief.
ARTICLE 4 ............ SALARIES
4.1 MONTHLY SALARY RATES -- Monthly salary rates shall be paid as set forth in
Appendix A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Appendix A will be changed
as necessary to reflect the following:
1
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Maxmgement Association
January 1,200_42 through December 31, 20043
4.1.1 The salary rates for Police Lieutenant and Police Captain will be set so-as to
maintain the following differentials:
4.1.1.1 The Police Lieutenant top base salary step will be not less than 15%
above the top step Police Sergeant base pay wage rate.
4.1.1.2 The Police Captain top base salary step will be not less than 13%
above the top step Police Lieutenant base pay galary rate.
d. 1.I.3 c~.^..t,~j..v.~.~ c...~.;^~...~.~_ 'l .1 . i . ! "+2ch.. i~....~-'~'"*;~'~. ~ *"~ **"~.-.~ '7%- ..... ~ ULP filed bY.
dc ....... 5'., .... m~^ la
receive a two .............. ...... percent
4.1.2 Effective January 1, 2004_~=, employees will ' ,~. ........ n ..... k~lC
(2% 3.50,4) across-the-board cost of living adjustment (COLA).
4.1.3 Effective July 1. 2004 ~ ......... -~nc~2
........ ; i,.~.~, employees will receive a one-half percent
(.5%) t ....... a ....t.~tr ....... ' t ..... ;, across-the board COLA.
4.2 LONGEVITY PAY: Longevity pay, which is a rate of pay based on the length of
completed continuous service with the City, shall be calculated on the individual
employee's base salary rate and shall be paid as follows:
Length of Continuous Service Rate Per Hour
0 through 10 years continuous employment 0%
Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment 2%
Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment 3%
Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment 7.75%
Commencing 26 years and over continuous employment 9.00%
NOTE: ............................. ~.*-: .................v ............................
Col ............ t~ ~-, .~ ............................... t-'".' ...........
,. ......... :.... ~ .k .......~ o< ................. : ............ ~ .......... * 8.75 %
2
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1, 20042/through December 31, 20043
,1.2.3 Eflec'"' ,:.,,, .... t ........ t '~tm~ Per LEOFF [ ..... ~ ........... ~'-
on3.nl ....... e~ ......... ~ .... J .................... p..j .............
4.2.4 ~Eflkctive Jam ary 1, 2004 for LEOFF I employees only:
Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment 13.5% 12.25
Commencing 26 ye~s and over continuous employment 14.75.% 13.5
4.3 PAY ~TE WHEN PROMOTED TO A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION -- An
employee promoted to a higher classification will receive at least the entu step of the new
pay band or a step at least five percent (5%) higher, whichever is greater. However, no
employee may be adv~ced beyond the final step of the new pay band.
4.3.1 The employee's adv~cement to the next step of the new pay b~d will be
based on the effective date of their promotion to the higher classification.
4.4 STEP ADVANCEMENT -- Adv~cement from Step to Step will occur upon the positive
recommendation of the Police Chief ~d a~er completion of twelve (12) continuous months
of service in each step, based upon satishctoU attainment of established perfo~ce
st~dards, ~d overall satishcto~ perfo~ce. Step increases may be wit~eld for a
maximum of six (6) months. In the event an employee is on approved leave of absence
without pay, the employee's next wage rate advancement date will be extended by ~e actual
number of days the employee was absent on such leave. The denial of a step increase is
subject to the gfiev~ce procedure.
4.5 TEMPO~RY/PROVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT TO HIGHER LEVEL POSITION --
The Police Chief or, in the absence of the Chic[ the Mayor may provide a written directive
to an employee to perfo~ all or a pa~ of the duties ~d accept all or a p~ of the
responsibilities of a higher level classification, The employee so directed shall have his/her
pay rate adjusted for the duration of the assigment as if he/she had been promoted to the
higher classification provided, however, that such adjustment shall be not less th~ 5%.
Other benefits provided such ~ employee through the provisions of this agreement shall
not be affected, ~d no benefits of the higher level classification shall apply to the employee
during the assigment. This provision shall not apply in situations when the Police Chief
designates ~ employee to serve in ~ "Acting" capacity less th~ 30 work days during the
absence of the Police Chief or a Captain (Division Colander) due to vacations, while
attending conferences, ~d other such usual ~d customaW absences.
4.6 DEFEND COMPENSATION ~'m~,,,;,,~ ~ ........ ~
........ ; ! T~he City will match the
payroll deduction of any written request by an employee with less th~ twenty-one years
se~ice with the City in ~ amount ncr tv ...... ~ *k ............. , r~oz~ ~c,k ...... ~ ........ ~ k ......
exceed four-percent (4%) of the employee's base monthly salary. This section does not
apply to employees with 21 or more years with the City.
3
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1, 20042 through December 31,200~I
ARTICLE 5 ............. HOURS OF WORK
5.l Employees shall work such hours as are assigned by the Police Chief`which shall be at least
forty (40) hours per week, including paid holiday, vacation and sick leave time. In addition,
employees shall serve on emergency standby status during such periods as are assigned by
the Police Chief and are subject to emergency callback at any time. Employees covered by
this agreement are salaried and exempt from the overtime provisions of' the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
ARTICLE 6 ............. VACATION LEAVE
6.1 VACATION ACCRUAL -- Employees shall accrue vacation time with pay for all
regularly scheduled work time including paid leave time pursuant to the following schedule:
PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT
Date of Hire through Hours Accrued/Year
5 years 104 Hours
6th year 120 Hours
7th year 128 Hours
8th year 136 Hours
9th year 144 Hours
10th year 152 Hours
11 th year 160 Hours
12th year 168 Hours
13th year 176 Hours
14th year 184 Hours
15th year 192 Hours
16th year 200 Hours
17th year and thereafter 208 Hours
6.2 VACATION ELIGIBILITY -- An employee becomes eligible to take accrued vacation
time upon completion of six (6) months of continuous employment. Vacation time must be
fully accrued prior to the time an employee takes any vacation time off.
6.3 VACATION SCHEDULING -- Annual vacation leave shall be authorized by the Police
Chief or the Chief's designee. Personnel shall schedule vacation leave by mutual agreement
of the employee and the Police Chief or the Chief's designee.
6.4 MAXIMUM VACATION ACCRUAL -- The maximum number of vacation accrual
hours that any employee shall be allowed to carry forward from one calendar year to the
next is as follows:
4
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1, 2004g through December 31, 2004_¢
Years of Continuous Employment Maximum Balance
0 through Five (5) years 160 hours
More than Five (5) years 300 hours
Vacation leave may be accumulated up to a maximum of three hundred (300) hours as of
November 15th, of any calendar year. Employees with more than three hundred (300) hours
accrued as of November 15th will be paid for any accrual over three hundred (300) hours, up
to a maximum of 80 hours. Payment shall be made the 1st pay day pcri~d in December.
Any accrual in excess of the 80 hours maximum payout shall be forfeited, and the vacation
leave balance shall be reduced to 300 hours.
6.5 VACATION PAY-OUT -- Upon the retirement or termination of an employee who has
served six (6) continuous full months of employment or more, or upon the date of an
employee's disability retirement, the accrued vacation hours of such an employee will be
paid to the employee in a cash lump sum payment.
ARTICLE 7 ............. HOLIDAYS
7.1 HOLIDAYS OBSERVED -- The following holidays shall be observed by the City:
New Year's Day Labor Day
Martin Luther King's Birthday Veteran's Day
President's Day Thanksgiving Day
Memorial Day Day after Thanksgiving
Independence Day Christmas
In addition, any other holiday legally proclaimed by the Federal or State government,
provided that the City takes official action to have such holiday also observed by the City.
7.2 FLOATING HOLIDAY- Each employee shall be allowed one additional holiday to be
observed by the employee on a day mutually agreeable to the employee and the Police
Chief.
7.3 ALTERNATIVE DAYS OF HOLIDAY OBSERVATION -- If a holiday observed by
the City falls on a Saturday, the holiday will be observed on the preceding Friday. If a
holiday falls on a Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the following Monday. If the day
a holiday is observed by the City falls on an employee's regularly scheduled day off, the
employee shall receive an alternate day as a paid holiday.
7.4 HOLIDAY COMPENSATION -- An employee shall receive eight (8) hours of time off
with pay for each holiday observed by the City and for a floating holiday of each
employee's choice.
ARTICLE 8 ............. SICK LEAVE AND INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY
5
Collective Bargaining Agreement - Brernerton Police Management Association
January 1, 2004_3 through December 31, 20043
8.1 SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL -- Employees shall accrue sick leave time with pay at the rate
of .046154 hours for all normal hours of work including paid leave.
8.2 MAXIMUM SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL -- Employees shall be able to accrue sick leave
to a maximum of one thousand (1000) hours.
8.3 SICK LEAVE INCENTIVE -- An employee who has more than five (5) years of
continuous full time paid employment with the City and who takes thirty-two (32) hours or
less of sick leave in the calendar year following the fifth year of employment and any
subsequent calendar year, shall have eight (8) hours added to his or her vacation leave
balance at the beginning of the following calendar year.
8.4 SICK LEAVE RETIREMENT OR DEATH PAYMENT -- An employee who retires
from City service on a service retirement shall be provided a Sick Leave Retirement
Payment of thirty-five percent (35%) of the employee's accrued and unused sick leave hours
to a maximum of 35% of 960 hours (a maximum total of 336 hours). The payment will be
made to the employee at the employee's regular hourly wage rate in effect at the time of
retirement or in the event of death, to their designated beneficiary.
8.5 SICK LEAVE USE -- Sick leave must be accrued prior to use by an employee. Sick leave
shall be made available to each employee up to the amount of each employee's accrued sick
leave balance hours due to:
8.5.1 The temporary disability of an employee resulting from his or her personal illness or
injury.
8.5.2 Providh~g care for: a) a child of the employee under the age of 18 when they have a
health condition that requires superMsion or treatment; or b) a spouse, parent, parent-
in-law or grandparent of the employee who has a serious health condition or an
gency conditio D ..... :a~ ....... · ....... ~ ...... ,.~ ~:~,~ ...... a,.~ ,~ .......... ~
8.5.3 Attending medical, dental and/or oculist appointments as needed for preventive or
rehabilitative health care of the employee or the employee's children when such care
requires parental presence to supervise or authorize treatment.
8.5.4 Upon the birth or adoption of a child, a father may use up to three (3) days of
accrued sick leave or claim FMLA leave pursuant to Federal Law as may be
amended from time to time.
8.5.5 Providing care tbr an employee's immediate t~mily member as provided Ibr in
Section 8.5.2 when the/'amily member has a health condition that requires the
assistance of an adult caretaker until such time as other care can be arranged.
6
Collective Bargaining Agreement - Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1, 2004~ through December 31, 20043
8.6 NOTIFICATION OF SICK LEAVE USE -An employee who is absent or expects to be
absent from work due to causes specified in 8.5 above, shall provide notification as follows:
8.6.1 ROUTINE APPOINTMENTS -- An employee who schedules a routine medical,
dental or oculist appointment shall make every reasonable effort to schedule such an
appointment at a time which will cause the least interference with the employee's
work hours and duties. The employee shall give prior notice of the date and time of
the appointment to his or her immediate supervisor. An employee's immediate
supervisor may request that the employee reschedule routine appointments when, in
the judgment of the supervisor, the scheduled absence of the employee would
unduly interfere with the operations of the Department. An immediate supervisor
shall not unreasonably deny an employee sick leave with pay for routine medical,
dental or oculist appointments.
8.6.2 UNANTICIPATED ABSENCE -- An employee who is absent from work or will
be unable to report to work as scheduled due to personal illness or injury, or for
other causes specified in Section 8.5 above, shall promptly notify the department by
telephone or otherwise by 0800 of the day of his or her scheduled work day.
8.6.3 SICK LEAVE DURING AUTHORIZED PAID LEAVE -An employee who
becomes ill or is injured during the employee's paid vacation may request the
conversion of such paid leave to sick leave with pay by promptly notifying the
department of the illness or injury and providing such information as is required by
the department to verify the appropriateness of such a conversion.
8.7 SICK LEAVE DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVAL -- An employee who has been
absent on sick leave shall, within thirty-six hours after returning to work, submit such forms
and provide such information as are required by the Department to approve the use of sick
leave with pay for the absence. The Department may require an employee to demonstrate
that he or she has sought treatment, taken appropriate precautions or otherwise effected
measures to correct the condition causing the employee's absence. Such demonstrations
may take the form of personal statements of the employee, medical examinations or
certifications of appropriate professionals, or other methods appropriate to the
circumstances. The Department may require an employee to provide certification by a
professional physician that the employee is sufficiently recovered as to be able to return to
work without posing a health hazard to himself or herself or to other members of the
workforce. Sick leave must be approved by the Department prior to payment. The
Department shall not unreasonably withhold approval of sick leave with pay from
employees.
8.8 INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY FOR LEOFF I EMPLOYEES -- An employee who
qualifies for and is included in the Washington State Retirement System commonly referred
7
· Collective Bargaining Agreement - Bremetton Police Management Association
January 1, 2004_~ through December 31,200.4_a
to as "LEOFF I", who becomes disabled, and whose disability extends beyond a period of
six (6) full months, shall apply for disability retirement benefits provided through LEOFF I.
8.9 INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY LEAVE FOR LEOFF II EMPLOYEES --An employee
who qualifies for and is included in the Washington State Retirement System commonly
referred to as "LEOFF II", and who incurs a work-related illness or injury shall be provided
with such compensation as is made available through Workers' Compensation time-loss
benefits as provided by Washington State Law.
ARTICLE 9 ............. OTHER PAID LEAVE
9.1 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE - An employee will be granted five (5) days of bereavement
leave for attending funerals in the State of Washington and seven (7) days for out of state
funerals of members of the employee's immediate family. Inunediate family shall be
defined as spouse, child, stepchild, mother, father, mother/father in-law, brother, sister,
bother/sister in-law, grandparents and grandchildren of both the employee and the
employee's spouse. All time off for bereavement leave shall be charged against an
employee's vacation/holiday, sick leave or compensatory time leave balance at the option of
the employee.
9.2 JURY DUTY, WITNESS LEAVE - An employee shall be granted leave of absence with
pay for the purpose of reporting to Jury Duty or if subpoenaed as a witness. Any juror or
witness fees received by the employee for the performance of such duties shall be assigned
to the City.
9.3 MILITARY LEAVE - An employee who presents official orders requiring his/her
attendance for a period of training or other active duty as a member of the United States
Armed Forces or the State National Guard shall be entitled to military leave with no loss of
pay for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) work days annually. Authorized leave of absence
for additional or longer periods of time for assignment to duty functions shall be without
pay and shall be granted by the City. An employee receiving up to fifteen (15) work days
of training or serving on active duty shall receive their regular pay and the amount received
from the Federal or State government. ( Pursuant to RCW 38.40.060 as may be amended
from time to time).
ARTICLE 10 ............ RETIREMENT BENEFITS
10.1 Each employee shall be enrolled in the Washington State Retirement system for which he or
she qualifies. Only for the purposes of federal income taxation, the gross income of each
employee shall be reduced by the amount of employee contributions to the respective
retirement system, which is picked up by the City.
ARTICLE 11 ............ INSURANCE BENEFITS
11.1 MEDICAL INSURANCE -- The City shall make medical insurance coverage available to
employees and their dependents as follows:
8
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1,200_4_2 through December 31, 20043
· Kitsap Physician's Service Plan A for Employees and Plan "A" for Dependents.
· Group Health Cooperative for Employees and Dependents or another plan of equivalent
coverage approved by the Insurance Benefit Committee.
11.2 INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS -- Payment of insurance premiums shall be made
as follows:
l l.2.1Employee and ~c?cndcnt premiums will be paid in full by the City for those
employees enrolled with KPS. Effective December 1,2004, employee contributions
toward dependent coverage shall be seven dollars ($7) per month per dependent up
to a maximum of twenty-one dollars ($21) per month tbr full family coverage for
enrollees in the Kitsap Physician's Plan.:
11.2.2 Employees will be required to pay the tbllowing
contributions towards the monthly premian~s ibr medical coverage with Group Health:
GHC - Employee only coverage - Employee pays 100% of the difference
between the City's contribution to KPS Plan B Employee only coverage and the
cost of GHC Employee only coverage.
GHC - Dependent coverage- Employee pays 100% of the difference between the
City's contribution to KPS Plan B dependents coverage and the cost of' GHC
dependents coverage.
11.3 DENTAL INSURANCE -- The City shall provide the same benefit levels as are contained
in the Washington Dental Service Plan F dental insurance coverage for employees and their
dependents and provide for full payment of insurance premiums. Any other plan must be
approved by the Insurance Benefit Committee.
11.4 DISABILITY -- Employees who are covered by the Washington State Retirement System
commonly known as LEOFF II, shall enroll to receive Long Term Disability Insurance
coverage through the provisions of policies held by the City with Standard Insurance
Company. The City shall pay a maximum of $17.50 $!2.50 per month per eligible and
enrolled employee toward premium costs. The remainder of all premium costs shall be
borne by the enrolled employee and shall be paid to Standard Insurance Company through
payroll deductions authorized by each enrolled employee.
11.5 INSURANCE RESERVES, REBATES AND SURPLUSES -- The City shall require the
KPS medical plan provider to provide a structured accounting to the City at least annually.
9
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Breraerton Police Management Association
January' 1,200_4t through December 31,200~3
Such accounting shall include plan utilizations, all reserve accounts maintained for the plan,
interest eamed on reserves, administration costs and coinsurance (pooling) costs. This
accounting shall be made available to the Association upon request. The City agrees that
premium rebates, reserve account rebates or any other monetary returns to the employer
from the insurance providers together with subsequent interest eamings thereon shall be
used exclusively to defray the costs of premium increases in the plan, and increase benefit
levels, or other health related purposes determined appropriate by the Insurance Benefits
Committee. Premium increases shall be any increase over the 1994 levels.
11.6 INSURANCE COMMITTEE -- The Insurance Benefits Committee shall be comprised off
the following members: Mayor or designee, Human Resources Manager or designee,
Administrative Services Director or designee, one employee selected by the non-
represented management and professional employees, and one individual selected by each
of the recognized unions. The committee shall elect a chair and any other officers it deems
appropriate.
NOTE: Due to continuing significant premimn increases ~br Health Insurance coverage, the
City will be working with the Group Insurance Selection Committee to address cost
containment measures fbr coverages and employee contributions.
11.7 KPS COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES: The following cost containment
measures under KPS shall become effective January 1,2002:
11.7.1 $10 OFFICE VISIT CO-PAYMENT EffcctiYe ~ ....... ! 2002,
~employees and dependents enrolled under KPS will pay a $10 co-payment per
office visit. Co-payments shall not apply towards satisfaction of the calendar year
deductible.
11.7.2 $50 ANNUAL PHARMACY CO-PAYMENT -
!...v~,'rm~ _Eemployees and dependents enrolled under KPS will pay an additional
annual co-pay of $50.00 for covered prescriptions.
11.7.3 Any required co-payments shall be the sole responsibility of the
employee.
ARTICLE 12 ............ CLOTHING AND UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE
12.1 PURCHASE OF UNIFORMS -- The employer shall establish a Clothing Allowance Fund
for the Bremerton Police Department. Each police officer shall be furnished uniforms as
designated by the Chief of Police. Such uniforms shall be replaced on an as needed basis
from the Clothing Allowance Fund, as determined by the Police Department Administration
Office. All uniforms purchased by the Employer are to be and remain the property of the
Employer.
12.2 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE -An annual allowance of five hundred dollars ($500.00)
will be provided to non-uniformed, sworn personnel with less than twenty~one (21) years
Collective Bargaining Agreement - Bremerton Police Management Association I 0
January 1, 2004_t through December 3 , 20043
service with the City. Such allowance shall be paid during the month of January. The
employer shall withhold the necessary federal income tax from the cleaning allowance as
required by the Federal tax code as now written or hereinafter amended. This section does
not apply to employees with 21 or more years with the City.
12.3 UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE -- There shall be an annual uniform cleaning
allowance of three hundred twenty-five dollars ($325.00) per year for employees with less
than twenty-one years service with the City. This applies to all personnel covered by this
agreement. Such allowance shall be payable in January. An employee will not be required
to pay back to the Employer funds received for the purpose of clothing or cleaning
allowance after the employee has received such payment. The employer shall withhold the
necessary federal income tax from the cleaning allowance as required by the Federal tax
code as now written or hereinafter amended.. This section does not apply to employees
with 21 or more years with the City.
12.4 CLEANING CONTRACT -- In the event the Employer secures a cleaning contract with
an independent cleaning company during the term of this Agreement, 12.3 will become null
and void.
12.5 ALTERNATE CLOTHING AND UNIFORM CLEANING ALLOWANCE
REIMBURSEMENT METHOD -- At the employee's option, in lieu of the provisions of
Section 12.2 and 12.3, he/she may submit appropriate receipts for reimbursement of either
or both of these allowances up to the maximum as specified in 12.2 and 12.3 above.. An
employee must inform the Treasurer's Office no later than January 1 of each year that
he/she wishes to utilize this alternative.
ARTICLE 13 ............ PERSONNEL PRACTICES
13.1 DEFINITIONS - For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of this agreement, the
following definitions shall apply:
13.1.1 Probationary Employee: An employee serving a twelve-month period
commencing upon the initial date of hire as a permanent employee during
which the employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the City,
consistent with applicable Civil Service Rules and Regulations and without
recourse to the grievance procedure.
13.1.2 Promotional Probation: A twelve-month period commencing upon the
initial date of a permanent promotional appointment during which a
promoted employee who is unable to perform the duties of the higher level
position shall be returned to his or her previous classification at the time of
appointment at the sole discretion of the Chief of Police consistent with
applicable Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and without recourse to the
grievance procedure.
11
Collective Bargaining Agreement - Bremerton Police Management Association
January l, 20042- through December 31, 2004¢
13.1.3 LEOFF I Employee: An employee who qualifies for and is a member of the
Washington State Retirement System commonly known as "LEOFF I".
13.1.4 LEOFF II Employee: An employee who qualifies for and is a member of
the Washington State Retirement System commonly known as "LEOFF I1 ".
13.2 PROMOTIONS AND VACANCIES- All personnel reductions, filling of vacancies and
promotions shall be handled in accord with existing Civil Service Rules and Regulations
and shall not be subject to the grievance procedure.
13.3 INDEMNIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES -- The City shall provide legal defense and will
pay all legitimate claims, settlements, judgements, and associated costs for employees and
their marital communities named as parties or defendants in claims or lawsuits as a result of
acts or omissions made in the good faith performance of the City's business.
ARTICLE 14 ............ TUITION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM
14.1 An employee engaged in the pursuit of either undergraduate or graduate degrees related to
the Law Enforcement profession shall receive limited tuition reimbursement if he or she
meets the following guidelines:
14.1.1 Tuition reimbursement shall be limited only to those courses related to Law
Enforcement subjects and with matriculation at an accredited college or
university.
14.1.2 The City will reimburse the employee up to a maximum of $75 per quarter
credit hour or up to a maximum of $110 per semester credit hour up to a
maximum of 12 credit hours for course registration fees only.
14.1.3 Only full time bargaining unit employees in good standing in the Bremerton
Police Department are eligible for tuition reimbursement.
14.1.4 Tuition reimbursement shall be made if a grade of "C" or better is attained.
Employee will be required to furnish proof of payment and an official grade
report at the time reimbursement is requested.
14.1.5 The Police Chief shall have the authority to grant tuition reimbursement
pursuant to the above provisions, and shall have the authority to disapprove
tuition reimbursement if cause is shown.
14.1.6 It shall be understood that training and or study time will be undertaken
during off-duty time.
ARTICLE 15 ............ MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
12
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1,200~= through December 31, 2004_3
15.1 Any and all rights concerned with the management and operation of the Police Department
am exclusively that of the City unless otherwise provided by the terms of this Agreement.
The City has the right, among other actions, to adopt roles' for the operation of the
Department and conduct of the employees, to discipline, suspend or discharge employees
for cause, to assign work and determine duties of employees, to determine number of
personnel to be assigned duty at any time, to determine and introduce new work methods or
facilities to increase productivity for operation of the Department and to perform all of the
functions not otherwise expressly limited by this Agreement. Provided, nothing herein shall
be construed as a waiver of collective bargaining rights conferred on the parties by RCW
41.56.
ARTICLE 16 ............ GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
16.1 DEFINITIONS
16.1.1 GRIEVANCE -- A grievance is an allegation of a violation of the terms and
conditions of this agreement which is to be resolved through this Grievance
Procedure.
16.1.2 CIVIL SERVICE APPEAL -- An appeal is an allegation of a violation of the Civil
Service Rules which is to be resolved through the Civil Service Appeals procedure
and is not resolvable through this Grievance Procedure.
16. 1.3 UNF AIR LABOR PRACTICE -An Unfair Labor Practice charge is an allegation
of a violation of the Washington State statutes governing public employment labor
relations which is to be resolved through the Public Employment Relations
Commissioffs rules and regulations and is not resolvable through this Grievance
Procedure.
16.2 STEP 1 -- An employee who believes that the terms and conditions of this agreement have
been violated shall first discuss the action giving rise to the belief with the Police Chief
within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the action took place or within fourteen (14)
days of the date upon which the employee could reasonably have been expected to know of
such action. The employee shall have the right to be assisted by an authorized Association
representative during this discussion.
16.3 STEP 2 -- In the event that the Police Chief does not resolve the grievance to the
satisfaction of the employee at Step 1 of this procedure, the employee shall reduce the
grievance to writing and shall state: the section (or sections) of this agreement which is
alleged to have been violated; an explanation of the grievance in detail, including dates,
actions and such other information necessary to a full investigation of the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the grievance; and the remedy sought. The employee shall have
the right to be assisted by an authorized Association representative in reducing his or her
grievance to writing. The employee shall present the written grievance to the Police Chief
within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the employee met with the Police Chief. The
Police Chief will reduce his or her decision on the grievance to writing and shall transmit
Collective Bargaining Agreement - Bremerton Police Management Association 1 3
January 1, 20042 through December 31,200~3
the decision to the employee with a copy to the Association representative within fourteen
(14) calendar days of receiving the written grievance.
16.4 STEP 3 -- In the event that the Police Chief does not resolve the grievance to the
satisfaction of the employee at Step 2 of this procedure, the Association shall, on behalf of
the employee, transmit a copy of the original grievance along with a copy of the Police
Chief's written response to the Director of Human Resources P-ersom-x~ and the Mayor
within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the Police Chief's written response. The
Director of Human Resources Mamffev and the Mayor shall consider the grievance and may
convene a meeting with the Association representative in an attempt to resolve the
grievance. The Director of Human Resources Mamagev shall reduce his or her decision to
writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the grievance and transmit the
decision to the Association.
16.5 STEP 4 -- In the event that the Director of Human Resources ~ and the Mayor do
not resolve the grievance at Step 3 of this procedure, the Association may request
arbitration of the issue by written notification to the Director of Human Resources *' ~ ..........
The Director of Human Resources Mmmge~ and the Association shall meet within fourteen
(14) calendar days of the date upon which the Director of Human Resources,,,~,,e~,ha
rendered his or her written decision on the grievance and shall select a neutral arbitrator by
mutual agreement or through a mutually agreeable process.
16.6 POWERS AND DUTIES OF TIlE ARBITRATOR -- It shall be the duty of the arbitrator
to conduct a hearing on the issue or issues submitted by the parties for decision. The
hearing shall be kept informal and private. The arbitrator shall interpret the provisions of
this agreement as they apply to the issue or issues submitted for decision and shall not add
to, subtract from nor in any way otherwise alter nor recommend the alteration of the terms
and conditions of the agreement in deciding the matter. As soon as is practicable after
conducting the hearing, the arbitrator shall render a written decision which shall be binding
upon the parties.
16.7 COSTS OF ARBITRATION -- The expenses of the neutral arbitrator shall be borne
equally by the parties. Each party shall singly bear all costs related to preparing and
presenting its own case before the arbitrator, including costs of witnesses. The party
desiring a record of the proceedings shall bear the cost of obtaining such record.
16.8 TIME LIMITS -- Time limits established in this procedure shall be strictly adhered to but
may be waived by mutual agreement of the Association and the City. Alt procedures
contained herein shall be complied with as expeditiously as practicable.
ARTICLE 17 ............ SEVERABILITY
17.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid by operation of law or by
any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance with or enforcement of any Article
should be restrained by such tribunal pending a final determination as to its validity, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be held invalid and shall remain in full
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association 1 4
January 1,200~42: through December 31 2004_:~
force and effect. The Association and the City shall immediately meet and attempt to
renegotiate any provision found invalid.
ARTICLE 18 ............ ENTIRE AGREEMENT
18.1 The Association and the City acknowledge that each has had the unlimited right and
opportunity to make proposals with respect to any matter deemed a proper subject for
collective bargaining. The results of the exercise of that right are set forth in this
Agreement. Therefore, the City and the Association each voluntarily and unqualifiedly
agree to waive the fight to oblige the other party to bargain with respect to any subject or
matter not specifically covered by the Articles of this Agreement during the term of this
Agreement, except as mutually agreed upon.
ARTICLE 19 ............ CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
19.1 In the event that any provision of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with any other
Resolution, Ordinance, Policy, Regulation or Rule of the City, the provision of this
agreement shall prevail.
ARTICLE 20 ............ TERM
This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 200_43 contingent upon ratification by both
parties and shall remain in effect through December 31, 20043 and may be extended thereafter by
mutual agreement. The City or the Association may request reopening of this Agreement any time
within six (6) months prior topoi: the expiration date for the purpose of negotiating changes to be
effective upon ratification of the agreement by both the City and the Association.
ARTICLE 21 .......... SMOKING POLICY
21.1 The provisions of Human Resources Policy 3-50-05, Smoking Policy, will apply to
employees represented by Bremerton Police Management Association, with the following
exceptions:
21.1.1. Employees may smoke in a City vehicle when they are not transporting any other
person(s).
21.1.2 Employees may smoke outside the entrance to the Westside Patrol Office.
Article 22 .......... POLICE OFFICERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
The wide ranging powers and duties given to the Police Department and its members involve them
in all manner of contacts and relationships with the public. Of these contacts come many questions
concerning the actions of members of the force. These questions often require immediate
investigation by superior officers designated by the Chief of the Bremerton Police Department. In
an effort to insure that these investigations are conducted in a manner which is conducive to good
order and discipline, the following guidelines are promulgated:
15
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association
January 1,200_4~ through December 31, 20043
22.1 Internal Investigation Defined - For the purposes of this Appendix, the term "internal
investigation" means an investigation by or under the authority of the Chief of Police of
activities, circumstances or events pertaining to the conduct or acts of a City law
enforcement employee. Such investigation shall be deemed a "criminal investigation" where
it is suspected that such conduct or acts are or may be the basis for filing a criminal charge
against such employee, and shall be deemed a "major investigation" where it is suspected
that such conduct or acts may also or alternatively be the basis for discharge, suspension or
other discipline of such employee.
22.2 Employee Advised of Alleged Misconduct - Every employee who becomes the subject of
an internal investigation shall be advised at the time of any interview in connection
therewith that, as the case may be, (s)he is suspected of:
22.2.1 Committing a criminal offense.
22.2.2 Misconduct which would be grounds for termination, suspension, or other
disciplinary action; or that (s)he may be qualified for continued employment
with the Police Department. At the time of the interview such employee shall
also be informed of the name of the officer in charge of the investigation and
the name of the officer who will be conducting the interview.
22.3 Representation by Counsel - Any employee who becomes the subject of a criminal
investigation may have legal counsel present during all interviews of such
employee. Such representation by counsel shall be confined to counseling and shall
not be authority for any participation by counsel in the investigation.
22.4 Employee to be Informed in Writing-Recorded Interviews - In the case of any
major investigation and before any interview commences, the employee to be
interviewed shall be informed in writing of the nature of the investigation including
information necessary to reasonably appraise him/her of the allegations of any
complaint and (s)he shall be afforded an opportunity and facilities to contact and
consult privately with an attorney of his/her own choosing before being interviewed.
Such employee may request that the interview be recorded, either mechanically or
by a stenographer, and no questions shall be asked "off the record". Upon request,
the employee under investigation shall be provided an exact copy of any written
statement (s)he has signed and a verbatim transcript of any interview of such
employee.
22.5 Interviewing Procedures - Interviews shall be held at a reasonable hour and preferably
when the employee to be interviewed is on duty unless the exigencies of the interview
indicate otherwise. Whenever possible, interviews shall be scheduled during the normal
work day of the City. Interviewing shall be completed within a reasonable time and shall be
accomplished under circumstances devoid of intimation or coercion. The employee being
interviewed shall be entitled to such intermissions as (s)he shall request for personal
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association ! 6
Januar~ 1,200:~:/through December 31,200~3
necessities, meals, telephone calls, and rest periods. All interviewing shall be limited to the
conduct or acts of the employee under investigation which form or may form the basis for
disciplinary action, termination of employment or the filing of a criminal charge.
22.6 Intimidation of Employee Prohibited - No employee under investigation shall, as a guise
for obtaining such employee's resignation, be falsely threatened with dismissal or other
disciplinary action should (s)he refuse to resign, nor shall (s)he be subjected to abusive
language or in any other manner intimated or offered promises or reward as an inducement
to answer questions.
ARTICLE 23 .......... MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATIONS
.................. atlon r-,~ D ...... ,
.............. ~ .......... ...... atlon r~ D ...... · r
.................. atlon T .... o ....., ,,*~
23.1 Effective Janualw 1, 2004, an employee who currently holds or obtains management
certifications through the Washington State Criminal Justice Trainino. Commission will
receive additional compensation for each certification as listed below:
Collective Bargaining Agreement- Bremerton Police Management Association 17
January 1, 20042 through December 31, 20043
Middle Management Certification One point seven-five percent {1.75%)
Executive Certification Two and one/half percent (2.5%)
Maximum additional compensation is capped at 4.25%
2a.~ ,a.4 Sections 23.1, ~ ~ .... ~ "- = doe_s not apply to LEOFF I employees with 21 or more
years with the City.
This ~Agreement is hereby submitted to the Bremerton City Council for approval. Upon
the approval of the Council, this agreement shall become binding upon the City, the Association
and all of the employees in the bargaining unit covered by this agreement.
APPROVED by the Bremerton City Council on the -249 day of 4~-omb~, 200_44-.
Signed this day o ............ .~m.
CITY OF BREMERTON: BREMERTON POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION:
Carol S. Conley, Human Resources Director Captain Craig Rogers, President
Robert Forbes, Police Chief Captain Thomas Wolfe ............ Vine-
President
Honorable Cary Bozeman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Paula Johnston, ~City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FOPdVI:
L~v. ~-~ ...... D. r,,,,~*,,~,~,,_.,o, Interim-Roger A. [,ubovich, City Attorney
Collective Bargaining Agreement Bremerton Police Management Association ! 8
January 1, 2004." through December 31,200~43
DATE SUBMITTED: 11/3/04 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
....................... ....... .............. .......
SUBJECT.AExtension ofinterfund loan Committee Meeting Date: 11/10/04
from the Equipment Rental & Reserve Fund COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/17/04
(510) to the Wastewater Fund (451) Department: PW&U
previously authorized by Resolution #2918 Presenter: Phil Williams
Phone: 473-5755
SUMMARY: On I/7/04, City Council authorized the Director of Financial Services to issue a loan
from the ER&R Fund (510) to the Wastewater Fund (451) in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.
$700,000 was loaned in January 2004 and $400,000 in February and October to cover cash flow needs
in the Wastewater Fund.
A long-term (8-year) financial analysis was completed by an outside consultant (EES) in August and
rate recommendations were forwarded to & passed by City Council. These rate adjustments were
designed to bring the utilities to a stable financial condition over a 3 year period. The Wastewater
Utility may need the ability to borrow money until the full package of rate adjustments are in place in
2007 and the last payment is made on the 1994 Revenue bonds for the Wastewater Treatment Facility
in September 2007 ($2,728,000).
This resolution authorizes the Director of Financial Services to extend the current terms of the
existing loan to include a cap of $2,500,000 and a due date of December 31, 2005 at the existing
interest rate of 2.5% per annum. An extention of this loan beyond 12/31/05 would require separate
approval by City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # ~-~[~oc'
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): On the current balance of $1.5 MM an interest
payment ofapprox $30,000 will be made in early 2005 (2004 13th period) on the existing loan
balance. For 2005, interest on all outstanding balances will accrue at 2.5% per annum.
APPROVALS: .,~""~/ .
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: ~ .~.~.c~-~
CITY ATTORNEY: J, ~.
FINANCE DIRECTOR: ~"" ~(~,4~[C~ .~/'.~,~d/~-----~
OPERArHONS: --_ [ CONSENT AGENDA []
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~-[)~vx~,-~.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. ~{~oc authorizing the Director
of Financial Services to extend the existing interfund loan from the ER&R Fund to the Wastewater
utility in an amount not to exceed $2.5 nfillion and a due date of 12/31/05.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
21
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bmmerton,
Washington, authorizing interfund loans to the Wastewater Utility
Fund from the Equipment Rental & Reserve Fund.
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility Fund (Fund 451) has a current cash shortfall;
and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility Fund has a history of cash deficiencies and
the Wastewater Utility Fund currently does not have sufficient resources to provide cash flow
needs without interim funding support; and
WHEREAS, reserve cash in an amount sufficient to meet the Wastewater Utility
Fund's interim funding needs is presently on hand within the Equipment Rental & Reserve
(ER&R) Fund (Fund 510) to accommodate an interfund loan through the end of 2005;
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Resolution No. 2918, the City Council on January 27,
2004 authorized an interfund loan from the ER&R fund to the Wastewater Fund in an amount up
to $1.5 million dollars and that, to date, all of this $1.5 million dollars has been transferred; and
WHEREAS, a long term financial study of the utilities has now been completed
and a program of rate adjustments for the Wastewater Utility has been adopted by the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, the long range plan shows continuing deficits in cash flow for the
Wastewater Fund until the last payment is made on the 1994 Wastewater Revenue Bonds in
September 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Bremerton's Director of Financial Services is hereby
authorized and directed to extend and increase the amount of available loan funds from the
ER&R Fund (Fund 510) to the Wastewater Utility Fund (Fund 451) as set forth in Resolution
No. 2918 from $1,500,000 to an amount not to exceed $2,500,000 to meet the cash flow needs of
the Wastewater Utility Fund. This loan shall bear interest at a rate of 2.5% per annum and shall
be repaid to the Equipment Rental and Reserve Fund from the Wastewater Utility Fund on or
before December 31, 2005.
SECTION 2. Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences
of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
22
SECTION 3. E[fective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, on this __ day of
2004.
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
ROGER LUBOVICH, City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
23
DATE SUBMITTED: t 1/3/04 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 7
CITY COUNCIL
"' ..... .................... '"-' ..... .. ......... · ...... . ......
SUBJECT:~Extension of existing lo~ from Co~iaee Meeting Date: 11/10/04
· e ER&R F~d to ULID 2002-1 Fund CO~CIL ~ET~G Date: 11/17/04
(established ~der Resolution ~2899). Dep~ment: PW&U
Presenter: Phi Willims
Phone: 473-5755
SUMMARY: There is ~ outst~ding Io~ ~om the ER&R Fund (F~d 510) to ~e ULID 2002-1
Fund (F~d 308) in an mount not to exceed $1,056,384 ~d wi~ ~ expiration date of M~ch 1,
2004 (Resolution ~2899). The project is now complete ~d ~e final costs ~e kno~. The project
was able to complete construction while ~owing only $500,000 ~om the approved inter~d lo~.
The project must now be closed out ~d ~nds sold to pay the balmce oMng to the ER&R F~d. ~y
addition~ costs on ~is project will come directly t}om the Water Fund (F~d 401). There have been
delays ~ getting the project to this ~int and ~ extension of~e due date is needed. It is requested
City Co~cil au~odze ~e Director of Fin~ci~ Se~ice to extend ~e due date for repayment of ~e
existing intend 1o~ from ~e ER&R Fund to M~ch 1, 2005 ~d reduce the authorized mount to
$500,000.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution ~
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted ~o~t): The additional interest due to the ER&R F~d ~or
a 12-month extension o~ ~e c~ent bal~ce is estimated to cost approximately $12,J00,
APPROVALS: ~/~
OPE~TIONS:
CO~CIL P~SIDENT:
~COMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution"?' No. ~q b au~oriz~g ~e Director
of Fin~cial Se~ices to extend the due date for the existing interf~d lo~ from the ER&R Fund to
· e ULID No. 2002-1 Fund to M~ch 1,2005 ~d reduce the authorized ~o~t to $500,000.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
24
RESOLUTION NO ;Lqt~(o
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton,
Washington, authorizing an interfund loan to the ULID NO. 2002-
01 Fund from the Arterial Street Fund.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance 4837 on December 4, 2002,
authorizing the formation of Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) No. 2002-01; and
WHEREAS, the ULID No. 2002-01 Fund (Fund 403) needs interim financial
resources in order to fund the construction of the water system capital improvements that are to
provide special benefit to property owners within the boundaries of ULID No. 2002-01; and
WHEREAS, such interim funding is needed within the ULID No. 2002-01 Fund
until the capital improvement project has been completed, final assessment roll established and
revenue bonds issued; and
WHEREAS, reserve cash in an amount sufficient to meet the interim funding
needs of ULID No. 2002-01 is presently on hand within the Arterial Street Fund (Fund 101); and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized a loan from the ER&R Fund on August
13, 2003 in the amount of $1,056,384 to ULID No. 2002-01 Fund with an expiration date of
March 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the current balance outstanding on this loan is $500,000 and
additional funds beyond this amount will not be required; and
WHEREAS, the construction of this project is now complete but delays in its
completion and closeout require this loan to be extended with repayment by March 1, 2005;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Bremerton's Director of Financial Services is hereby
authorized and directed to execute an interfund loan from the Arterial Street Fund (Fund 101) to
the ULID No. 2002-01 Fund (Fund 403) in the amount not to exceed $500,000 to cover the
expenses for the ULID capital development and administration. This loan shall bear interest at a
rate based on the monthly average yield from the Washington State Local Government
Investment Pool, and shall be paid to the Arterial Street Fund from ULID No. 2002-01 Fund on
or before March 1, 2005.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences
of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and
effect.
25
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force
immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, on this _ day of
2004.
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
ROGER LUBOVICH~ City Attorney PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk
DATE SUBMITTED: October 21, 2004 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
'712)
...... ...........................................................
SUB.CT: Public He~ng & Ordnance Co~ittee Meeting Date: Octo~r 27, 2004
E~ablishing the Prope~y T~ Le~ ~ounts CO~CIL MEET~G Date: ~ 11/17/~
to ~ Collected ~ 2005 Dep~ment: F~ancial Se~ices
Presenter: Michel R. Wilson
Phone: 473-5590
SUMMARY: Th~ ordmnce w~l e~ablish the regul~ propeay t~ lew ~ the mo~t of $5,275,463
~d EMS le~ ~ the amount $873,482 to ~ collected ~ 2005 which represents a percentage increase
of 1.0% ~om the previous ye~. In additio~ the Ord~ce will establish ~ excess property t~ lew
~ the mo~t of $912,030 for debt redemption of the vote-approved 2002 Public Safety UTGO
Bonds ~d $150,085 for &bt redemptbn of the voter-approved 1997 UTGO Fke Rended Bonds.
ATTACHMENTS: Property T~ Ordimnce
FISCAL ~PACTS (Include Budgeted Amour): The a~ve noted leW amounts me ~cluded in the
Pro~sed 2005 ~ual Budget
neeaOVA[S:
DEP~TMENT DI~CTOR: ~_~
CITY ATTO~EY: ',.
MAYOR:
FISC~UDGET:
OPE~TIONS: ~} ~, :~(
co ci P SI Sr:
~COMMENDED MOTION:
~n ordinaneo on firqt reading ~t~he
I move to p~s Ordinance g 4q {¢ on second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
27
ORDINANCE NO. 4q[{~9
AN ORDINANCE of' the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, establishing the amount to be collected in
2005 by taxation on the assessed valuation of taxable property
within the City limits of Bremerton and setting the property levy
rate.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton attest that the population
of the City of Bremerton for 2004 is 36,840; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton has properly given notice
of the public hearing held on November 3, 2004, to consider the City's revenue sources for the
City's General Fund budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bremerton after hearing and duly
considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, has determined that the City of
Bremerton requires a regular levy in the amount of $5,275,463 and EMS levy in the amount of
$873,482, which includes an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year, and
amounts resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any
increase in the value of state-assessed property and all allowable levies, and amounts authorized
by law as a result of any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge
the expected expenses and obligations of the City and in its best interest; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION1. That an increase in the regular property tax levy is hereby
authorized to levy property taxes to be collected in 2005 in the amount o£$5,275,463 which
represents an increase of $51,752 at a percentage increase of 1.0% from the previous year. This
increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction and
improvements to property and any increase in the value or state assessed property, and any
additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made.
SECTION2. That an increase in the EMS property tax levy is hereby authorized
to levy property taxes to be collected in 2005 in the amount $873,482 which represents an
increase of $8,569 at a percentage increase of 1.0% from the previous year. This increase is
exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction and
improvements to property and any increase in the value or state assessed property, and any
additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made.
SECTION3. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 2002 Public
Safety UTGO Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby authorized to levy
property taxes to be collected in 2005 at a rate sufficient to provide $912,030 needed to meet
debt service obligations in 2005.
1
2005 Taxes
28
SECTION 4. That a property tax levy for debt redemption of the 1997 UTGO
Fire Refunded Bonds, as previously authorized by the voters, is hereby authorized to levy
property taxes to be collected in 2005 at a rate sufficient to provide $150,085 needed to meet
debt service obligations in 2005.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full
fome and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten
(10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
Approved this day of _, 2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of ., 2004
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2004
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Finance\2005 Property Taxes.ord.doc
2
2005 Taxes
CITY OF BREMERTON
Regular Levy - Tax Year 2005
Previous Year Amount 5,175,219
Highest allowed levy since 1986 5,175,219 1.01000 Increase = 5,226,971
Difference: 5,226,971 -5,175,219 = 51,752
New Construction AV 16,015,597
Annexations,rNew Construction AV 0
New Construction Before Annex 16,015,597 x Prior rate 3.027784 48,492
Current Utilities AV 65,996,367
Prior Utilities AV 65,996,367
Change in Utilities AV 0 x Prior rate 3.027784 0
Total AV 1,860,078,939 REGULAR TAX LIMIT 5,275,463
Annx AV 0 x Calc/Max rate 2.836150 0
AV Before Annx 1,860,078,939 LIMITFOR ANNEXATION 5,275,463
Budget 0 Tax Refund 0
Override Budget 5,275,463 LEVY LIMIT AMOUNT 5,275,463
5,275,463 (2005)- 5,175,219 (2004) = 100,244
CITY OF BREMERTON
EMS Levy - Tax Year 2005
Previous Year Amount 854,856
Highest allowed levy since 1986 856,905 x 1.01000 Increase = 865,474
Difference: 865,474 - 856,905 = 8,569
New Construction AV 16,015,597
Annexations/New Construction AV 0
New Construction Before Annex 16,015,597 x Prior rate .500000 8,008
Current Utilities AV 65,996,367
Prior Utilities AV 65,996,367
Change in Utilities AV 0 x Prior rate .500000 0
Total AV 1,860,078,939 REGULAR TAX LIMIT 873,482
Annex AV 0 x Calc/Max rate .469594 0
AV Before Annx 1,860,078,939 LIMIT FOR ANNEXATION 873,482
Budget 0 Tax Refund 0
Override Budget 930,039 LEVY LIMIT AMOUNT 873,482
873,482 (2005) - 856,905 (2004) = 16,577
80
DATE SUBMITTED: October 27, 2004 BILL #
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Ordinance Connnittee Meeting Date: Sept 7, 2004
adopting new 2004 Bremerton COUNC1L MEETING Date: November.,~ 2004 c~
Comprehensive Plan and rescinding existing Department: Communit~
plans. Development
Presenter: Chris Hugo
Phone: 473-5243
SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance adopts the new 2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the result of nearly three years of community participatory activity
conducted under the City's Shaping Bremerton "Public Participation Program" adopted by Council in
2002 to guide development of the Plan. The proposed new Plan represents a completely new direction
for the development of the City over the next 20 years and relies on a growth strategy that employs
new "centers" of growth as a primary method for bringing new vitality to Bremerton. The 2004
Comprehensive Plan meets all requirements for updating comprehensive plans under the Growth
Management Act (GMA). The GMA sets a deadline of December 1, 2004, for plan updates. The
ordinance also rescinds all prior plans that are inconsistent with the direction of the new Plan.
ATTACHMENTS: DraR 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan '~0, ~,lab~ at' I)e~t-. ~f C.m~m I'~
Supplemental ElS (~Ox~'e, xt-~ly !"~ 0~o) .- t~ooo, e~;, bre~.,w,,..&-~ ,
StaffReport --.--,-~a, ~ ~
FISCAL IMPACTS (include Budgeted Amount): No immediate direct impacts, although the
proposed Plan, in time, should produce higher efficiencies in service delivery and attract new- growth
and investment to generate additional local tax revenues
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
MAYOR: ~'~/~....~
FISCAL/BUDGET: [-/~ard q/9/o~ CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT: ~b,~
RECOMMEND~_D MOTION:
Move to~al~m~l~ ordinance adoP~ting the new 2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.0~-f~t
Move to pass Ordinance # on second reading.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Approve [] Deny [] Table [] Continue [] No Action
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of
Bremerton, Washington, adopting a new Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan in
1995; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires update of the
Comprehensive plan by December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the GMA established statewide goals, guidelines, and procedural
requirements to guide the development, coordination, implementation and financing of long-
range comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, in 2002 the City initiated a public process to create an entirely new
Comprehensive Plan to pursue a more effective growth strategy; and
WHEREAS, the new plan process was based on a land use inventory, a build-out
analysis, and the City's capacity to deliver urban services to support desired growth; and
WHEREAS, the new plan process was guided by the GMA as well as centers
growth strategies adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council and in updated Kitsap
Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, the Shaping Bremerton public participation program was established
in 2002 and directly guided the review of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan and the drafting of a
new plan; and
WHEREAS, all preliminary Comprehensive Plan drafts were openly discussed
during a series of advertised public meetings before being forwarded to the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens Coordinating Council comprised of active Shaping
Bremerton participants deliberated many months during 2003 and 2004 in helping to prepare a
draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Comprehensive Plan" or "Plan") for the Bremerton City
Planning Commission's consideration; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 43.21 (c) and WAC 197-11, a draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was filed on October 22, 2004; and
1
2004 Comprehensive Plan
32
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and SEIS were made
available to citizens and organizations and were distributed to local jurisdictions, libraries, and
state agencies for the mandatory sixty-day review period; and
WHEREAS, following the required comment period, the final SEIS based on the
draft SEIS dated October 22, 2004 (incorporated herein by reference) was issued on November
24, 2004, and became final on December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held public study sessions and
public hearings on the Draft Comprehensive Plan ("Draft Comprehensive Plan" or "Plan") as
presented by staff and the staff report dated July, 15, 2003, as initially presented and
subsequently updated (the updated staff report hereby incorporated by reference), before
finalizing the Draft Comprehensive Plan and recommending it to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held numerous public heatings
on the Draft Comprehensive Plan which concluded on May 18, 2004, at which time the
Commission approved a preliminary recommended Draft Comprehensive Plan with revisions as
reflected in the updated staffreport and updated Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission held an additional public
hearing on October 26, 2004, and after considering the public input, the presentation from staff,
the updated staffreport on the Plan and the updated Draft Comprehensive Plan as presented,
(attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference), and following Commission
deliberations, the Commission approved a final Draft Comprehensive Plan as presented for
recommendation to the City Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held public study sessions and public
hearings, considered the public input, the presentation from staff, the updated staff report on the
Draft Comprehensive Plan, the hearings records and the Planning Commission recommendation
on the Draft Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council finds that the Draft Comprehensive Plan
as recommended by the Planning Commission meets the goals and intents of the Growth
Management Act; is consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional growth
strategy based on Centers; is fully consistent with Kitsap County Countywide Planning Policies;
reflects the early, open and continuous input of Bremerton citizens through the Council-approved
Shaping Bremerton Public Participation Program; is supported by environmental analyses that
conclude that the Plan's centers growth strategy offers environmental benefits; furthers the City's
interests in efficient delivery of urban governmental services; and offers expanded choices for
housing, transportation, and economic growth, consistent with the quality of life values of the
community; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2
2004 Comprehensive Plan
33
SECTION L Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and
recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. New Bremerton Comprehensive Plan adopted. The Draft
Comprehensive Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A as recommended by the Planning
Commission, is hereby adopted as the new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION3. 1995 Comprehensive Plan superseded. The 1995 Revised
Comprehensive Plan (as adopted by Resolution No. 2508 and thereafter amended by
Resolution Nos. 2702 and 2752 and Ordinance Nos. 4525, 4545, 4570, 4572, 4594, 4597,
4606, 4707, 4544, 4722, and 4783, and any other resolution or ordinance not referenced herein
amending the 1995 Revised Comprehensive Plan) is hereby superseded and replaced and of no
further force or effect by the adoption of the new Bremerton Comprehensive Plan pursuant to
this ordinance. The fact that the 1995 Revised Comprehensive Plan is superseded and replaced
herein does not repeal or affect the existence or validity of the resolutions or ordinances
referenced in this section relating to the adoption and amendment of the 1995 Revised
Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 4. Savings Clause. In the event of a conflict between the
provisions of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan as adopted by this ordinance and the
provisions of any previously adopted resolution or ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance
and the comprehensive plan as adopted herein shall prevail.
SECTION 5. Severabilit¥. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
APPROVED by the City Council the day of ,2004
PASSED by the City Council the day of ,2004
DAREN NYGREN, Council President
Approved this day of ,2004
CARY BOZEMAN, Mayor
3
2004 Comprehensive Plan
34
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PAULA JOHNSTON, City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney
PUBLISHED the day of 2004
EFFECTIVE the day of ,2004
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\LEGAL\Ordinances\Community Development\2004 Comp Plan Adoption l.doc
4
2004 Comprehensive Plan
35
Staft'Repo~. October 20, 2004
Staff Report, Bremerton Planning
Public Hearing Regarding Changes to the Draft
Recommended Comprehensive Plan
I. Amendments of the Planning Commission Recommended Draft
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Background
On May 18, 2004, the Bremerton Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Draft 2003-2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update to the City Cotmci!.
Since that date, several changes to the draft have been made. The changes are view-ed by
staff as minor, and are not intended to alter the intent, effect, or overall goal and policy
directions set by the approved draft. Hov,'ever, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission conduct a public hearing to consider the recommended changes. As the
changes could be considered substantive, this will assure that proper legal process has
been conducted.
Separate sections discussing each proposed change will follox~.
Format and Voice
The draft has been reformatted This reformatting includes a new page layout,
addition of graphics and illustrations, and some limited editing to change passive voice
active. The changes are seen within all elements of the primary plan document with the
exception of the City Services Element. The Techmcal Appendices will not be
reformatted.
The new page layout and addition of graphics necessitate little explanation The
document now exhibits a two column per page desiomn with photos, drawings and other
graphic aids added to illustrate text. The graphics include photos of areas within the City
as :veil as more generic photographs and illustrations from regional and national sources
Staff has endeavored to find examples that accurately illustrate the intent of the
section of text
Alteration of text from a passive voice to active was perfonmed to make the
document read better. Great care was given to assure that the meaning was not altered.
blarine Industrial (M1) designation
A new designation appears in an area generally between Permsylwxnia Avem;e
and ~largurite on the east and west and by the Po~ Washington Narrows on the north and
15th Street on the south This area v, as designated Park Industrial in the draft appro xed
3~
Industrial" The new designation is similar to the previous designation, but with a few key'
differences. The new designation adds an emphasis on ,~arine related industrial uses not
found in the "industrial Park" designation. These marine related industrial uses include
boat storage. Emphasis (in both designations) on addressing the interface with nearby
residential areas remains. The Marine Industrial designation provides a even stronger
mechanism for protecting adj scent uses in that it requires an internal circulation system
within a marine industrial site so that movement of boats and other activity will not occur
near neighboring properties. Both designations appear on page LU$3 of the new draft.
Centers Supporting Residential (CSR) designation
A new designation called "Center Supporting Residential" (CSR) appears along
the north side of the Port Washington Narrows. This recommended change implements a
discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of July 20th, 2004, At that m=eting, th:
Commission moved to instruct staff to prepare a policy proposal for the land use element
related to connecting Downtown, the Harrison Employment Center, and the Manette
Neighborhood Center. The CSR designation applies to large parcels that are in close
proximity to the Downto;vn Regional Center, the Marietta Neighborhgood Center and the
Harrison Employment Center and are linked to those centers by transit, a City designated
trail system, and other alternative transportation modes. The desig-nation allows medium
density residential uses. Specific density is not delineated in the proposed text, but would
instead be added during development of implementing zoning. In the past, medium
density has been defined as up to 18 units per acre. The CSR designation is described on
page LU47 of the ne~,, draft. The recommended new text is as follows:
(New name) Core Centers Supporting Residential (CCSR)
.General Development Parameters
Density: Varies, urban in nature
Height: Three stories maximum
Structure type: Medium density residential
Character: Well integrated, planned residential development
Policy Direction:
Create potential for residential development that will add a critical mass of
population supporting a strong downtown, the nearby Manette Neighborhood
Center, and the Harrison Employment Center. This residential population shoulcl
be able to circulate between the three centers by using the City's planned
"Freedom Trail", mass transit, and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
Discussion:
The Core Centers Supporting Residential designation provides for medium
density residential development in locations along, or very near, a public trail
system linking the Manette Neighborhood, Harrison Employment and Downtown
Regional CenIers The designation provides opportunity for residential
development that places additional popula!ion within easy ,,valking dista,qce of the
commercia! activities in th~=threa can!ers at the core of the City' In add?Jori,
37
CCSR locations will be well served by public transit, The intent of the designation
is to increase opportunity for significant population to locate near these centers
thus increasing their viability and level of activity, while at the same time
supporting a pedestrian option for circulation within a "loop" connecting these
three key closely related nodes of future growth.
Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center description
In the approved draft, a description of the Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center was
missing. The proposed amendment adds that description. The recommended description
appears beginning on page LUI 1 of the new draft.
The Oyster Bay Neighborhood Center is described as featuring open space and
trail systems that link the center to the nearby Oyster Bay shoreline and playfields at
Westpark as well as taking advantage of excellent marine views. Heights at the core of
the center are carefully describes to encourage the protection and utilization of view
opportunities - especially for the residential component or'the center. The Oyster Bay
center is described as an area that is not expected to develop as rapidly as several other
neighborhood centers in the Plan.
UGA designation and Eventual Growth Intent discussion
There is a change of approach regarding Urban Growth Areas included in the set
of proposed changes. This is evident in two locations in the ne,,,, draft. First, there is a
new section in the introduction chapter eatitled "Eventual Growth Intent" (see page
Introduction 10 in the new draft). Large portions of' the text found in this ne,,'*' section
were previously [ound in a section called ~Unincorporated Urban Growth Area" This old
section was also on page Introduction 10 and was repeated in the Land Use Element on
page LU6.
The new "Eventual Growth intent" section describes a new policy direction for
most areas beyond the current ([995) Urban Growth Area. A supporting "Eventual
Growth Map" on page Introduction 13 depicts most areas currently in the East Bremerton
Unassociated UGA and a large area encompassing the SKiA area as part of the eventual
~owth area. To clarify, the old section had indicated an intent to include these areas in a
new larger Bremerton Urban Growth Area while, the new section indicates that most of
this geo~aphy is an area of future interest tbr the City but will not be included in a
proposed UGA at this time.
In the Land Use Element, a new section called ~;The Urban Growth Area" is
found on page LU22. This section essentially replaces the earlier draft's discnssion. The
new UGA section - sopported by the UGA Map on a following page - indicates that, at
this time Bremerton will propose a UGA that is essentially the same as the current (1995)
area. This is consistent with the new introduction section discussed above.
The reasons for this recommended policy change spring from the technical
requirements of the Growth Management Act. In summary, one of the primary
requirements connected with establishing an Urban Growth Area is making a
demonstration ofabilit), to provide urban services to that area At the current time, that
technical work is not ia place th~ss nnaking the s, sse~xion that the City UGA slxould extend
38
from the perspective of good planning policy, the City must continue to assert the logic
and benefit of eventually guiding the destiny of these larger areas.
Them is one exception to this generally consistent change in philosophy. Gorst is
included in the proposed UGA now described in this Plan. The intimate relationship of
this area to Bremerton, its service areas, and to its image and future, indicate to staff that
it must be included in the UGA as soon as possible. Staff recommends that this proposal
be supported by a commitment to provide the needed service analysis for Gorst as soon
as possible.
Finally, the recommendation to propose a more limited UGA at this time drives
inclusion ora new section recommending that Joint Planning Areas (JPA's) be
established in cooperation with Kitsap County. JPA's are recommended at Erlands Point
and Rocky Point. JPA's could speed the ability of both jurisdictions to be prepared to
transfer these areas to full UGA status.
Amendments to the water section of the TechnicalAppendices
The Public Works Department has provided updated numbers for insertion in the
water section of the Technical Appendices. These numbers come from the draft 2005
Water Comprehensive Plan now under development. The changes do not affect the
sections ability to demonstrate adequate water capabilities to sep,'e projected
development over the first six years of the Plan.
II. Summary of the DEIS
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SETS) for the Comprehensive
Plan Update ',vas published officially in Friday October 22'''d. There public comment
period began on that date and runs until November 22, 2004 at 4:30
The Draft SEIS identifies impacts and recommends mitigation measures as needed. In ail
cases the core conclusions of the draft SEIA support selection of Land Use Scenario #3.
The Draft SEIS also concludes that the Comprehensive Plan meets all requirements of
GMA and minimizes adverse environmental impacts adequately.
The Published Draft SEIA will be provided to the Planning Commission at the earliest
available date prior to the hearing.
Prepared by:
Paul Rogerson, Plarming Manager
t 0/21/04
City of Bremerton
Department of Community Development
Staff Report
Applicant or proponent (file number): City of Bremerton
Date of Proposal: July 15, 2003 (hearing before the Planning Commission)
IProposal: Adoption of City of Bremerton 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update I
Contact: City of Bremerton, Department of Community Development: (360) 478-5275
Preface: Hearing Process, Recommended Schedule
The proposed City. of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update is a large, complex
document. Presentation of an adequate staff report, time for public testimony, and allowance for
Plarming Commission questions and discussion will take significant amounts of time. Staff
recommends as a preface to this staff report, that before proceeding with the heating, the
Planning Corranission consider a motion adopting the following schedule for future agendas. The
recommended schedule assigns discussion of particular portions of the Plan to specific dates. To
implement th_is suggestion, the Plaran/ng Comanission would, at the end of each evening listed,
continue the hearing to the suggested next suggested date rather than closed the heating
Suggested Hearing Schedule:
July 15 Discussion of process/hearing schedule, open hearing, presentation of
Introduction section, Land Use Element (includes first discussion o£1and use map scenario's),
public testimony, Commission discussion, continue hearing.
July 29 Re-open heating, discussion of Cornmunity Character Element,
Environment Element, and Housing Element, public testimony, Commission discussion,
continue hearing
August 12 Re-open hearing, presentation of Economic Development Element, City Services
Element, Transportation Element, public testimony, Commission discussion, continue hearing
August 26 Re-open hear/ng, presentation of Summation and Element consistency, Second
discussion of land use scenar/o's, selection o£preferred alternative, close hearing, action.
Please note: Dates are on ~,o .,eek itm,~a£ this allah's Commi~sion and staff adequale srudy/.vreparation
time. Actual dates can be adjusted, £refera.bO' upon initial adoFzion of the schedule.
This staff report will be configured hereatSer to conform to the above order.
Procedural History and requirements
Existing comp plan adopted. The City of Bremerton adopted the comprehensive plan currently in
effect on April 5th, 1995. The plan is fully compliant with the Growth Management Act.
GMA requires update. In 2002, the Washington State legislatum amended the Growth
Management Act to establish that Kitsap County and the jurisdictions within must revise their
comprehensive plans (and related development regulations), "On or before December 1, 2004, and every
seven years thereafter..."( RCW 36.70A.130(4)(a))
City of Bremerton sets earlier target date. Responding to an earlier legislative mandate that was
subsequently amended as related above, the City of Bremerton has committed to adopting a
comprehensive plan Revision (Update) in mid 2003. The Update comprehensive plan that is the subject of
this staff report and the public hearing)s) that it supports, is a response to that commitment.
Mandatory Elements. The Growth Management Act establishes at RCW 36.70A.070, that each
(city) comprehensive plan includes; 1) a land use element, 2) a housing element, 3) a capital facilities
element, 4) a utilities element (note: the capital facilities and utilities elements are combined in
Bremerton's plan under the title "City Services Element", 5) a transportation element, 6) an economic
development element, and 7) a park and recreation element.
Additional requirements. The Growth Management Act also includes several additional
requirements that govern the form of the Plan. Th. ese include a requirement that the plan be internally
consistent, compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions, and include an assessment of an ability to
serve urban areas with urban services.
Citizen process
"Early and continuous "public participation required. The Growth Management Act requires that
comprehensive plans be developed under a program of intense and continuous community participation
(RCW 36.70A.140). This Plan was developed after nearly one and a half years of just such citizen
leadership. The "Shaping Bremerton" process employed in the development of this plan consisted of early
comraunity workshops, followed by nearly a year of citizen subcommittee work focusing a different
citizens group on each plan element, and completed by the work ora "coordinating council" of citizens
who reconciled the work of the earlier groups into an internally consistent whole. Public hearings before
the Bremerton Planning Commission and the City Council will complete the participatory pmgrarn.
Elements;
Introduction Section:
In addition to setting the stage and providing some discussion of the structure and legal
requirements of Comprehensive Planning under the Growth Management Act, the primary
feature of the introduction section is a fairly detailed description of the population and
employment forecasts that form the basis of much of the remainder of the Plan.
Population projections. Population and employment projections are calculated for each
of 125 zones in the city. For convenience and consistency, the zones employed were
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) employed by IGtsap County and for which at least some
historic data is available. Based on records of permit issuance for residences o,,'er the period from
1995 to 2000, existing 2000 data for each TAZ was projected for,yard to the year 2023 - the end
of the 20 year planning horizon employed by t~s pIan. That projection was made by assuming
2
41
that the rate of residential development in most TAZ's would continue at approximately the same
rate as reflected by the 1995-99 growth. (about .46% annual) The viability of this growth was
checked by referring to the 2002 Kitsap County Buildable Lands Analysis. The Analysis
confirms that more than sufficient developable property exists to accommodate this level of
growth.
In addition to this "background" growth, new residential uses in the "centers" were added in
appropriate TAZ's.
Centers population expectations were calculated as follows.
Population projections for neighborhood and district centers were based on cormmonly accepted
models of centers size and proportion of residential to other uses. The potential residential
acreage of each center was calculated. Multiplying each centers' residential acres by assumed
residential densities and household sizes yielded a potentiaI population within the center at full
build out. The full buildout was then reduced to a number that corresponds to the expected
population growth within the twenty year time frame. This was accomplished through a
G.I.S/aeriaI photo based analysis of the proportion of land within the center that was
undeveloped or significantly underdeveloped. The analysis then looked at the relative availability
of key services such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation at the center.
Centers were "rated as to what proportion of the full build out could be expected within the next
20 years. These calculations are reflected in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix PP.
Population projections for two employlnent Centers, The Port Blakelv Employment Center and
the Pope and Talbot Employment Center. were added based on discu~-sions with the owners of
the sites. A modest buildout of 750 persons was assumed for each employment center o~er the
twenty year plmnzing period. That number was assikmed to the appropriat'e TAZ. It should be
noted that these calculations assume that no portion of the population in the two employment
centers will occur within the first six years of the plam~ing pehod. As a result, total population
mid emplo.xqnent figmres u, ere employed for purposes of capital fac/lit/es anali~sis - including
that for transportation needs and growXh impacts - that do not include these 1,500 additional
people.
Twenty year centers populations were disaggregated to appropriate TAZ's and added to the non-
center population projection for the TAZ. Final year 2023 population projections for each TAZ
and for the entire City resulted and are indicated on Table 4.
Footnotes following each table cite data sources, and provide additional detail regarding
methodology.
In summary the following projections emerge;
Population:
Total projected City, population in 2023 is projected at just over 50,000 (Iable 4, column
10), This is an increase of approximately 13,000 over the 2000 census figure of 37,165. Of
this increase, 7574, or approximately 58%, occurs in the new neighborhood or district
centers (see Table 4, colunm 8). Population in the UGA reaches over 58,500 compared to aa
estimated 2000 population of 44,81S.
3
,t2
Employment:
Employment is calculated in essentially the same manner. Year 2000 Kitsap County TAZ
employment data in seven categories was used to make projections of year 2023 employment by
applying growth rate data from the Washington State Department of Employment Security.
Employment projections are summarized in Appendix XX, Table 5. Employment forecasts for
each center were added to the appropriate TAZ without regard to category. Appendix XX Table
5, provides the resultant projection for each TAZ. Further details of non-centers employment
growth calculations are reflected in Table 6.
In sum, employment forecast indicates that overall employment in the City will rise from its
current level of approximately 45,000 to approximately 54,000 over the next twenty years. Of
that total growth of 9,000 jobs, about 4,000 or 45% will be in the centers. One factor suggested
here is that significant vacant and developable land area will be needed for employment
generating activities. It should be noted that those areas are already part of the City. Notable
large blocks among these areas are the Pope and Talbot and Port Blakely Properties in the west
hills area.
Land Use Element
After a discussion of existing land use conditions, the Land Use Element moves to a forecast of
projected land use conditions. This section and those that follow are the heart of the Land Use
Element.
Land Need. Through a complex series of calculations, the Plan estimates levels of
residential, commercial, and industrial land needed to accommodate the expected population.
h LU 13 Table LU iv on page LU13
These calculations are discussed on pages LU9 throug · ·
summarizes the result.
Table LU.iv Summary of Additional Land Need
Type Additional Land Needed (gross acres)
314 -531
Neighborhood SF 37-124
Non-centers MF 144-172
Centers SF+MF 17-25
DT center MF
Total Residential 512-852
65
Cent~,r Commercial 52
Non-center Commercial
Total Commercial 127
126
Industrial (tota!)
4
43
The population and employment projections for the outline of the challenge that the plan must
respond to. In the case of the land use element, it must be shown that adequate land is provided
for the new residences, commercial areas, industrial areas, parks, schools, and open space to
accommodate the expected population. This is the technical work of the Land Use Element.
In addition to demonstrating that adequate land is provided, the Land Use Element must show
that the organization of land uses responds to community vision, goals and policies. These
expressions of community desires form the policy framework, upon which the technical work
must be based.
Communi¢ Fision, Goals, and Policies. Community participation efibrts employed in
preparing the Land Use Element - and the other Plan elements as well - focused intense
communi .ty attention of crafting a set of ~iding principals that are to be used in responding to
the challenges implied by the population projections and land need calculations. The most
fundamental iteration of that set of principals is the Land Use Vision Statement found on the first
page of the Element (page LU1). Primary themes that emerge in the Land Use Vision Statement
are; providing for economic vitality and diverse lifestyles, providing housing and transportation
options, supporting and improving viable walkable neighborhoods, addressing shorelines views,
and parks needs, and protecting community charm, historical character, and cultural heritage.
The land use goals and policies that been on page LU 14 further expand and detail these basic
themes. Taken together, these themes form the policy framework upon which a response to the
challenges posed by the land needs must be hung. They are the heart of the Land Use Element
and guide the remainder of tkis Plan section. The land use scenario maps that follow represent
alternative responses to satisfying the vision and communit5 goals expressed while addressing
the technical needs calculated.
Centers approach. In crafting a holistic response to the technical challenges and the
community's expressed vision, goals, and policies, it became evident that a physical planning
model built around the concept of urban "centers" presented the best possible solution. Two
general types of Centers are employed in the land use concept that shapes this Plan;
Neighborhood Centers and District Centers. In addition, the downtown is a regional center.
While this plan employs two general types, no two centers are envisioned to be exactly alike.
While the centers types are based on sound planning principals that assess proper mixes of uses,
necessary quantities of residential and commercial uses, and proven design principals, there is a
range of mixes, quantities, and design approaches that can be successful. Within that range, then,
each center will vary somewhat as it responds to its neigIlborhood envirorgnent, its specific
function within the large fabric of the city, and local preferences. More detailed planmng for
centers implementation will further recognize the particular quality of each center.
)&ighborhood Ce~ters
Neighborhood centers are the smaller of the Vano general types. Neighborhood centers provide a
focus for a single neighborhood area of approximately, one square mile. Key se~4ces are
prox'ided within a walkable ciistance to the ser,'ed neighborhood. Neighborhood centers place
services in locations and within a desi~ paradigm that encourage walking and reduce
dependence on automobile travel. This serves to reduce use of automobiles and reduces
congestion and pollution in Bremerton. In the early stages of implementation of the centers
concept in Bremerton, the first neighborhood centers may be expected to serve a somewhat
larger area until additional neighborhood centers become viable.
Size and internal population and commercial bases for a neighborhood center are calculated to
combine with nearby residential areas to provide a market base for businesses. Small groceries,
shops, and professional and public services are encouraged. Moderately intense residential use is
incorporated above the commercial spaces within mixed use structures or near the ceater's core
to create a busy, pedestrian oriented, activity center. Design reference is given to pedestrians to
the greatest degree possible. Neighborhood centers typically have at least one "focus amenity"
such as a park/open space, community center or civic space, post office or other public facility,
or a school. In sum, neighborhood centers place convenient and attractive nodes of mixed uses
within easy walking distance of a majority of Bremerton's citizens, adding a place for social
contact, and a pleasing urban experience.
District Centers
District centers are the larger center type. They are sized and designed to provide a focus, and
services, for several neighborhoods. Commercial and professional uses are more plentiful and of
larger scale than those in neighborhood centers. Residential uses are also focused in more dense
patterns. While district centers are characterized by a pedestrian based design ethic, they also
recognize that a segment of users will access the center by automobile. Alternative circulation to
and from nearby arterials, parking immediately outside the pedestrian core, and a recognition
that certain medium intensity employers may locate within the center, are distinguishing
characteristics. District centers will typically have several key "focus amenities". In the larger
district centers, focus amenities may be needed on either side of major arterials to minimize
pedestrian/traffic conflicts.
Land tyke Scenario Maps. During the Planning Commission heating process, three
alternative map responses will be presented. Because; 1) they are currently available in large-
format only, and 2) none has been chosen as the alternative to be moved forward, they are not
printed in the Plan document as yet - or in this staffreport. A "place-holder" page is provided in
the Draft Plan indicating the future location of the one alternative that is chosen. This staffreport
will summarize the rationale and major features of each alternative map.
Scenario #1 Current Patterns
The "Current Patterns" alternative depicts the possible future development pattern if the
development rationale currently operating continues to guide development in the community.
Most notably, the scenario shows continuing expansion of new commercial development along
high traffic corridors. New "strips" of commercial development appear along busy arterial streets
such as Svlvan Way and Riddell Road - expanding the commercial areas into neighborhoods not
currently'witnessing such development. In addition, new areas along existing commercial
corridors such as Wheaton way are devoted to commercial expansion - effectively "widening"
these condors and encroaching into current residential areas behind. Lands currently designated
fbr apartments but vacant, are more fully built-out, introducing medium density housing
complexes into existing neighborhoods with increasing frequency. There are significant levels of
new single fm'nily subdivisions created at the periphery of the City' and into the surrounding
6
45
Urban Growth /crea. This scenario does not attempt to respond to the vision, goals, or
policies created by the community during the Shaping Bremerton process.
Seenarion #2 Moderate Implementation
Scenario #2 responds to the vision, goals, and policies. This map approach (and #3 to follow)
employ a community design that relies on the installation of"centers" to implement the guiding
vision, goals and policies received from the community. Scenerio #2 is subtitled, "Moderate
Implementation". This means that it attempts to suppor~ the creation of the centers model with
somewhat more tempered strategies than are employed by the third scenario. The primary
rationale' employed is as follows; 1) neighborhood centers, district centers, employment centers,
are designated, and 2) medium and high density residential designations on properties that are
vacant or that are not immediately adjacent to a center are replaced by low density residential
designation. In essence, the approach reflects an effort to direct the majority of new multifamily
residential development and a large proportion of new commercial projects into centers by
reducing opportunity for that growth to disperse across the community. At the same time,
Scenario #2 avoids re-designating properties with existing development to legal non-conforming
status.
Seenarion #3 Ambitious Implementation
Scenario #3 is subtitled, "Ambitious Implementation". This subtitle refers to the relatively more
aggressive steps taken to support the establishment of centers. This scenario also clearly
implements the vision, goals, and policies developed by citizens. The primary, rationale
employed by Scenario #3 is: 1) neighborhood centers, district centers, employment centers are
designated, and 2) virtually all medium and h/gh density residential designations (outside of
centers) are re-designated to low density residential. The approach reflects a stronger effort than
seen in scenario #2 to direct the majori~ of new multifamily residential development and a large
proportion of new commercial projects into centers by reducing opporturdty for that growth to
disperse across the community. In re-designating medium and high density residential properties
to low density residential ,and in some cases re-designating commercially designated properties
to non-commercial uses, this scenario would eventually result in a significant number of
properties becoming legal non-conforming under implementing zoning.
Impact Comparison Matrix. The attached matrix presents a qualitative comparison of the effects
and impacts of the three land use scenaho's. (see attachment A)
Land.~vailability. This comprehensive plan must demonstrate that adequate land exists to
accommodate the projected growth. To make this demonstration, the Plan compares the land
needs discussed above with the designations depicted on the Future Land Use Map(s)
Residential Land Supply
The land needs analysis indicates that bem'een 512 and 852 acres of additional residential land
will be needed over the next 20 years to accommodate the expected population increase. This
estimate is comprised of two primaD, components, non-centers residential need and centers need.
Of 13,000 new population, approximately 7.~75 are intended to be accommodated in Centers,
u'hile the remaining 5,600 ctist,dbuted ~s %fill" to non-centers It,cations.
7
46
Residential pojvulation in non-centers locations
The Kitsap County Buildable Land Analysis estimates that, in 2002, there were 446 net vacant
residential acres in Bremerton. While the Buildable Land Analysis also estimates that there was
an additional 224 net acres of"underutilized" residential lands, this analysis does not rely on that
additional potential acreage, This is because the City is not confident about the methodology
used in the Buildable Land Analysis to determine the likelihood that a currently utilized parcel is
likely to be redeveloped for additional residential uses.
If the 446 acres that are more clearly available for siting residential uses is discounted by a 30%
market factor, it can be estimated that about 312 acres is likely to be available for residential
development. By dividing the 312 acres into the 5,600 population and employing an assumed
household size of 2.4 persons, it is calculated that by employing an average density of 7.5 units
per acre the expected population can be accommodated on the available acres. This density is
within the range assigned to the Low Density Residential land use desi~mmtion in this Plan.
During implementation of this comprehensive plan, care will be taken to assure that average
density in new residential areas (outside of centers) in that range is enabled under zoning and
subdivision regulations.
(Temporary Note: A relatively small proportion of the available lands employed in this calculation are currently
desiunated for medium or high density res dential uses. However, this calculation assumes that all of these ivlDR and
· · · ~, T~. qeenario #3 If Scenario #'~ is chosen capacit)' will
HDt~ lands will be re-designated to LDR as dep~ctea n .~ana
increase due to MDR and HDR designations on currently developed parcels that remain. If Scenario #1 is chosen.
capacity' will be even higher as M]DR and HDR desi(_mations on vacant and currently developed parcels remain.
In Sum, the calculations discussed in the draft plan demonstrate that there is sufficient
capacity in on existing lands outside of centers to accommodate the expected increase in
population assigned to those areas. While the demonstrated capacity is at the low and of
the range of need calculated in the Plan, it must be noted that the number employed uses a
significant market factor, and assumes the maximum re-designation to lower density
ranges possible under the three land use scenario's currently under consideration. In
addition, it is known that there is a high amount of excess capacity available in centers that
would be able to accept additional residential growth (see discussion below). This acts as
"safety valve".
ResidentiaI population in centers.
The population projection employed by the draft plan was developed under an assumption about
the potential population accommodation of centers as designated and conceived by the Plan· In
other words, once a community decision to employ the cent,s concept is arrived at, and once the
poteatial centers are identified, sized, and assumptions about densities and mixes of uses in each
center arc developed, these factors are employed to calculate population accommodation
potential. In addltJon, full build-out population of each center is tempered by assumptions that
much less than full build-out will occur during the current 20-year planning period. The
population accommodation assxmptions employed for centers in this plan represent only 20-50%
of the total pot~tial population in anS' giw~n center. Table XX, found in appendix PP of the plan
depicts the population calculations employed for eacb~ center.
Given the methodology described above, it can be easily stated that the centers-related
proportion of overall population increases in the City during the 20-year planning period
are accommodate by design.
Commercial Land Supply
Vacant commercial land need is calculated in two major categories, centers commercial and non-
centers commercial. These needs are calculated at 65 and 52 acres respectively. (see table LU.iv,
page LU13 of the Plan).
Centers commercial land is calculated on (Table 1, appendix PP). This table indicates the
proportion of each mixed use center that that is expected to be available for commercial uses.
Those lands total to 135 acres. This number exceeds the mounted needed (65 acres). This
excess is attributable to the expectation that not all of the available commercial land in centers
will be built-out during the initial 20-year planning period.
The non-centers commercial land need is calculated at 52 acres (Table LU.iv). An estrnate of
vacant commercial land. Outside of centers designations was performed by City staff using GIS
technology and a review of aerial photography. That estimate reveals that there are
approximately 86 acres of such land designated under scenario's #2 and #3. this, once again
exceeds the calculated need.
The issue of parcel size is crucial in such calculations and discussions. Commercial development
occurs at a variety of scales. It is important that at least some commercial properties are of
sufficient scale to accommodate larger stores and commercial establishments. The City analysis
indicates that several larger parcels are available in or near the Upper Wheaton District Center as
well as within the larger mixed use employment centers anticipated in the western areas of the
City (see land use map(s). While these western areas are formally designated for industrial uses,
the employment centers designation also calls for mixing commercial (and residential) uses on
these properties.
Industrial Land Supply
The land needs analysis in the previous section indicates that approximately 126 new acres of
vacant industrial land is needed within the twenty year planning period to accorrmaodate the
expected population increase. All three scenario maps indicate large tracts of industrial or
business park designation in the western areas of the City. Of the approximately 1,075 total acres
in these two land use designations, up to 90% is currently vacant. The primal' areas of vacancy
are on properties known as the "Pope and Talbot" and Port Blakely" properties. In sum, vacant
industrial land far exceeds the need calculated in the previous section of the Plan.
¢)'ban Growth Arec,
This 3taf. f r~£ort wH! bt' amended to include this section
9
48
Community Character Element
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Housing Element
This staff report will be antended to include this section
Environment Element
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Economic Development Element
This staff report will be atnended to include this section
Transportation Element
This staff report will be antended to include this section
City Services Element Utilities
Capital Facilities
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Land Use Scenarios and Plan consistency
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Decision Criteria:
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Staff Recommendation:
This staff report will be amended to include this section
Environmental Determination: pending P.C. action
Date and Method of Public Notice: Notice of public hearing of July 15, 2003 was
published in the Bremerton Sun on July 5,2003
staff Report Prepared by: Paul Rogerson, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Land Use Scenario, Impact Comparison Analysis
Exhibit B: introduction ~,,.~,t n
Exhibit C: Land Use Element
E,,h,bk D...Z ..... as per amended staff report
10
49
Staff Report
Before the Bremerton Planning Commission
Case # ................
Adoption of the 2003-2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update
January 20, 2004
Procedural Recommendations
Phasing of staff reports/plan topics and elements
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive staff briefings
regarding the 2003-2004 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update in a
phased manner. In such a phased format, the Commission would hear staff
reports on a limited portion of the plan during each of several evenings of public
hearing. Public testimony would be allowed following each presentation of a
portion of staff report.
This approach enables the Commission and public alike to digest this
large and complex document in reasonably sized "portions"
Staff estimates that - at a minimum three hearing sessions would be
necessary for this approach. Potential hearings/staff report topics could be
arranged as follows;
Hearing opens (January 20th) Introduction to the Plan, Community Vision,
challenges identified, Centers concept.
First continuation (approx February 3rd) Population and employment projections,
land use element community character element.
Second continuation (approx February 1 7th) Transportation Element, Housing
element, Environment Element
Third continuation (approx March 2nd) Economic Development Element, City
Services Element, Closing summary)
Continuance
To facilitate the phased hearing approach outlined above, Commission
should be prepared to continue hearings to subsequent sessions as necessary.
Staff recommends that approximately two weeks between sessions of the
hearing would be appropriate and allow sufficient time for public notice and for
staff to respond to instructions from the Commission issued at the previous
hearing session.
R:\Co.m_,muniD, Dcvelopmm~t.shaping bre~r~erton'CP heafings'.Pianning Commission Staff
Report - adoption heating 012004 #1.doc
1
50
Background
Community Process
On January 16, 2002 the City Council adopted by an 8-0 vote the
Bremerton Comprehensive Planning Public Participation Program instructing the
Bremerton Planning Commission to conduct an open, public process culminating
in a recommended Comprehensive Plan Update for consideration by the City
Council. With the assistance of staff, the Planning Commission has completed
and satisfied all requirements of that Program appropriate to date. The Public
Participation Program and files demonstrating this compliance are available at
the City's Department of Community Development. The Public Participation
Program is attached to this staff Report as Exhibit A.
Growth Management Act Requirements
While the foremost requirement placed on communities by the State's
Growth Management Act is perhaps that a plan address local challenges as
defined by "early and continuous public participation", There are a number of
technical requirements defined in the Act as well. These are too numerous to list
here in their entirety. However the following is a summary of the most important
of the GMA requirements.
In 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth
Management Act largely a response to the realization that "business as usual"
was leading to significant problems. The GMA provides a framework for each
community to address the challenges of growth and change in a more realistic
and sustainable way. It also recognizes that some central issues exist for all
communities and that these issues have implications for the state as a whole. At
the heart of the GMA is a requirement that each community deal with what had
become a traditional tendency toward sprawling development patterns. It has
been widely recognized that sprawl is central to the problems that are facing
Washington's communities, including rising traffic congestion, environmental
degradation, loss of the resource lands that provide the states' economic engine,
and costly regulatory/property rights conflicts. The Growth Management Act
outlines a planning framework that encourages each community to respond to
these issues (and others) in a way that is consistent with its unique situation and
in keeping with its vision, values, and goals as a community. The Act also
encourages the creation of local plans that address some key values of the
people of the State as a whole, and that such plans are coordinated from one
jurisdiction to the next. An important measure employed to assure this planning
approach is the requirement that all plans constructed under GMA address 13
basic planning goals.
The Thirteen Basic Goals of GMA
The thirteen goals of the Growth Management Act are as follows:
R:\Comamunib' Deveio?ment',$haping b~eme~ton',EP headngs"®lam~ng Com~nission Stuff
Report. - adoption hearing 012004 #1 .doc
51
Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling, Iow density development.
Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are
based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive
plans.
Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to alt economic
segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Economic Development. Encourage economic development throughout the
state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic
development opportunity for all citizens of the state, especially for unemployed
and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing
insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural
resources, public services, and public facilities.
Property Rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
Permits, Applications for both state and local permits should be processed in a
timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
Natural Resource Industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource based
industries, including timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands,
discourage incompatible uses.
Open space and Recreation. Encourage the retention of open space and
development of recreation opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,
increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks.
Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
Citizen Participation and Coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens
in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and
jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
Public Facilities and Services. Ensure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development
at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without
decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
Historic Preservation. identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites,
and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
(RCW 36.70A.020)
In addition to responding to these thirteen goals, the GMA asks that each
community address certain additional core issues. Some of the key issues
addressed by the Plan and required by GMA are listed below:
K:,CommupJty Dex, elopment,shaping breme~on CP he2~dngs,?la~ming Corn.mission SiM?
Repo~ - adoption hearing 012004 #1 doc:
Citizen Participation
The Act requires "early and continuous" citizen participation throughout the
planning process. A previous section oft this staff report summarizes the
extensive public participation effort that has been conducted.
Protection of Natural Resources and Critical Areas
The Act requires jurisdictions to identify and protect steep slopes, wetlands,
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas as well
as forest, agriculture and mineral resource lands.
Urban Growth Areas
Following suggestions from its cities, Kitsap County was required to identify
existing urban areas, determine 20-year urban growth needs, and establish
Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) as needed to accommodate urban growth. The
existing cities and their UGA's are intended to accept the majority of the County's
new growth, as directed by the Countywide Planning Policies, thus relieving
development pressures in rural areas.
Coordinated Policies
Cities and counties work together to establish Countywide Planning Policies that
guide the individual planning programs and help ensure consistency.
Concurrency
Plans must be realistic and workable. If plans call for new development, the Plan
must indicate how the needed public services and utilities will be provided within
a reasonable amount of time. If adequate resources cannot be identified,
development cannot be allowed.
Levels of Service
in order to deal with traffic and congestion resulting from new development, new
requirements for transportation planning include the measuring of existing Levels
of Service (LOS), discussion within the community leading to adoption of future
Level or Service Standards reflecting levels of congestion and transportation
quality that are acceptable to the community, and a plan that assures that - as
development occurs -the adopted standard will not be violated. This is called the
concurrency requirement Plans under GMA may also require that other urban
services, such as police protection, water and sewer service, library services,
etc., be maintained at a LOS set by the community concurrent with growth. This
Plan does institute that requirement for 11 types of services.
Agency Compliance
Not only are local plans required to be consistent with each other, but State
agencies are also required to comply with local plans and development
regulations.
R:',Com~munit7 Development' shaping bren~erton',CP hea,dn?~Plamning Commission Sta£f
P. epot-t - adoption heating 012004 ~1 .doc
4
53
Relationship to Regulations
Land use regulations are the tools that implement the Comprehensive Plan and,
therefore, must be consistent with the Plan. If the Plan shows high-density
residential development in a particular location, the Zoning Map must show a
similar zoning designation. If the Plan calls for certain street development
standards within Iow-density neighborhoods, then these standards must be
adopted and applied as new development occurs.
Following preparation of the updated Comprehensive Plan, development
regulations will be prepared and revised as necessary. The primary regulations
to be dealt with include those governing critical areas; zoning; development
standards and guidelines; subdivisions; and shorelines.
Periodic Review and Update of the Comprehensive Plan
Following adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan and related development
regulations, the City shall continually monitor their effectiveness and document
needed amendments. A major review of the Plan will be conducted at five-year
intervals and annual amendments will be considered in accordance with the
process established in this plan and implementing regulations.
Introduction to the Plan
Overview of Plan organization
The 2003-2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update is organized as
provided in the Growth Management Act. It is organized into elements
addressing Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Economic Development, Utilities
and Capital Facilities (addressed together within the City Services Element), and
Environment. In addition, the City has chosen to create a unique element
summarizing themes of the overall document in an urban design context. This
additional Element is called the Community Character Element.
Internally, each of these elements is formatted in a similar manner.
Typically, an element begins with a vision statement - prepared by citizens - that
outlines community vision for the future of Bremerton in a way that is specific to
that topic area. The element will then provide; 1 ) an analysis of existing
conditions and challenges visa vie the topic; 2) a forecast of future conditions
consistent with the plans' population forecast and other base assumptions; 3) a
set of goals and policies that represent the community's desired response to
those conditions and forecasts; and, 4) other data and/or descriptions that
provide additional detail regarding the solutions set-forth by the goals and
policies. These additional materials often include crucial items such as the Future
Land Use Map.
Four of the elements, Land Use, Transportation, Housing, and City
Services are accompanied by technical appendices. The appendix sections are
located in a companion volume entitled "TechnicalAppendices- 2003-2004 City
of Bremerton Comprehensive P/an Update"
R:~Co.,ztrn, unity Developn~ent' si:~ping b:e~:~er~o.~:' CP he~fings,Pla~aing Commission Statf
Repo.,'t - adoption h~aring 012004 =1 .doc
54
Challenges
During the initial stages of community dialogue, members of the public
identified a number of challenges. They were aware that - to create a successful
future - Bremerton would have to address these issues. The identified
challenges are not part of the Comprehensive Plan, but one particular issue is, in
fact, one of the major ddvers of this plan. That issue is the fact that Bremerton
has not had significant population growth for several decades. The citizens
recognized that to recapture social and economic vitality it would be necessary to
create a new climate, offer new opportunities, and otherwise change the planning
model that has been employed during this period of stagnation. The vision
statement that followed, as well as much of the remainder of the new plan, is a
response to these challenges.
Plan Foundation: the Community Vision
The 2003-1004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update is based on a
vision of the future shared by Bremerton's citizens. During the initial stages of the
public process that guided the creation of this Plan, exhaustive effort by
community members led to the wdting of a "Vision Statement" describing the
qualities, capacities, look and feel that community members felt should be
apparent in Bremerton by the end of the twenty-year planning period covered by
the Plan. In other words, citizens described the community that they wished to
create over the next twenty years. This provides the "target" toward which all
other goals, policies and recommendations contained in the plan seek to move
the community toward.
The Vision Statement is too long to re-print here. It is found at the
beginning of the Community Character Element of the Plan. In summary,
however, it speaks of a desire for strong neighborhoods, new opportunities for
vitality in urban centers, a strong downtown, and "healthy" growth.
Plan Themes
As citizens created goals and policies that would act as a guide, leading
individuals and, (especially) decision makers consistently toward the future
envisioned in the community's Vision Statement, a series of "themes" emerged.
Without preconception, citizens working on separate sections (elements) of the
Plan began to address a set of core ideas. These core ideas signaled that a
diverse array of citizens identified very similar ideas and needs as central to the
future success of Bremerton. Eventually, these core themes were assembled into
a new plan element that is now called the Community Character Element. The
themes are;
1. Distinctive growth, with viable neighborhoods and centers that provide
greater choice and convenience
2. Enticing new development, with a focus on the town center
3. Supportice transportation, with seamless, efficient, and varied choices
R:',,Com2nu~,Jty Developmenfsha?ing breme~on',CP h~afings'~Plar~ning Con~a*nisMon Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 #1 .doe
4. Improved accessibility, especially for the pedestrian
5. Quality housing, with broader choices
6. Business support, with increased opportunity
7. Environmental management, integrating natural systems
8. Community service, focusing on assets
Design Review
As citizens refined community goals and policies, another primary
realization emerged; that many of the aspirations for the future guiding this Plan
were related to urban design issues. The citizen authors noted that the route to
reaching goals as varied as; 1 ) providing vital urban nodes a core for successful
neighborhoods, to; 2) returning to a more friendly pedestrian based community,
to; 3) increasing our attractiveness to new business and employment (just to
name a few) ALL ran through a consideration of the key design issues. The look
and feel, the way complex systems are integrated, and the amenities provided
needed to be carefully designed if the complex solutions being considered for
complex problems had any hope of successful implementation.
The Community Character Element especially summarizes the
communities recommendations visa vie urban design issues.
The Centers Concept
The final, and perhaps most important, realization that emerged from the
citizen-participatory process was that many of the challenges identified by the
Planning process, and the vast majority the goals set by the community as a
response, pointed toward the same solution - the idea of "centers". Community
desire for; stronger neighborhoods, more pedestrian oriented development, more
transportation options, increased housing choices, more locations for attracting
new business opportunity and employment, more efficient use of public dollars;
and for a more attractive, better designed community could all be addressed by
a concept called "centers".
tn general, centers are carefully designed areas of mixed-use
development featuring retail, commercial, office, and residential uses within easy
walking distance. They provide living, shopping, employment, recreational, and
social opportunities at the core of a larger neighborhood. Often they are
described as similar to the old-fashioned small town downtown.
The Land Use Element describes the centers concept as implemented in
Bremerton. The section of this staff report on the Land Use Element will provide
greater detail. That section will discuss centers characteristics, centers benefits,
the demographics of centers, and the part centers play in the larger planning
scheme presented by the Plan. The Plan will suggest that three types of centers
be located in Bremerton, neighborhood centers, district centers, and employment
centers. In addition the downtown is identified as a regional center. The Plan's
Future Land Use Map designates locations for all centers types.
R:',Commurdt? Deveh~pme. nt .shaping br~me~on.CP hea:-ings.Pianning Co~mission Staff
P, eport.. - adopd )n hearing 0i2004 =l.doc
56
Plan data
In addition to the challenges identified, and the community response to
those challenges as expressed in goals, policies, themes and concepts, the
2003-2004 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update has technical underpinnings
that also must be understood. As required by the GMA, the plan projects future
technical conditions and crafts a response. The eventual implementation of the
directions set by the Plan's goals and policies must be adequate to address
future conditions as described by population and employment projections and
related traffic forecasts, land needs, housing needs, economic conditions,
environmental challenges, financial needs - and the like.
The following section explains the methodologies and results of population
and employment projections that drive the technical factors addressed by the
Plan.
Population and Employment forecasts
population
By state law, the Washington State Office of Financial Management
IOFM) is tasked with providing a range of population projections for each county
in the State. It is left to the county, and the jurisdictions within, to cooperatively
decide how those new persons will be accommodated. It should be understood
from the outset that the OFM range - while mandated by State law (GM^) - is
quite broad.
Kitsap County and its iurisdictions, including the City of Bremerton, have
agreed that each jurisdiction should conduct a community dialogue about its
desired future, decide how it wants to grow, and calculate its ability to
accommodate some portion of the county population allocation. Bremerton has
conducted just such a process. The Comprehensive Plan Update is the
conclusion of that exercise. Citizens have spoken regarding the type of future
community they envision. The City has employed that vision to determine
locations for new growth and set development intensities. The resultant land use
map and policies accommodate new people and endeavor to attract new
commercial and industrial activity. The following population projections grow out
of: that design and, in turn, guide the form and content of much of this Plan.
The population projection is guided by several key parameters. First, there
has been very little history of population growth in Bremerton during the past
several decades. However, sole reliance on such historical population trends for
forecasting purposes is not consistent with local, regional, or State goals that
include increasing the proportion of new growth that occurs in existing urban
areas. Under the Growth Management Act and the regional strategy agreed to
within the Kitsap County County-Wide Planning Policies, it is assumed that this
decades-old pattern of stagnant population levels within Bremerton will be
broken. Finally, this plan includes changes in community design ethic, and
R:,,Com. murfity Development'shaping breme~on',CP hear/ngs,Pimmning Corrmaission Staff'
Report - adoption hea:ing 012004 ~l.doc
8
57
emphasis on regulatory incentives, which should prove sufficient to attract larger
portions of County population growth to the City than in the past
Perhaps foremost amongst these basic assumptions is the belief that the
new design ethic contained in this plan will attract significant levels of growth.
The key urban design concept contained herein is the "Centers Concept". While
centers are more fully discussed in the Land Use Element and throughout the
Plan, it is important to understand, that the population growth calculated is
based largely on the ability of the centers - including the revitalized downtown -
to attract new residential and commercial/office uses.
The following is a summary only.
For analysis, population and employment projections are calculated for each of
125 zones in the city. For convenience and consistency, the zones employed
were Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) employed by Kitsap County and for
which at least some historic data is available. Based on records of permit
issuance for residences over the period from 1995 to 2000, existing 2000 data for
each TAZ was projected forward to the year 2023 - the end of the 20 year
planning horizon employed by this plan. That projection was made by assuming
that the rate of residential development in most TAZ's would continue at
approximately the same rate as reflected by the 1995-99 growth. The viability of
this growth was checked by referring to the 2002 Kitsap County Buildable Lands
Analysis. Analysis confirms that more than sufficient developable property exists
to accommodate this level of "background" growth throughout the City of
Bremerton.
In addition to this "background" growth, new residential uses in the "centers"
were added in appropriate TAZ's.
Centers population expectations were calculated as follows.
Population projections for neighborhood and district centers were based on
commonly accepted models of centers size and proportion of residential to other
uses. The potential residential acreage of each center was calculated. Multiplying
each center's residential acres by assumed residential densities and household
sizes yielded a potential population within the center at full build- out. The full
build-out was then reduced to a number that corresponds to the expected
population growth within the twenty year planning time frame. This was
accomplished through a Geographic Information System/aerial photo based
analysis of the proportion of land within the center that was undeveloped or
significantly underdeveloped. The analysis then looked at the relative availability
of key services such as water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and transportation at
each proposed center location. The proposed centers were "rated" as to what
proportion of the full build out could be expected within the next 20 years. These
calculations are reflected in Tables 1 2, and 3 of Appendix LU
R:~Corm*nuni%, Dev~lopment',shzpin~ bremenon,CP heafings,Pla:min~ Commission Stagy
Report- adoption hearing 012004 ~1 ,doc
58
Population projections for two employment Centers, The Port Blakely
Employment Center and the Pope and Talbot employment Center, were added
based on discussions with the owners of the sites. A modest buildout of 750
persons was assumed for each employment center over the twenty year planning
period. That number was assigned to the appropriate TAZ. It should be noted
that these calculations assume that no portion of the population in the two
employment centers will occur within the first six years of the planning period. As
a result, total population and employment figures employed for purposes of
capital facilities finance planning - including that for transportation needs and
growth impacts - do not include any portion of these 1,500 additional people for
the growth expected because of new centers,..
Twenty year centers populations were disaggregated to appropriate TAZ's and
added to the non-center population projection for the TAZ. Final year 2023
population projections for each TAZ and for the entire City resulted and are
indicated on Table 4.
TAZ boundaries do not always lay entirely within the current city limits. Table 4
adjusts certain TAZ populations to account for this. In addition, totals for
populations in all portions of all TAZ's are provided in Table 4 and 5. It should be
realized that these numbers indicate populations that are in areas not within the
current city boundary.
Footnotes following each table cite data sources, and provide additional detail
regarding methodology.
In summary the following projections emerge:
Total projected City population in 2023 is projected at just over 50,000
(Table 4, column 10). This is an increase of approximately 13,000 over the
2000 census figure of 37,165. Of this increase, 7,574 people, or
approximately 58% of the growth, occurs in the new neighborhood or
district centers (see Table 4, column 8). Population in the UGA reaches
over 58,500 compared to an estimated 2000 UGA population of 44,815.
Employment
Employment is calculated in essentially the same manner. Year 2000 Kitsap
County TAZ employment was used to make projections of year 2023
employment by applying growth rate data from the Washington State Department
of Employment Security. Employment projections are summarized in Appendix
LU, Table 5. Employment forecasts for each center were added to the
appropriate TAZ. Appendix LU Table 5 provides the resultant projection for each
TAZ. Further details of non-centers employment growth calculations are reflected
in Table 6.
R:'~CommupJty Development,shaping bren~e.~on',CP h~z~dngs ,Plamning Commission Staff
Report - adoption heating 012004 #1 .doc
i0
59
In sum, employment forecast indicates that overall employment in the City will
rise from its current level of approximately 45,000 to approximately 54,000 jobs
over the next twenty years. Of that total growth of 9,000 jobs, about 4,000 or 45%
will be in the centers Significant vacant and developable land area will be needed
for new employment generating activities. It should be noted that those areas are
already part of the City. Notable large blocks among these areas are found in the
Employment Centers based, especially the Pope and Talbot and Port Blakely
properties in the West Hills area.
The projections employed by this Plan are the most accurate estimates possible
of these key measures of the scale and scope of the future. These estimates are
the result of employing base data that does not always match completely with the
City's ideal needs and they utilize multiple steps that, in turn, rely on the best
estimates available of projected growth rates. They further attempt to make
predictions in a world affected by political and societal change that will happen in
future years. One of the base rules of planning is that such predictions will need
constant monitoring, reassessment, and recalculation.
(End, staff report portion for hearing of January 20, 2004)
R:,.Com~munity Development'.shaping breme, non,CP heafings'.Planning Co~."amission
Repo~ - adoption hearing 012004 ~i doc
i!
60
Addendum #1
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of February 3 rd, 2004)
Procedural Recommendations
Staff has some additional procedural recommendations.
First, Commission may wish to consider how comments from the public are
addressed during the hearing process. The options include the following;
1) Each commissioner is responsible to take whatever note of verbal testimony
they wish. An audio recording is being made of the hearing as well. Written
testimony is assigned an exhibit number and added to the public record as part
of a packet of testimony.
2) In addition to the above, at the conclusion of ant portion of the hearing,
Commission instructs staff to present additional information, analysis, or
recommendations related to any particular written or verbal testimony. That
additional information can be presented as part of subsequent hearings.
Second, Commission may wish to clarify the deliberation process. Will
deliberations extend to additional Commission meetings after the closure of the
public hearing? If so, will staff be instructed to provide information, analysis
and/or recommendations related to testimony presented during (presumably later
stages of) the hearing, but not previously responded to? Legal counsel should be
consulted regarding this issue.
Land Use Element
Vision
The basis of the Land Use Element is a land use vision statement. That
statement is on the top of page LUI. In summary the vision for land use
recognizes that land use patterns and decisions affect economic vitality and
lifestyles. The statement envisions a future with a variety of jobs, housing and
transportation options, and convenient and dispersed locations for commercial
activities. It describes a walkable community with neighborhoods connected to
vibrant, mixed-use "town centers". It also reminds that waterfronts views and
parks are key parts of a successful urban environment.
Challenges
Like all Plan eiements the Land ~Jse Element, this element responds to three
types of challenges. Foremost amongst these are the vision, goals and policies
R:',Cormm. uni~' De¥~lopment\shaping breme~on',CP hearings,Plmnning Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption hearing 012004 #I ,doc
12
set forth by the community to guide us toward the future. These will be discussed
in later sections of this staff report. The element also responds to two other types
of challenges' technical challenges and the "concerns of the wider public".
Concerns of the wider public. While the aspirations of the local
community take the primary lead, the Land Use Element must also respond to
the concerns, needs, and rights of two larger constituencies; the people of the
region and the people of the State of Washington. This is accomplished in two
ways.
First, regional coordination is accomplished through making this and all
other elements of Bremerton's comprehensive plan, consistent with "County-wide
Planning Policies" adopted by the jurisdictions in Kitsap County. The County-
wide Planning Policies are adopted by the County and cities within to guide the
plans of each jurisdiction in ways that assure that the plans of one will not thwart
the plans of another. This is accomplished by setting a common policy framework
in many topic areas. The county-wide planning policies will be included in the
technical appendix that supports the Plan. Detailed description of the nature of
the consistency thus created is to complex to include in this report. However, it
should be noted that City staff has made all necessary efforts to assure such
consistency.
The second "wider public" that has a stake in a local plan is the people of the
State as a whole. The Growth Management Act includes numerous provisions
regarding the format, topics, and technical discipline that must be evident in a
Plan. By addressing these topics, local jurisdictions can assure the people of the
state that larger issues such as environmental protection, fair housing, and
sustaining natural resource lands is accomplished. This plan also addresses
those concerns. Throughout the public hearing process - and in this staff report -
staff will routinely comment on State requirements that apply to the creation of a
comprehensive plan. Most often, the3 underlying rationale for such requirements
of law is to protect or forward the interests of the people of the State as defined in
the legislation.
Technical challenges. The Land Use Element - as well as most other sections
of this Comprehensive Plan - must respond to the specific challenges posed by
the type and scale of change expected over the next twenty years. In the
simplest terms, it must be shown in the Element that the projected population
growth that is delineated in the Plan will be accommodated with adequate land
for housing, businesses, and industry. The technical appendix provides a
detailed discussion of population projections, resultant expected land needs, and
other calculations and discussions that support the Element. Those technical
sections demonstrate that the land set-aside for each type of land use in this
Element responds to the need for such lands that result from the projected
growth.
R: ,CommupJty Development shaping bren~emon,CP hearings Pianning Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption heating 012004 ~i
62
Goals and policies
Goals and policies were developed by the community as a response to the
challenges outlined above. These - along with the vision statement that they
serve - form the heart of the Element. The goals and policies begin on page
LU13. While it is not possible to discuss each goals and supporting policy here, a
few of the most notable goals include the following;
· LU1 Identify and enhance distinctive neighborhoods, communities,
and centers throughout the City.
· LU4 Designate neighborhood, district, and employment
centers....that provide mixed-use environments which serve as the
primary focus for growth centers.
· LU7 Provide for walkability throughout centers and neighborhoods
· LU13 Achieve a vibrant and active downtown
Centers
This Plan - the land use section and all the others - is based on the centers
concept. "Centers" or "the Centers Concept" refers to a general development
model that calls for creation of new "downtown village" nodes. These nodes, or
"centers", cannot be standardized or cast in the same mold for use in any
location. In the Land Use Element each center in Bremerton is described
separately with particular attention to the types of heights, densities, and uses
that fit best in the particular location. Centers descriptions begin on page LU28.
In general, however, a center is a mixed-use area placing residences, many of
the basic services that they require, employment opportunities, and amenities
such as public spaces and parks, in a well integrated and somewhat
concentrated area. Centers will often have the "look and feel" of a small
downtown surrounded my moderate to high density residential uses. Common
characteristics are: 1) a core area characterized by well designed mixed-use
structures featuring residential uses above street level commercial or office uses;
2) a carefully designed pedestrian orientation that begins with the active street
frontages provided by the mixed-use core area - but also extending to the outer
areas of the center and into surrounding neighborhoods; 3) the presence of
public gathering places such as parks, or public plaza's; and 4) a well considered
linkage to public transit.
Neighborhood centers are designated at Manette, Perry Avenue Mall, the
intersection of Sylvan and Pine, the Haddon area north of Charleston, and on
Kitsap Way at Oyster Bay Road. Larger District Centers are designated on
Wheaton Way at both Riddetl Road and at Sheridan, and in Charleston.
Employment Centers are designated in the Harrison Medical district and on a
large property in the West Hills area. Downtown Bremerton is a designated
"Regional Cente('. The element contains unique descriptions of each center
outlining its size, approximate characteristics. It is anticipated that more specific
R:~Commur~ty Development',shaping breme~on',,CP hea~ngs Plar, ning Commission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 ~! .doc
63
district plans will be created for each adding further details through local planning
processes.
Centers respond to the vast majority of the goals and policies in the Land Use
Element and in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals and
policies most directly applicable include those addressing better neighborhoods,
more transportation and housing choices, increased economic viability and
opportunity, and more efficient uses of public monies.
UGA
The Growth Management Act requires that local plans designate Urban Growth
Areas. The Land Use Element includes a discussion of UGA issues and a UGA
map on page LU10. The element proposes to expend the UGA as formerly
designated in the 1995 Plan. In summary, this proposal hinges on the recognition
that the growth future of large urban or industrial areas - not currently associated
with any city - should indeed be associated with a City, In the case of the
proposed area the logical city is Bremerton.
Other topics of note
Open Space
An important goal of the GMA is a requirement that communities include
open space in their land use design. The Land use Element includes an Open
Space Map (page LU12) that illustrates a network of open space comprised of
natural areas, more developed parks, and school yards. In addition, the open
spaces are connected by a series of connecting features such as trails, more
traditional pedestrian routes on sidewalks, and wildlife corridors. It should be
noted that the open space system is intended to be compatible with larger
regional projects such as the mosquito fleet trail. It also attempts to address the
need for wildlife to move across the urban area.
Note that the open spaces mapped are not land use designations, but
rather represent a proposed design for open space that should be accomplished
by a variety of other means including public acquisition, park planning, and
coordination in school planning, and incorporating trails and pedestrian facilities
in public and private development projects.
Area Specific Plans
On Page LU5, a brief section calls attention to the need for more specific
area planning in centers, at the special Redevelopment Opportunity Sites (West
Park and East Park), and in several other neighborhood areas.
Land Use Map and designations (revised)
The Land Use Map is located on Page LU36. It depicts the centers and
other la,3d use designations A detailed description of each land use designation
R2Co~nmunity Dev~lopment'.,$haping breme~on',CP hearings Planning Cormnission Staff
Repo~ - adoption hea~ilng 012004 ~! .doc
15
64
employed by the Element begins on page LU37. In addition to the centers
previously discussed, major designations include CC (Commercial Corridor), a
new designation that seeks to encourage more creative development along
Kitsap Way and Wheaton Way. Note that these designations have been recently
revised to include several not previously found. The new designations include; I
(industrial), BP (Business Park), and LTA (Limited Transition Areas).
In sum, the land use designations have been crafted by staff as the most efficient
and logical means possible of implementing the goals and policies created by the
community.
Decision Points
Land use "scenario's" (see LU8 and policies LUSa, LUSb)
Land Use goal LU8 points out a future "decision point" that the Planning
Commission will be called upon to make during the hearing process currently
underway (see page LU17). Staff will require instructions as to the policy
direction that should be moved forward surrounding this issue. That instruction to
staff will not be needed until final action is taken buy the Commission.
In the current draft Plan, policies LUSa and LU8b present diffedng methods of
implementing land use approaches that encourage most multi-family
development to occur in centers. Before the end of the hearing process, the
Commission should advise staff as to the preferred method.
Both methods wile be sent forward for environmental review with the chosen
method being describes as the "preferred option".
Public Comments recorded so far
(section reserved pending Commission instructions to staff)
Housing Element
Vision
The Housing Etement is (also) based on a foundation provide by citizen
participation. That foundation is the Vision Statement for housing found in page
HS1 of the Element. The vision statement focuses on; quality homes; cohesive,
safe neighborhoods; safety; and broader housing choices, in calling for locating
new (housing) in strategic locations that support diverse lifestyles, more
R: ,Commurjty Development',shaping bremerton~CP heafings'3larming Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption heating 012004 #! .doc
!6
65
innovative housing choices, and capture local amenities, the Housing Element
suggests the centers concept as a key strategy.
The housing Element notes that," Coordination is particularly important
with the Land Use Element that prescribes types of uses, densities, and
measures to protect quality single-family areas while encouraging new growth in
strategic locations for new, more intense vibrant urban settings."
Challenges
Growth Management Act requirements
The requirements of the Growth Management Act for preparation of a housing
element are relatively simple; inventory existing and projected conditions and
needs; develop goals and policies to respond to the identified needs; identify
adequate land for the needed housing; and make adequate provisions for
housing that serves all economic segments of the community (commonly referred
to as the "affordable housing" requirement. This element satisfies all those
requirements. It should be noted that identification of adequate land is
demonstrated in the land use element and repeated in the housing appendix
section.
Housing Challenges in Bremerton
The Housing Element includes an extensive analysis of current housing
conditions and related factors such as income and demographics. Primary
among these challenges is the Iow level of housing construction in the past
several decades, the aging of the housing stock, and a related deterioration of
typical housing conditions.
The Element also contains projections of future housing conditions and a
calculation of future housing needs. In sum, the element identifies that to replace
units lost to obsolescence and provide units for expected population growth,
between 5300 and 6400 new units will be needed over the twenty-year planning
period (see page HS9).
Other challenges. In addition to the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, and the unique challenges identified in the Iocat community,
the Housing Element responds to the numerous mandates articulated in federal
funding protocols, the State of Washington's Growth Management Act, the
County-wide Planning Policies, and the Consolidated Plan of Kitsap County (a
County-wide housing report required for federal funding). Housing policies,
especially those providing for an equitable distribution of below-market
subsidized housing; require inter-jurisdictional coordination and cooperation in
meeting needs and in attracting new housing development. Therefore, housing
strategies are also recognized from other plans and other legislation for
integration with this element.
R:xCormrmnity Development'shaping bremenomCP headngs'Pi~nning Conmnission Staff
Report - adoption heating O] 20~4 ¢l doc
17
tiff
Goals and policies
Goals and policies were developed by the community as a response to the
challenges outlined above. These - along with the vision statement that they
serve - form the heart of the Element. The goals and policies begin on page
HS10. While it is not possible to discuss each goals and supporting policy here, a
few of the most notable goals include the following;
H3 Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet the changing needs
of Bremerton residents.
H4 Provide housing in mixed-use centers for a variety of incomes, age groups,
and household types.
H5 Promote access to quality affordable homes for all Bremerton residents
regardless of their economic capabilities or special needs.
Note: A special section of the Element follows the goals and policies section. Beginning
on page HS 16, the reader finds a section presenting a more detailed strategy for providing
affordable housing. The section presents ideas for coordination between the City and other
agencies involved in housing issues and some special strategies to encourage creation of
housing units for middle and lower income residents.
H6 Build Strong, cohesive neighborhoods with a majority of Bremerton
households owning their own homes.
(note: end of public hearing session of February 3:~, 2004)
Community Character Element
Vision
The Community Character element is a unique section of the Comprehensive
Plan. It attempts to summarize themes that occur throughout the remaining
elements. Moreover, it also illuminates the recognition that these themes are
largely matters of urban design. The vision statement that introduces the
Community Character Element is the overall vision statement governing the
entire Plan. That statement was summarized in a previous section of this staff
report.
The Community Character Element highlights the goals and polices of the
Comprehensive Plan that focus on the quality of new growth in Bremerton. In
sum, it provides the foundation for citizens and city officials to prescribe design
parameters, incentive programs for new developments, and, most broadly, the
manner in which the city grows. This Element aspires to summarize and clarify
the issues of growth and to elevate understanding of the planning of our city's
R:'~Cormnuniry' Development',shaping breme~on',CP hearings,Planning Commission Staff
Repo~ - adoption heating 012004 #1 .doc
physical future.
Themes
During the development of this Comprehensive Plan, goals and policies related
to functional areas - such as land use, transportation, economic development,
and the environment - were created. The citizens soon realized that a set of
distinct themes were also emerging. These themes encapsulate the community's
aspirations for the future. A second realization also became apparent - all the
major themes of the Comprehensive Plan were also largely speaking about
urban design issues. Without a preconceived intent, the community had identified
that the look, feel, and character of new development was, perhaps, the crucial
aspect in determining whether the community reached it's overarching goals of
becoming a better place to live. If one can understand the design-based themes
that underlay this plan, one can perhaps best understand the entire plan,
This staff report will not discuss the themes in detail, but simply list them. The full
discussions begin on Page CC3 of the Community Character Element.
1. Distinctive Growth, with Viable Neighborhoods and Centers that provide
greater choice and convenience
2. Enticing new Development, with a Focus on the Town Center
3. Supportive Transportation, with Seamless, Efficient, and Varied Choices
4. Improved Accessibility, especially for the Pedestrian
5. Quality Housing, with Broader Choices
6. Business Support, with increased opportunity
7. Environmental Management, integrating natural systems
8. Community Service, focusing on assets
Design Review
The Community Character also provides a discussion of the concept of design
review. This discussion indicates a realization that occurred during public
discussions that the more intense modes of development being discussed in the
Plan presented challenges. Careful design was necessary to insure that the
mixed-use environments discussed in the Plan met human needs, were viable
economically, and addressed concerns of the community surrounding more
intense urban environments, The Element suggests a general outline for how
R:\Comrnu~ Development shaping breme~on' CP heafings',,Planning Cormmission Staff
Report. - adoption heating 012004 #1 ,doc
19
58
urban design concerns might be addressed during Plan implementation. The
discussion of design review begins on page CC11.
Goals and policies
As with the other Plan elements, goals and policies developed by community
members form the foundation for the Community Character Element. In the case
of this Element there are only four goals presented. Each, however, is supported
by numerous policy statements that give them a relatively high degree of
specificity, The four goals are as follows;
CC1 Demonstrate excellent urban design qualities in new development
CC2 Assure that new development relates to surrounding uses and
provides for urban livability.
CC3 Provide for a safe, pleasant, and rich pedestrian experience.
CC4 Promote the development of areas of special character, encouraging
a diversity of communities within the city.
R:'~Cormmunity Dex elopment',shaping brememon",CP hearings~Plamning Co;rnmission Staff
Repo..-t - adoption hearing 012004 #I doc
2O
Addendum #2
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of February 17th, 2004)
Recommended changes to land use maps and recommendation
regarding mapping issues (page LU36)
At the close of the public testimony portion of the February 3rd session of the
public hearing, the Planning Commission issued a series on instructions to staff
requesting further analysis of several issues raised during testimony. In addition,
Commission asked that the "Land Use Scenario Maps" discussed during the
planning process be brought to the hearing so that the public and Commission
could better understand the alternatives available for land use designations. The
following section of this staff report addresses both of these requests.
Many of the issues raised during testimony were matters relating to mapping.
Members of the public had suggested changes to the land use map for instance.
Staff recommends that the proper analysis of these "requests" should be made
on the basis of their consistency with the overall-directions set by the
comprehensive plan. As suggested above, Commission also requested that the
"land use scenarios" discussed during earlier phases of the comprehensive plan
drafting process be brought back during the current hearing process as a way to
assess the testimony. This then suggested a further refinement of the "scenario
maps" so that they better represented consistently applied alternative paradigms.
The result is that the scenario maps have been clarified so that each mapping
change suggested by testimony can be more clearly fit into the appropriate
scenario - or scenarios.
The scenarios can now be described as follows;
Scenario #1 No Change
Scenario #1 represents the approximate land use pattern that will occur with no
changes in land use designations or implementing zoning. These patterns and
implementing standards have been determined by staff to be inconsistent with
the intent and spirit of GMA. The scenario features the 1995 land use
designations and further assumes that density in Low Density Residential
designation will be continued at the levels currently found in the zoning code.
Existing zoning allows densities as Iow as one unit per acre in this area. For
reference, the implementing zoning is currently as follows; SF1 (1-3 units per
acre), SF2 (1-8 units per acre), and SF3 (3-8 units per acre.) In the 2002 Kitsap
County Buildable Lands Analysis, it was estimated that during the period from
1995-1999 (the first five years under the current comprehensive plan)
R: ,Commum9 Develo?ment'~shaping bremenon,CP heanngs~Pianning Cormmission Staff
Report - adoption hearing_ 0!2(}0-4 ~! doc
21
70
development in these areas was occurring at approximately 2.36 units per acre
on average.
Under this scenario, multi-family uses continue to spread in nearly all regions of
the City and UGA. Multi-family densities are approximately 10 units per acre
(current estimate from Buildable Lands Analysis). The result of this continuation
of very Iow density residential growth and this unstructured pattern of multi-family
projects is also an extensive pattern of new commercial growth along traditional
corridors - largely arterials outside of the current City. This pattern arises in
support of the new residential occurring widely across the landscape.
Scenario #1 assumptions:
~, Land use designations remain the same
2. There are no policy changes that drive changes in residential densities.
Development in the LDR designation continues at approx, 2.36 units per acre (per
2002 Buildable Lands Analysis)
3. Density as Iow as 2.36 du/ac in the City results in increased development outside
of the city. Automobile oriented commercial and office development occurs in
patterns best serving the highly dispersed residential base. Commercial
development infills along most arterial streets with slightly higher concentration in
areas of the UGA immediately outside of the City as residential growth outside of
the City outpaces that inside.
4. Absent policy changes, new multi-family development continues in a dispersed
pattern across the City and UGA. Redesignations and rezones routinely are
granted for new multifamity development. It occurs on many larger parcels and
occasionally in areas of congregated smaller parcels.
Scenario #2 Current Patterns
Scenario #2 appears on a map to be quite similar to scenario #1, There is a
significant difference however. This scenario assumes that, while the general
pattern currently employed will continue, Plan policies will require that
implementing zoning be changed to set a minimum density of 4 units per acre in
the LDR designation. This change represents an effort to bring the planning
design into rough compliance with at least one major requirement of the Growth
Management Act - that cities seek to assure minimum residential densities that
are "urban in nature". Multi-family residential uses continue to locate in nearly all
regions of the City. In very limited cases, the rise in single family densities results
in some property owners developing single family projects where multi-family
projects may have previously been requested. This effect is limited. This pattern
suggests somewhat less new commercial along the traditional corridors than is
seen in Scenario #1, but a significant pattern of growth outside of the current City
limits remains.
Scenario #2 assumptions:
~ Land use pattern remains essentially the same as current (1995 Plan), but employs
2003 Update designations without centers.
2 Policy changes are made that assure residential densities in the J. DR designation rise
to urban levels of 4 du/ac at a minimum for new development,
, ~ ¢ bremeao-,CTM neanno~ Planmng Con'ums>~on Smf,
R:',Con%mupJty De ~,,.~opment shaptn= ..... ~ - ~
Report - adopt;,on hearing 0! 2004 ~-I .doc
71
3 Absent other policy changes, automobile oriented commercial and office uses infill
along most arterial streets within the City. Commercial growth also extends along
arterials outside of the City but to a somewhat slighter degree than in scenario #f
Absent policy changes, new multi-family development continues in a dispersed pattern
across the City and UGA. As in scenario #1, new multifamily development occurs on
many larger parcels. Slightly higher densities in the CDR designation reduce the
market for medium density multifamily as compared to scenario #1 with fewer
redesignations and rezones of smaller parcels.
Scenario #3 Centers Concept
Scenario #3 represents the development pattern occurring as a result of full
implementation of the "centers" approach. It is the scenario that is fully consistent
with the goals and policies brought forth in the Draft Comprehensive Plan
Update. The scenario parameters discussed below are based on those goals and
policies.
Residential densities in the LDR designation rise to between 4 and 10 with
an average for new development of approximately 8 units per acre. Multi-family
uses occur only in the Centers. Parcels designated for multi-family outside of
centers are redesignated for low density residential use. Policies related to this
scenario suggest that existing multi-family development outside of centers be
more strongly protected from the deleterious effect of legal non-conforming
status by significant amendments in the zoning code as it relates to non-
conforming uses. Most new commercial and office development occurs in
Centers.
This scenario represents a combining of the former scenario's 2 and 3 which
were both centers based approaches. This combination is a result of analysis of
the legal ramifications of two major impacts of the two earlier scenarios. It was
determined that creating more extensive areas with legal non-conforming status
(essentially the former "scenario #3) was superior to allowing former multi-family
designations to continue on built-out parcels while removing them only from
vacant parcels (former scenario ¢2). This was determined to be less desirable
because of the perception and legal danger that the approach was treating
formerly equal properties in an unequal manner without defensible basis. In
scenario #3 therefore, essentially alt multifamily residential designations outside
of centers are re-designated for Iow density residential use. The scenario
assumes that the resultant concentration of residential uses in centers will result
in a corresponding concentration of commercial uses in centers or in nearby
existing (connecting) corridors.
The resulting pattern is the most compact of the three, with vew little new
commercial or multi-family activity in the current neighborhoods or along arterials
outside of existing areas.
Scenario assumptions;
Residential density in the LDR designation rises to 4.10 units per acre.
2. New medium and high density residential development occurs only in centers
3. A high proportion of new commercial and office growth is also in centers
?.: ,Corm~nunity Dex eiopl-~ent ,shaping r~r,,mcnon ,CP heatings Pla~mir:g Corpxnission Staff
Repo,,-t - ado?don hearing 012004 ~I .doc
23
72
4. Growth along arterial corridors in the city is limited to existing commercial
designations, There is little or no significant increase in commercial or office
growth along arterials in the UGA.
By applying these three rationales, it becomes logical to incorporate certain
changes in the maps as they apply to specific properties. The new maps depict
several of those changes.
Staff recommends that the methodology that be applied to analysis of testimony
regarding land use map designations be as follows. Staff should recommend
which, if any, scenario the change discussed by any testifying party fits into. The
recommendation from staff would supply the suggested appropriate scenario
placement (if there is one) and additional reference to plan goals and policies
that support the recommendation. Commission would not indicate approval or
disapproval of any particular recommendation as this would represent quasi-
judicial action in a legislative setting. Commission could discuss Plan goals and
policies that affect the map and determine if additions, subtractions, or re-
wording of existing goals or policies might affect the scenario maps. After
recommending any changes to goals and policies that it wishes to consider, staff
could revise the scenario maps to respond to the changes in policy. Commission
would then, during final deliberations, select a preferred scenario. Staff has
already stated in this staff report that it believes that scenario #3 is currently the
land use design that best implements the current set of goals and policies found
in the draft plan.
Staff recommends that this selection not occur until the end of the hearing
process. This is so Commission has had benefit of exposure to all plan elements,
the entire goal and policy framework found in the Plan, and all public testimony
and can make such a selection on the basis of a holistic understanding of the
Draft Plan and of public concerns.
Transportation Element
Vision
The Transportation Vision Statement forms the foundation of the Transportation
Element. The statement calls for a future transportation system that is
convenient, accessible, safe, and environmentally responsible. It envisions that
pursuit of those goals will mean creating a system that provides multiple
transportation alternatives and a system that is integrated with efforts to enhance
R:'~Commupju, Development',shaping b~emerton CP hearings',PlarnpJng Commission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 #! .doc
24
73
neighborhood character, vibrant and healthy neighborhoods, and economic
vitality,
Challenges
As with most elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Transportation
Element must address some very specific challenges. Those challenges come
two primary forms; the requirements placed on transportation elements by state
law - the Growth management Act; and local challenges identified by community
members as they led the writing of the Transportation Element.
Technical/GMA challenges
The technical requirements defined in the Growth Management Act for
Transportation Elements are probably the most detailed and stringent of any.
They include some that are similar to the requirements for other elements and a
few that are unique for transportation elements. The element must provide an
analysis of current conditions and a projection of conditions that are expected as
a result of the twenty-year growth forecast by the Plan. In addition to these
typical types of analysis, the transportation element must go further. It must
classify current conditions under a level of service (LOS) regime, predict future
levels of service, and compare these future levels with a Level of Service
Standard (or a set of LOS standards) adopted within the Element. The Element
must also describe additional facilities needed or programmatic solutions to
instances where future LOS violates the adopted LOS standard. Finally, the
Transportation Element must provide a Capital Facilities Program that
demonstrates a financial plan for funding needed facilities.
In addition, the Transportation Element must demonstrate that selected solutions
are consistent with several layers of regional and State transportation planning,
All these functions are satisfied by the Draft Element.
Challenges identified by the community
In addition to these technical challenges, the Transportation Element addresses
local desires and needs identified during the community participatory efforts upon
which the Plan and the Element are founded. In the case of the Transportation
Element, the Vision Statement and its' supporting goals and policies illuminate
several issues that were seen by the community as transportation related
challenges. These include; 1 ) The need for more transportation options, 2) a
desire for more pedestrian opportunity in the City, and 3) protection of residential
neighborhoods from traffic.
Goals and Policies
As with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the goals and
policies section presents citizens responses to the identified challenges. The
R:\Cormmunib, Development',shaping brcmerton',CP heafin~s',Planning Commission Staff
Repot[ - adoption heating 012004 #l.doc
25
74
section begins on page TR9. The section presents 13 broad goals - each further
detailed by numerous and more specific policies. In the interest of brevity, the
following is a listing of seven of the key goals found in the element. Readers
should consult the document for the supporting policies and to look at additional
goal/policy sets.
T1 Encourage the development of an integrated multimodal transportation
system that provides a variety of convenient transportation choices to improve
the movement of people, goods, and freight
T4 Protect residential neighborhoods from negative transportation impacts.
T6 Improve connectivity and mobility within Bremerton's transportation
system through the identification and implementation of improvements that
maintain Level of Service standards.
T9 Coordinate with Washington State Ferries and other possible providers to
operate ferry service to Bremerton that meets local service and commuter
needs, coordinates with all travel modes, and provides significant regional
se,vice.
T11 Encourage the use of public transit and encourage transportation
agencies to operate and maintain local and regional service and facilities
that reduce the need for single-occupant vehicles and suppor[ the needs
of transit-dependent users.
T12 Provide a transportation system that effectively serves the needs of and
encourages pedestrian, bicycle and other non-motorized travel.
T13 Incorporate the needs of business and commercial traffic flow in the
development of transportation improvements that affect commercial and
industrial centers.
The Land Use Element also contains goals and policies with significant impact on
transportation issues. This is especially true in the case of the downtown where a
section of that element that lists the downtown goals and policies -including
some directly related to transportation.
Technical Analysis
Consultant, Parametrix, Inc. prepared the technical portions of the transportation
Element. The Parametrix document in its entirety is found in the Appendix
document as Appendix TR. John Perlic of Parametrix will discuss the technical
analysis. John's portion of the staff report will be attached as an Appendix B of
the report.
R:\Commur~ity Development',shaping brernerton,CP hearings',2la~*',ning Con%mission Staff
Report - adoption hear/ng 012004 ~1
75
(end, February 17~h session of public hearing)
Economic Development Element
Vision
The Economic Development Element begins with a Vision (statement) for
Economic Development. in summary, that foundational vision statement speaks
of a desire to bring economic vitality to Bremerton. It offers that a variety of jobs,
housing and transportation options, convenient services, and strategically
dispersed commercial activities are keys to bringing this desired vitality forward.
The vision statement includes recognition that good neighborhoods with a
distinctive focus and walkability are also keys. It specifically calls for a strong
downtown. It adds that views, waterfront areas and parks are also important to
economic success. Finally, the vision statement speaks of new vitality that is
sensitive to historical values and character. This vision statement is remarkable
in it's recognition that economic success is intimately tied to a wide spectrum of
issues that generally could be called "quality of life" issues.
Challenges
Following the vision statement in the Economic Development Element are two
sections that present an inventory of economic conditions and challenges facing
the community. The first is a section called City Profile. The City profile section
describes characteristics of Bremerton that are instructive as to its economic
climate and regional position. The section recaps demographic information,
geographic factors, and key economic trends. Following the City Profite is a
section entitled Inventory of Local and Regional Economy. This section provides
more complete date regarding population, employment trends, and a summary of
data, trends, and activity in six primary economic sectors.
Together these analytical sections summarize the challenges facing Bremerton in
the economic realm. Central issues that emerge include the following; 1) loss of
a large proportion of the retain sector to areas outside of the City; 2) a growing
number of people who live locally but work outside of the local economy -
notably in Seattle, doing significant amounts of their purchasing outside of the
local economy; 3) the largest employment sector being the government sector -
the slowest growing of all employment sectors; and 4) a general lack of
population growth and resultant new economic activity.
Goals and Policies
Once again, community-written goals and policies form the backbone of the
Element. The Economic Development Element presents goals and policies that
represent a response to the conditions and challenges brought forward by the
R:'~C:om~muiziD' Developn~ent',,shaping brernerton",CP h~arings Plarmip, g Commission Staff'
Report - adoption hea:-ing 012094 ~1 .doc
previous sections of the element. There are six goals and each goal as a number
of supporting policies. Only the goals are listed here. They are;
ECl Promote a vibrant environment for economic development
EC2 Maintain the existing asset of being a small city with convenience and
quality
EC3 Provide for a full-service, 24-hour, regional downtown center
EC4 Support the expansion of commerce
EC5 Establish Bremerton as a city that welcomes the opportunity to serve
business, residents, and visitors.
EC6 Provide greater economic opportunity for residents
Environment Element
Vision
The foundational vision statement for the Environment Element provides a focus
on sustainable growth. It envisions a future in Which development contributes to
the preservation of natural amenities and systems; and where the City
encourages environmental education, conservation, recycling, brownfield
redevelopment, and public acquisition of sensitive lands. Finally, the environment
element vision recognizes that walkability, access to views, and open space are
keys to a healthy community.
Challenges
Growth Management Act
The primary challenge handed to communities under the Growth Management
Act is the requirement that so-called "critical areas" be designated and protected.
In addition, GMA requires that communities indicate how they will preserve open
space in the urban setting. Both these topics are addressed in the Environment
Element.
Local residents also identified environmental challenges not specifically
mentioned in the Act. These are also addressed by the Element· They include air
quality and brownfields.
Following the vision statement just summarized and a brief introduction section,
the Environment Element provides sections discussing all the topics just listed.
· ~,~ Sta£f
p,:\Cormmumty Dev~]opraent'~shapmg breme~on',CP heanngs ~°Iamnng Cornm~s~
Repo~ - adoption heating 0 t 2004 -el .doc
28
77
Goals and Policies
As in each element of the Plan, the community responded to the challenges
identified by creating goals for the future that would move the community toward
solutions that were consistent with the vision and with the remainder of the plan.
There are14 goals in the Environment Element. Each has a number of supporting
policies. It is not possible to list all goals and policies here. The following is a
summary of four of the most important goals.
E1 To ensure the long term health of Bremerton, promote sustainable growth
and activities
E4 Encourage conservation of critical areas and nonrenewable resources.
E7 Create an openspace system that increases the amount of openspace,
protects Bremerton's natural resources, and provides a source of beauty
and enjoyment for ali residents.
Ell Integrate the natural and built environments to create and urban setting
with comfortable and secure places for people to live, work and recreate.
R:\Commzu:~i%, Deveiopme, nt shaping bremenon CP hearings,Ptanning Con'~mizston
Report - adoption hea~ng 012004 #1 .doc
29
78
Addendum #3
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of March 2, 2004)
City Services Element
The City Services Element addresses services that are essential to a community
and its ability to grow. This element guides how the provision of services such as
water, sewer, parks, and schools support the future growth and development of
Bremerton.
This City Services element provides direction that will assure three primary goads
are met; 1 ) expected levels of quality for services will be maintained as growth
occurs, 2) the locations chosen for needed public and quasi-public facilities will
not conflict with other community goals, and 3) careful planning of public and
quasi-public facilities will assure the services are provided in the most cost-
efficient manner possible.
The City Services Element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan combines the
function of two plan elements required under the Growth Management Act, the
Utilities Element and the Capital Facilities Element. To accomplish this
requirement in a manner that is clear, the element is divided into two distinct
sections, one called the Utilities Section and the other the Capital Facilities
Section.
Each section will present discussions of current and projected conditions,
including levels of service, as appropriate. In the case of the Capital Facilities
especially, the section will also discuss capital projects necessary to maintain
urban services at the levels of service acceptable to the community and present
a plan for financing those needed improvements. This exercise - commonly
called the concurrency requirement - will be discussed in greater detail in this
staff report. The Utilities and Capital facilities begin on pages CS12 and CS20
respectively.
Vision
Both sections respond to a City Services Vision prepared by the citizens who
guided creation of the City Services Element. The vision speaks of partnering
with residents, and public and private organizations to provide the services
needed to maintain and enhance Bremerton's quality of life. tn addition to the
more traditional "infrastructure" most people associate with City Services, the
vision mentions the importance of recognizing that we must address maritime
heritage, neighborhood vitality, and customer service in the process of matching
urban service provision with growth strategies.
R:',Cormmu~ Dm, elopment,shaping breme~on',CP heafings',Planning Commission Staff
Repor~ - adoption heating 012004 ~-l ,doc
3O
?9
Challenges
Perhaps more than any other element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
challenges addressed by the City Services Element are technical in nature. The
element has several primary duties; 1) set Level of Service (LOS) standards for
urban services and infrastructure that express the community's expectations for
the level of quality and/or quantity at which of those services should be
maintained as growth occurs; 2) assess future service needs as the expected
growth occurs in terms of projects and/or expenditures that will be incurred if the
LOS standards is maintained; and 3) provide a capital facilities program that
demonstrates a reasonable strategy for funding the necessary services.
In short, the capital facilities/utilities portions of a comprehensive plan is "where
the rubber meets the road" Also called by some the "truth in planning" sections,
this Element must demonstrate a strategy for maintaining urban services - at an
agreed-upon level- as growth occurs.
Goals and Policies
The goals and policies section of the City Services Element presents the
community-written road-map for addressing the challenges just mentioned. The
goals and policies section begins on page CS3. There are 28 goals, each with
supporting policies. The goals and policies are organized into sections
addressing key topic areas, the topic areas are; 1) General goals and Policies for
City Services; 2) goals supporting customer se,vice and orientation; 3) goals
supporting safety and health; 4) goals related to beautification; 5) goals
addressing neighborhood revitalization; 6) goals supporting economic
development; and, 7) goals supporting consistency with the rest of the
comprehensive plan.
Key goals are as follows;
CS6 Ensure adequate funding for public facilities and services for existing
development and new growth
CS14 Facilitate the provision of utilities that are environmentally sensitive, safe
and reliable, aesthetically compatible with surrounding land uses, and available
at reasonable economic costs
CS22 Assure that all capital projects and expenditures are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
CS25 Progressively become the primary provider of capital facilities and
services within the city's Urban Growth Area
CS26 Adopt Level of Service Standard(s) (LOS's) for public facilities reflecting
community preferences for quality of service delivery
P,:'Cormmunit}, D~velopm~nt,.shaping br~m~on' CP heatings,?lanning Commission: Staff'
P, eport - adoption hearing 012004 ~1 .doc
31
The Utilities Section
The Utilities Section of the City Services Element begins on page CS'I 2. The
utilities section addresses services by pdvate service providers such as natural
gas, electricity, and telecommunications.
The services covered by the utilities section are not addressed in the same
manner as urban services that are publicly funded. These providers are either
driven by market forces and/or directed by Federal or State regulations or
franchises to maintain the utilities at adequate levels as growth occurs. It is
therefore assumed that the services will be maintained at what amounts to
acceptable levels of services as growth occurs. The physical locations of needed
facilities have been provided to the City and are shown on maps included in the
section. In so much as the new facilities projected occur in existin9 rights-of-way
or at pre-existing locations, there is minimal to no conflict with the future land
uses projected by this comprehensive plan. Because of these factors, the section
meets the two basic challenges that it must address; 1 ) assurin§ the these
privately controlled services will be provided at acceptable levels as growth
occurs; and 2) assuring coordination with the proposed land use patterns and
other portions of the remainder of the Comprehensive Ptan.
The Capital Facilities Section
The Capital Facilities Section represents in many ways the point at which the
"rubber meets the road" in planning. This section, and its' supporting appendix,
establishes the community's strategy for paying for the patterns of growth that it
prefers. In the other elements of the comprehensive plan, the community has set
a course toward realizing its vision for the future. It has created goals and
policies that will help it establish the land use pattern, types of housin§,
transportation system, urban design, and environmental protections that it
desires as the future unfolds. The Capital Facilities Section is where the
community puts forth a strategy to pay for the services needed to support the
desired type and intensity of growth. Without such strategies, the rest has no
meaning - and little hope of ever being accomplished.
That strategy has two major parts; the establishment of the community's desired
Levels of Service (and a related concurrency requirement); and the
establishment of a meaningful and related capital facilities program (CFP).
The Capital Facilities Program that supports the established LOS Standards is
contained in a large technical appendix.
R:',Com_rnup2~' Deveiopment',shaping bremerton',CP hearings',.Planzaing Commission Staff'
Repo~ - adoption hea_dng 012004 ~1 .doc
81
The Capital Facilities Section addresses the full range of urban services provided
by public and quasi-public agencies. Under the County-wide Planning Policies for
Kitsap County, a "full range of urban services" is defined to include the following.
(CWPP A.3.d.i)
Police storm water potable water
Fire sewer (sanitary) solid waste
Transportation Parks & Rec. Facilities Schools
Telecommunications (including Broadband)
With the exception of telecommunications, which was addressed in the Utilities
Section, the Capital Facilities Section and its appendix presents discussions of
current conditions, projected conditions, level of services standards, and
implementation strategies for each type of service.
At the heart of the functions performed by this section is the requirement that the
community demonstrate how key urban services will be provided to new
development - and provided in a way that maintains the community expectation
that a clearly defined quality of life be maintained as growth occurs. This is
commonly called the concurrency requirement.
This concurrency demonstration entails several basic steps;
1) The community defines the Level of Service (LOS) Standards that must be
maintained for each urban service
2) The current LOS for each type of urban service is inventoried
3) Projections of the impact to levels of service created under the growth
assumptions of the plan are calculated.
4) If projected growth will result in the LOS for any particular urban service being
diminished below acceptable levels (LOS Standard), projects and other capotal
expenditures needed to return the LOS to acceptable levels (LOS Standard) are
identified.
5) Methods of funding the needed improvements are identified
6) tf funding cannot be identified, alterations to the growth assumptions, land use
design, or LOS Standard may need to be considered.
The LOS Standards for each type of urban services are discussed in an
appendix subsection devoted to each service type. In addition, the LOS
Standards are summarized in a table on page CS22.
Each subsection (see appendix) provides the required analysis of the projects or
other capital expenditures that will be necessary during the first six years of the
Plan to maintain ser-,/ices at the established LOS standard, These lists include
R:\Community De~ etopment .shaping b~ern~on CP hear/ngs'~Planning Con~missio~ Staff
Report - adoption heading 0120(14 =1 .doc
82
estimated costs. Finally, an analysis of the mechanisms available to fund the
needed facilities of services is provided. In all cases, this Plan establishes that
the needed funding can be realized over the next six years.
End, public hearing session of March 2, 2004
R:\Community Development',shaping brernerton',CP hearings'®la.n_ning Con.mission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 012004 mi .doc
34
83
Addendum #4
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of March 16, 2004)
Summary
This staff report has discussed in sequence each element of the 2003-2004 City
of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Update. Taken together, the Plan elements
form a response to both technical and community-perceived challenges that must
be faced by the community during the coming twenty years. Each element
analyzes the challenges in a topic area. The responses are founded on "vision
statements" related to the topic areas. Citizen written goals and policies give
more specific direction to decision-makers and community members leading to
long-term implementation of the visions.
These community goals can be re-organized into themes that run through-out the
Plan. Such a reorganization facilitates an understanding that certain desires and
ambitions cut across all topic areas. These overarohing ideas, community
ambitions, and values form the true heart of the Plan.
The Community Character Element provides one attempt at bringing several
Plan themes forward. This staff report will provide another list of themes that help
summarize the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update. They are as follows;
1. A desire to revitalize Bremerton, to grow, and to increase economic
activity
2. A recognition that the development approaches of the past have ~ead to
stagnation
$. A desire to return to a more pedestrian oriented development pattern
4. A desire to combat the dominance of automobiles and traffic
5. A desire to include more socially interactive, safe and interesting urban
environments.
6. Recognition that the family structures of the past will not dominate the
future
7. A recognition that mixed use centers are a development pattern that
addresses the other desires and ambitions for the future.
8. A desire to balance growth with open space, trails, and a healthy
environment
In addition, some technical matters are attended to. These include;
1. Population and employment forecasts
a. Internal consistency
2. Level of Service Standards and concurrency
3. Capital Facilities analysis
4, Urban Growth Area and regiona! growth issues
R:~Co~mm~ity Deve!opment',shaping bremenon CP hearings 2oi-zr~qing Corom. ission Staff
Repo,--t - adoptio~ hearing 012004 ~1 .doc
84
Decision Points/Recommendation Issues
During the public testimony heard on January 20th, February 3rd and 17th, and on
March 2'~, testimony has been received on a number of topics. In the following
section staff summarizes the testimony and makes recommendations regarding
possible responses.
1. Elevate the importance of sidewalks in the Land Use Element. ^
citizen made suggested that the general tone employed to discuss
sidewalks in the Land Use Element needed to be strengthened to more
strongly support the wide-spread emphasis on walkability and related
issues.
a. Staff recommendation:
i. strike word "sidewalks" from policy LUll
ii. add new policy LUlm to read; To support walkability in
neighborhoods, centers, and commercial areas, require
installation of sidewalks as new construction occurs
2. Give the Economic Development Element a more positive "voice"
and a more innovative approach. The suggestion was made that the
Economic Development Element was somewhat dry and took an overly
negative view of current economic conditions. It was further suggested
that, at a minimum, such negativity should be accompanied by a more
positive outlook on future potentials. It was also suggested that a more
innovative approach to economic development was needed.
a. Staff recommendation. Staff has not had time to address this
testimony. Staff further recommends that this exercise be
scheduled after more pressing work on the comprehensive plan is
complete - perhaps as part of 2005 amendments.
3. Testimony was received opposing mention ora "tunnel" in the
Transportation Element. This testimony came from an individual who
opposed any mention of the "Bremerton Tunnel" in the Plan.
a. Staff recommendation; Previous to receiving this testimony, the
Planning Commission had instructed staff to remove the word
"tunneF from the Transportation Element. The Bremerton
Transportation Center (BTC)/Pedestrian Improvements project
remains in the Transportation Element as a project discussion co-
equal with others.
R:\Community Development\shaping br~me~on CP hea.~.ngs'Plamning Corrmmission Staff'
Report - adoption heaping 012004 #1.do,~
36
85
4. Provide an explanation in the Land Use Element at goal LU17 as to
why the Seattle/King County Stormwater manual is recommended.
The Planning Commission requested this information be added.
a. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends that a "discussion"
paragraph be added after goal LU17 that reads; Discussion; The
Seattle/King County Stormwater Manual is recommended for its ability to provide
storm water related development standards in a clear manner. Its use has the
additional advantage of providing consistency for many development
professionals who are familiar with it as a result of their work in most of the more
populated portions of the State - where it is the more common documenL
5. Rename the "Upper Wheaton" and "Lower Wheaton" District Centers
as the "North Wheaton Way District Center" and the "South Wheaton
Way District Center" respectively. This was suggested to help possible
avoid confusion between the location of the "Lower Wheaton Way Center''
and that portion of Wheaton Way the parallels the Port Washington
Narrows between Manette and the general vicinity of the Warren Avenue
bridge areas.
a. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends that this change be
made throughout the document and maps.
6. Place Erlands Point in the UGA. It was suggested that the Erlands Point
area be added to the proposed UGA.
a, Staff recommendation; With only small exceptions, the current
recommended UGA includes only areas with current UGA
designation. The suggested areas are either in the current City
UGA or within the current "unassociated" UGA in the central Kitsap
area. The City has limited capacity to provide the full range of urban
services identified in the Plan to new areas, but assumes that ability
to serve has been demonstrated in the currently designated areas.
Staff cannot recommend addition of areas that are currently outside
of any designated UGA and therefore not associated with any
demonstration of service capacity.
7. Anderson Cove Area, It was noted that there is no specific mention of the
Anderson Cove area in the document. The person testifying felt that the
Plan should address this area specifically as it not only has some unique
problems, but unique opportunities as well. It was noted that the Housing
Authority was exploring a project in the area.
a, Staff recommendation. Staff recommends that Anderson Cove
area should be added to the list of sub-areas where additional area-
specific plans should be created in the future. That listing is on the
top of page LUC.
8. Various requested changes to the Land Use Maps. Pa,ties have made
requests for changes to the draft land use scenario maps either through
testimony at hearing or previously submitted written requests.
P.. ,Com~urat} D,.x e opment ,~hapmg bremeno~'CP hearir~gs' Pia.mning Corn_mission Staff
Report - adoption !~eafing 012004 #1 .doc
37
86
a. Staff Recommendation; Staff has analyzed each request and
placed the change requested on one or more scenario maps if it fit
the mapping paradigm employed to create the map. In some cases
the request did not appear to be indicated by any of the three
paradigms and there is no change shown. In scenario's 2 and 3 the
land use designation applied to reflect a requested change employ
the Draft 2003-2004 Comprehensive Plan Update's land use
designations and will not match the specific request if it referred to
the 1995 plan designation. Staff recommends that after
deliberation, the Planning Commission adopt all three scenario
maps as drafted or amended and designate one map as the
"recommended alternative map"
9. HE designation heights. This is not the base mapping issue regarding
the Olympic College boundary. It was suggested during testimony that the
height limit in the HE designation be high enough to facilitate two or three
story buildings. This was seen as a way to encourage college expansion
to go "up" not "out".
a. Staff recommendation. Note that the height limit suggested for the
HE designation is already listed as 60 feet in the Draft plan (see
page LU48). To further support this suggested standard, staff
recommends that the HE land use designation be amended in the
section entitled "discussion" to read; Discussion; The HE
designation recognizes the Olympic Co/lege campus. It encourages
appropriate growth of the campus fac#ities in ways that are
compatible with surrounding uses. Liberal height standards are
proposed for campus structures.
10. Maps. For purposes of moving the Draf~ 2003-2004 Comprehensive Plan
Update forward for SEPA analysis and later for City Council adoption, it
will be necessary to include all three land use scenario maps. In addition,
if either scenario map #1 or #2 is determined to be the recommended
map, additional changes to goals and policies to bring the Plan and map
into consistency will be needed.
a. Staff recommendation; Before through separate motion, or within
a motion to adopt the Plan, move to establish either tand use
scenario map #1, #2, or #3 as the "recommended land use map".
End hearing session, March 16, 2004
R:~,Comm. unity Deve!opment',shaping brernerton CP hearings'.Plarming Con-umission Staff
Report - adoption hearing 0 i2004 #I .doc
87
Addendum #5
(Addition to staff report for hearing session of March 30, 200 4)
Transportation Element
There are several recommendations we would like to make to this
element to ensure its consistency with the rest of the
Comprehensive Plan, what we heard from the Citizens who
participated in the process, and internal consistency.
Page 4-2 paragraph (2) titled Kitsap Way:
This section talks about improvements to be made to Kitsap
Way for capacity improvements. There is no mention about
bike paths and bike path improvement.
It is our recommendation that we add a bullet to include bike
path improvements. This is consistent with the goals and
policies of the transportation element and the bike path map
that is also contained in the transportation section.
* Page 4-2 paragraph (3) titled SR 304 {Navy Yard
Highway/Charleston Blvd/Burwell Corridor)
The last sentence of the initial paragraph in this section states
"A separate downtown project (the Downtown Bremerton BTC
Access/Pedestrian Improvements project) complements the
SR 304 project by further improving traffic circulation and
pedestrian mobility and safety in the downtown core."
It is our recommendation that this sentence be removed per
the guidance the Planning Commission gave at our study
session pertaining to the Transportation Element and the lack
of input from the public making the tie this sentence suggests.
* Page 4-5 first bullet point under heading 4.2.1 Proposed
Transit Projects
This bullet point states, "Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) between
Kitsap Mall in Silverdale and Bremerton Transit Center. The
preferred alternative extends from the Bremerton
Transportation Center north along Washington Avenue, across
the Manette Bridge, north on old Wheaton Way and Cherry
Street to a new Transit Center located between Old Wheaton
Way and Sheridan Street. From there the system would enter
SR 303, and continue north to Silverdale."
R:~ConLmu~t~, Development,,shaping bremenon',CP hearings,Planning Corpmnission Staff
Report - adoption hea~ng 012004 =t ,doc
39
88
It is our recommendation that the language about a "preferred
alternative" be stricken. The transportation committee was not
opposed to having Bus Rapid Transit options throughout
Bremerton, but it did recommend that this proposed altemative
NOT be recommended or endorsed in the Comprehensive
Plan.
We suggest making some adjustments to the proposed bike
paths and open spaces. The purpose of these adjustments to
make them more consistent with the centers policy and ensure
that the centers are connected through alternative
transportation methods.
Environment Element
Finally, we finalized a few details in the environment chapter.
Most notably, we inserted a paragraph about stream/creeks
and fipadan zones.
R:\Cormmunity Development'.shaping bremerton CP hsanngs ¢la.,'a,nng Cormmission StaSf
Report - adoption hearing 012004 # 1 .doc
40
89
Planning Commission instructions to staff/amendments to plan
resulting from deliberations Comprehensive Plan adoption
4/20/04
[] I. Integrate edits provided by Planning Commission members into Economic
Development Element. Edits will relate to adding a more "positive voice".
(pending P.C. notes) (later implemented by No. 's 29, 30, 31 below)
2. Remove sentence referring to BTC project from Transportation Appendix, page
4-2, paragraph (3).
3. Add "discussion note" after GoM LU17 explaining rationale for referencing King
County Stormwater Manual to read as follows; "The Seattle/King County
Stormwater Manual is recommended for its ability to provide storm water related
development standards in a clear manner. Its use has the additional advantage of
providing consistency for many development professionals who are familiar with
it as a result of their work in most of the more populated portions of the State -
where it is the more common document.
4. Rename Wheaton Way DC's to VYheaton/Ridell DC and Wheaton/Sheridan DC.
[] 5. Add discussion recommending that Erlands Point and Rocky Point be treated as
"Joint Planning Areas" Add the following paragraph at the end of the UGA
discussion ending on page LU9; "Joint Planning Areas (JPA's). In addition to the
proposed UGA, the City and County should investigate the potential for
additional planning coordination in specific areas. Study and analysis may lead to
inclusion of these areas in future recormmended additions to Bremerton's UGA.
JPA's should be designated in the Count5' Comprehensive Plan for the Erland's
Point and Rocky Point areas.
6. Add Anderson Cove to list of areas recommended for future sub-area planrfing.
List is in page LU 6.
[] 7. Re-write discussion portion of HE land use designation on page LU 48 to further
illuminate concept of"compatibility" with nearby Uses/neighborhood. The new
discussion section to read as follows: "Discussion: The HE designation
recognizes the Olympic College campus. The designation pro~Sdes for growth at
the OC Campus, but promotes growth that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods and other nearby areas. In general, the College is encouraged to
seek to accommodate new facility needs by growing "up" rather than by
occupying lands in the surrounding areas. Increased building height is suggested
to accommodate such growth. In addition, campus growth through infill of
underutilized ground area within the existing campus boundary is also
encouraged. The City will re-asses maximum lot coverage standards and consider
other re~.~latory measures to accommodate the desired infili."
5/4/04
[] 8. Amend policy LU9i by adding the word "library" so as to read as follows:
"Centers should include at least one core amenity. These include; a public
meeting space, park, or plaza; a community center or school; or a public building
such as a post office, police substation, librat~V, etc. (boldface italics not to be
included in Plan.)
[] 9. Amend policy CC2f, discussion section, 2na paragraph, 1st sentence to read; "The
City should establish criteria for determining when planting strips between the
road and sidewalk should be required." Add new second sentence to read;
"Planting strips will typically be at least 5 feet in width and make maximum
possible use of indigenous plants."
10. Amend policy CC3a. by making several minor changes and by striking all words
after the word "sidewalks" so as to read as follows; "Encourage a sense of
neighborliness and community by orienting one or more entrance to a commercial
building toward the pedestrian sidewalk".
11. Amend policy CC2d to read as follows; "Promote consistent massing of
buildings".
[] 12. Amend discussion section following policy CC2d. by striking all existing
language and replacing with the following: "When new buildings are created
within an existing row of structures, attention should be given to the height and
mass of the new structure. In general, new structures should be similar in height
and mass to surrounding buildings. Variations in height and mass that respond to
desired changes in the character of the area as expressed in the comprehensive
plan or implementing zoning regulations should be allowed and encouraged."
13. Amend policy CC2e. to read as follows; "Human scale can be further achieved
through architectural detailing and by variation in the three-dimensional character
of the building as it rises skyward. Monolithic, vertical extrusions of the
maximum building footprint are strongly discouraged. Lower levels should be
differentiated architecturally from the rest of the building. Street level portions of
buildings should be occupied by active uses that create interest for the pedestrian
and arch/tectural variety. In buildings along busy arterials, residential uses should
be on the second floor or above."
14. Amend policy T 1 a., second bullet point, by striking the word "adequate".
15. Amend policy T2b to read as follows; "Reflect the urban nature of roadways
within Bremerton by promoting:"
16. Move first bullet-point under policy T12a to become a new sixth bullet-point
under policy T8a and amend to read as follo~vs; "-maximize safety for pedestrian
and bike path corridors."
17. Add a new policy T5d. to read as follows: "Promote creation of parking structures
in Centers that reduce surface-level parking.
[] 18. Add new bullet-point under new policy T5d. that reads as follows; "- parking
structures in centers (including the Downtown Center) should generally not face
pedestrian streets, but rather be placed in the interior of blocks, provide retail
space along the street edge, or otherwise be accessory to a mixed-use project."
19. Amend policy CS 1 Ob by striking existing language and replacing with the
following; "Prepare, distribute, and educate citizens and public staff about
emergency preparedness plans including instructing Bremerton's citizens what
services will or will not be available immediately following an incident and listing
locations where support services will be provided."
[] 20. Add new policy E7e to read as follows; "Encourage connectivity between open
space areas with a system of paths and trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
non-motorized users."
21. Add new bullet-point under policy E3f. to read as follows: "Adopt incentive
based development standards which reward environmentally sensitive
development practices and projects and that lead to preservation of urban forests."
[] 22. Add newT bullet-point under policy E3d to read as follows; "Develop a "night
skies" ordinance that addresses issues of urban light pollution.
[] 23. Add new policy Elg. to read as follows; "consider the adoption ora local tree
ordinance that promotes retention of trees and forested areas as growth occurs."
24. Amend policy E3c to read as follows; "Encourage developers of new projects in
Bremerton, including public projects, to provide improvements that reduce the use
of single occupancy vehicles."
[] 25. Amend policy E6d. to read as follows; "Whenever reviewing development
proposals, identify habitats that may be adversely impacted."
26. Amend goal E7 by adding the words "and visitors." at the end.
27. Amend policy E8c to read as follows; "Promote alternatives to traditional
stormwater practices for new construction, encourage off-site filtration, and
require the use of current Best Management Practices."
5/18/04
28. Add new section describing the Reserve Center land use designation following
description of the DRC(Downtown Regional Center) description on page LU41.
New RC section to read as follows;
RC (Reserve Center)
Development Parameters:
Density; up to 20 units per acre
Height; mid-rise, ranging fi-om one to four stories. Higher buildings should be
generally concentrated nearer the center of the designated area.
Structure types: Mixed. Various commercial, residential and mixed-use structures
Location; As mapped.
Policy direction: The reserve center designation anticipates development patterns that
will be implemented beyond the 20 year planning horizon employed by this plan. This
designation seeks to preserve options for future development as a, neighborhood or
district center. Development occurring during the currem planning period should be
carefully monitored so as to not preclude successful center-type development patterns in
the future.
Discussion; The Reserve Center designation recognizes that the area designated is likely
to be appropriate for development as a Neighborhood or District Center sometime beyond
the twenty-year horizon addressed by this plan while recognizing also that there is a
possibility of re-designation of the area to full center status even ~vittfin the 20 years. It
recognizes that it is important to discourage types of development that - if they were to
occur in the shorter-term - would make future development as a center more difficult
and/or unlikely. Implementing zoning during the planning period should encourage
mixed-use development in buildings of more than one stoW and discourage site designs
that place parking and other non-pedestrian uses along the arterial street fi-ontage. The
implementing zoning should also discourage the placement of new structures and uses
out-of-scale with eventual creation of a pedestrian-oriented commercial node. In the
immediate time fi-me, implementing zordng should treat this entire area in a like manner.
Uses during the period pre-dating the anticipated future re-designation as a center may be
a variety of commercial uses.
29. Amend Economic Development Element by re-writing introduction section, first
paragraph, to read as follows; "Bremerton, as the urban center of Kitsap County,
is a vibrant environment which fosters economic vitality through its broad
diversification of jobs and strategically dispersed commercial activities. The ciD'
provides a superior natural setting, a nationally recognized quality of life, and a
regionally significant deep water port, home to a newly rebuilt state ferry terminal
and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the West Sounds largest employer.
Rediscovery of the city's qualities and its economic durability entices new
investments as well as rejuvenates residents and business in pursuit of the city's
economic interests.
30. Move "city profile" and "inventory" sections of Economic development Element
to a new Economic Development Appendix.
31. Re-write Economic Development Elmnent Vision Statement to read as follows;
(per testimony from Richard Nerf 1/I 8/04) "Bremerton is a metropolitan city with
economic vitality and diverse lifestyles. The city provides a broad variety of jobs,
housing, transportation options, convenience services, and strategically dispersed
commercial activities. Communities and established neighborhoods within the
city each have a distinctive focus, yet all are walkable and well-connected to each
other, satellites to a vibr~mt downtown with the most interesting mix of activities.
Residents and visitors alike enjoy the accessible waterfronts, water and mountain
views, and urban parks. New development merges with established styles,
enhancing and protecting the charm, historical character of the city, and its
cultural heritage."
32. Strike existing and add new policy EC3a. to read as follows; "Encourage the
development of the downtown as a neighborhood as well as the heart of the city
and region."
33. Amend policy EC3c to read as follows; "Encourage services downtown for
commuters as well as residents.
34. Amend policy EC6d, 2nd bullet, to read as follows; "Support educational
opportunities through public, private, and higher education institutions."
35. Add a new policy EC41. to read as follows: "Encourage a more diversified
economic base to increase elasticity in the local economy."
36. Add a new (2ha) bullet point under policy EC4b. to read as follows; "Pursue
eligibility for all areas of the City that may qualify for State Empowerment Zone
designation?'
37. Amend description of the Sylvar~Pine neighborhood Center on page LU31 in the
first sentence to replace words "is located at the" with "in the vicirfity of''.
38. Amend description of the North Wtteaton Way DistrSct Center, east portion, third
sentence, at the bottom of page LU32 by replacing words, "six to eight stories"
with '~up to five stories".
39. Amend description of the Lower Wheaton Way District Center, page LU33, 4th
paragraph, 5th sentence, by replacing the words, "Three to four stories" with "four
to five stories".
40. Amend section describing the CC (Commercial Corridor) land use desi~ation,
"discussion" section, page LU42 by adding the following; "Incentive-based
development should be encouraged with a priority on preserving existing
vegetation through the use of open space and vegetative buffers."
41. Amend last sentence of the CC (Commercial Corridor) land use designation,
"discussion" section, page LU42, to read as follows; "A full range of services
may be accommodated, including such uses as food markets, theaters, restaurants,
hardware stores and automobile-oriented businesses such as gas stations and fast-
food outlets."
42. Amend section describing the wwp>., c (Wheaton Way ..Redevelopmen. t Corridor)
land use designation, page LU43, 4m paragraph, by adding the fullowmg to the
end of the paragraph, "Vehicular access should be encouraged on secondary roads
near or at the rear of sites whenever possible. Such secondary circulation routes
should be linked to those on adjacent sites and/or the existing street system
whenever possible. Site designs should consider the possibility of developing
secondary circulation routes within the corridor over time and linkages to the
circulation system in adjacent centers: Care should be taken to assure that
providing such alternatives to access fi.om the busy Wheaton Way frontage does
not introduce inappropriate traffic to neighborhood areas."
43. Amend discussion of the PSRS (Public Sector Redevelopment Sites) land use
designation, discussion portion, 3rd sentence, to read; "Potential development
includes mixed-use type residential developments with an open space component
that integrate sensitive commercial and/or office development as a secondary
component."
44. The following steps implement a general instruction to remove reference to
existing (adopted) neighborhood or specific area plans fi.om the discussion of
Specific Area Plans found on pages LU5-6 and incorporate reference to the
adopted plans in appropriate land use designation sections, or other text sections,
that apply to the areas covered by the plans.
a. Amend section of Land Use Element discussing Specific Area Plans, list
at the top of page LU6, by removing the parenthetical references to the
Charleston Community Plan, Harrison District Plan and the non-
parenthetical listing of the Campus/Evergreen Plan.
b. Add the following sentence to the discussion of the Charleston District
Center, page LU34, end of first paragraph; "The adopted Charleston
Community Plan will perform as a resource and beginning point for area
specific planning for the Charleston District Center."
c. Add the following sentence to the end of the discussion of the Harrison
Employment Center, page LU36; "The adopted Harrison District Plan will
perform as a resource and beginning point for area specific plan;ting for
the Harrison Employment Center"
d. Add the following sentence to the discussion of the downtown regi°nal
center, page LU35, first paragraph; '"The adopted Campus/Evergreen
District Plan, Plan will perform as a resource and beginning point for area
specific planning for those portions of the Downtown Regional Center
addressed by that plan.
45. Strike policy LU8a.
46. The following steps implement a general instruction to eliminate reference to
building height as expressed in feet in alt descriptions of land use designations
Pages LU38-48.
a. Amend description of LDR land use designation page LU38, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"35 feet maximum"
b. Amend description of NC land use designation page LU39, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"45 feet maximum"
c. Amend descr/ption of DC land use desig-nation page LU39, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"50 feet maximum"
d. Amend description of CC land use designation page LU42, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"35 feet max."
e. )d~nend description of WW~rRC land use designation page LU342, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"35 feet max."
f. Amend description of PSRS land use designation page LU44, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"/35 feet maximum"
g. Amend description of NB land use designation page LU44, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"/25 feet"
h. Amend description of LDR land use designation page LU38, general
development parameters section, height subsection by striking the words,
"35 feet maximum"
47. a. Add the following sentence to the description of the downtown regional center,
page LU35, first paragaph following the ne~v sentence added per instruction 43d
above; "Specific area planning for the entire downtown regional center that
considers these portions and all other areas within the designation will be
conducted".
48. Add "Downtown Regional Center" to the list of areas that will receive specific
area planning, top of page LU6.
49. Amend title of GC ( General Corr~mer¢ial) land use designation, page LU45, to
"LC (Limited Commercial) (also amend labeling on Land Use Maps)
50. Amend discussion of North Wheaton Way District Center, page LU32, first
paragraph, 8th sentence by striking the hyphenated phrase; "- although automobile
focused uses such as gas stations and repair garages are not permitted.".
Addendum #6
To the staff report on the Comprehensive Plan)
May 18, 2004
Staff has one final recommendation. After review of the Land Use Element staffbelieves
that it is necessary to define the parameters of the "Reserve Center" designation that
appears on the Scenario #3 Land Use Map in the Kitsap Lake area. This designation is
not considered to be a center designation. It is instead a more traditional land use
designation that should be implemented by a (single) zoning classification - but does not
necessarily requires a specific area plan for full implementation. The suggested
designation description is needed to guide development of that zoning classification.
The following designation description should be added at the bottom of page LU41
immediately after the discussion of the DRC (Downtown Regional Center) designation~
RC (Reserve Center)
Development Parameters:
Density; up to 20 units per acre
Height; mid-rise, rang/ng fi.om one to four stories. Higher buildings should be
generally concentrated nearer the center of the designated area.
Structure types: Mixed. Various commercial and mixed-use structures
Location; As mapped.
Policy direction: The reserve center designation anticipates development patterns that
~vill be implemented beyond the 20 .vear planning horizon employed by' this plan. This
desi~o-nation see ~ks to preserve optiork%for future de~elopment as a neighborhood or
district center. Development occurring during the current planning period should be
carefully monitored so as to not preclude successful censer-type development patterns i~
the future.
Discussion; The Reserve Center designation recogmzes that the area designated is likely
to be appropriate for development as a Neighborhood or District Center sometime beyond
the twenty-year horizon addressed by this plan. It recognizes that it is important to
discourage types of development that - if they were to occur in the shorter-term - would
make future development as a center more difficult and/or unlikely. Implementing zoning
during the planning period should encourage mixed-use development in buildings of
more than one story and discourage site designs that place parking and other non-
pedestrian uses along the arterial street frontage. The implementing zoning should also
discourage the placement of new structures and uses out-of-scale with eventual creation
of a pedestrian-oriented commercial node. In the immediate time frame, implementing
zoning should treat this entire area in a like manner. Uses during the period pre-dating the
anticipated future re-designation as a center may be a vareC' of commercial uses.
98
Summary of status of specific land -use requests
The following section of this addendum to the staffreport summarizes staff
recommendation regarding the appropriate response to several items o£tustimony (all
found in the matrix of testimony provided to the Commission). These items are those that
made very specific requests to land use designations on specific parcel(s) of land. The
section describes how each Land Use Map scenario responds to the request.
1. Penn Plaza (William Palmer and McConkey)
Summary of request: At present the property in question is designated BP
(Business Park) on the north and MDR (Medium Density Residential) on the south.
The party testifying requests that the entire property receive a BP desi,maation.
a. Scenario #1: reflects existing status ~vhich is consistent with the current
Ever~een Campus Plan
b. Scenario #2: suggests re-designation as requested (although designation is
called "Industrial Park". This reflects Scenerio#2's philosophy of
continuing to allow expansion of commercial uses in a dispersed pattern
across the City based primarily on market request - but using new'
desi_mnation set.
c. Scenario #3; coverts north portion designation to Industrial Park, while
designating south portion Low Density Residential (up to 10 units per
acm). TMs is based on Plan goals and policies that move all higher density
residential uses to Centers while leaving industrial and business park type
uses in place (as there are no emplo,vment centers to send then to).
2. Roberts/O'Donnoghue propert3', vicinity of Northwest Corporate Campus
Summary of request: Designate property along Hwy 16 southeast of Gorst for
commercial use. (current plan desigmation is residential)
a. Scenaio #1; The property receives a general commercial designation
reflecting scenario #1 philosophy that commercial uses would expand
along arterials.
b. Scenario #2; Property received Industrial Park designation reflecting
scenario #2 philosophy that new designations will be used to address
traditional market forces calling for more industrial land.
c. Scenario #3; indicates designation of the subject propert3' as part of the
Northwest Corporate Campus Employment Center. This designation
potentially allows commercial uses, but subject to a future area-specific
planning process that lays-out a design approach for the entire
Employment Center.
3. Kitsap County Health District; Health District Campus adjacent to Jackson Park
Su,mmaD' of Request; Re-designate from current MF designatio~ to
"Gene:al and Professional Office"
a. Scenario :el; reflects exiting MDR designation, request to re-designate for
public uses is not provided for in existing (1995) goals and policies.
b. Scenario #2; indicates re-designation as a Public Sector Redevelopment
Site reflecting the Scenaho #2 philosophy that public agency needs will be
enabled as requested - but using new designation set.
c. Scenario #3; Indicates re-designation as Public Sector Redevelopment
Site reflecting Plan Goals and policies regarding providing public se~,ices
in accessible locations.
4. Whitcomb Property' (William Palmer), vicinity of Hwy 3 and Kitsap Way.
Summary of Request; designate one parcel "behind" existing motel for
commercial use. Current designation is LDR.
a. Scenario #1; Property received CG designation, reflecting Scenario #1
philosophy that existing commercial designations are expanded near
arterials, etc.
b. Scenario #2; Property remains designated LDR, reflecting Scenario #2
philosophy that commercial expand near arterials, but not in locations not
fronting on an arterial. Remaining ownership receives Freeway
commercial designation, potentially increasing intensity of uses.
c. Scenario #3 Property remains LDR Property remains designated LDR,
reflecting Scenario #2 philosophy that commercial expands only in
centers. Remaining ownership receives Freeway corranercial designation,
potentially increasing intensiD~ of uses.
4. Rosander
Summa.'-), o£request: Designate the subject parcel to unspecified designation
allowing wood flooring sales and storage use.
a. Scenario #1; Property is re-designated to Industrial Park reflecting
scenario #1 philosophy that the City would continue to allow' expanded
industrial uses in areas where industu already existed.
b. Scenario #2; Property receives Industrial Park desi~ation, essential same
rationale' as above
c. Scena.do #3; Property receives Reserve Center designation. Reserve
Center will be implemented with zoning that allows a wide varlet3' of
commercial uses while preserving the potential for future neighborhood or
district center designation.
5~ McDonald
Summary of request; designate portion of one lot to General Commercial
designation.
a. Scenario #l; Property' is re-designated to GC reflecting scenario #1
philosophy that commercial uses expand in exiting commercial areas.
b. Scenario #2; Prope~y is not re-designated consistent with scenario #2
philosophy that wh/le co~mercial uses are generally expanded in existing
commercial areas, properties not fronting an arterial and adjacent to
existing residential areas would not be re-designated to commercial.
c. Scenario #3; Property is not re-designated reflecting scenario #3
philosophy that commercial uses are not generally not located outside of
centers or corridors (except large scale freeway oriented uses).
101
Minutes for
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 2004
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Buckingham at 5:36 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Those present were: Commissioner Cockbum, Commissioner Kosusko, Commissioner
Streissguth, Commissioner Wood and Commissioner Buckingham. Quorum certified.
III. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Buckingham introduced the agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner
Kosusko and seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the agenda as presented. Called
for a vote: Cockbum: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes.
The motion carried.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the Special Meeting held on March 30, 2004, ~vere presented for approval by
Commissioner Buckingham. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and
seconded by Commissioner Wood to approve the corrected meeting minutes of March 30,
2004 as presented. Called for a vote: Cockbum: Yes; Kosusko: Yes; Streissguth: Yes; Wood:
Yes; and Buckingham; abstain. The motion carried.
V. PUBLIC MEETING
A. Call To The Public (public comments on any item not on tonight's agenda): Seeing
none, Commissioner Buckingham closed this portion of the meeting.
B. Public Hearing: Paul Rogerson, Planning Manager, began with the Staff Report.
Addendum #6 was distributed to the Commission before the start of the meeting. This
addendum contains issues that had come up during staff's examination of the plan over the two
weeks prior to this evening's meeting that staff felt needed to be remedied. Item #1 on the
addendum recommended the addition of a description of the Reserve Center designation to the
Land Use element. It had been earlier recommended in Land Use Scenario #3, the application of
a designation to the Kitsap Lake area ("Reserve Center"), but the plan did not have a description
of ~vhat the parameters of the designation are. Staff's recommendation was to add the RC
(Reserve Center) designation be added to the plan on page LU-41, immediately after a similar
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page I of 18
202
description of the Downtown Regional Center. Commissioner Buckingham questioned the
density of up to 20 units per acre in the Reserve Center and wanted to know if that would allow
future neighborhood or district center designation. Paul explained that 20 units per acre is the
density recommendation used in other segments of the plan that discuss neighborhood and
district center designations. Staff also recommended a change in the language within the
development portion of the description in regard to structure types. It should read, "Structure
types should be mixed with various commercial, residential, and mixed use structures", noting
the insertion of the word "residential". Paul also proposed that in the discussion section it is
made clear that it may be appropriate to re-designate the areas as full centers sooner than the 20-
year planning period. The current language states that development of the area(s) as a full center
would not occur until sometime after the 20-year planning period; while that is the most likely
scenario, Paul wanted to be prepared in the event it takes less than 20 years. Chris Hugo,
Director of Community Development, added that the reason staff has not proposed to re-
designate the areas now is because everything that has a designation also has to have a
population assigned to it. At this time, approximately 21,000 in new growth in and around the
city has been included in the urban growth plan which works out to about a 50% increase in
population over the next 20 years. If the potential centers were added [to the plan] now, a certain
number of people for each center would have to be added to the estimation, pushing the number
over 21,000 which is already an ambitious amount. The amendment of the language is just to
prevent any frustration in the ultimate conversion of the traditional areas to centers; it would
allow for change in the interim but it would not work against the realization of a future center's
designation. Commissioner Buckingham noted that, since Addendum #6 only dealt with Land
Use issues, it would be timelier to discuss this addendum while deliberating on the Land Use
element after the Economic element had been addressed. All were in agreement.
Commissioner Buckingham asked for any comments related to the Economic element.
Commissioner Wood began with discussion regarding revamping the introduction with a more
positive note. Commissioner Streissguth proposed the Commission adopt the language of the
revised Mission Statement submitted through public comment. She also suggested moving the
city profile to an appropriate appendix and a re-write for the first paragraph of the element which
would read:
"Bremerton, as the ttrban center of Kitsap County, is a vibrant environment which
fosters economic vitality throt~gh its broad diversification of jobs and strategically
dispersed commercial activities. The City provides a superior natural setting, a
nationally recognized quality of life and a regionally significant deep water port,
home to newly rebuilt State ferry terminal and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the
West Sound's largest employer. Rediscovery of the City's qualities and its economic
durability entices new investments as well as rejuvenating residents and businesses in
pursuit of this City's economic interest."
Commissioner Streissguth remarked that by placing the city profile portion in the appendix, it
takes out current state of affairs that can become dated over time and makes the Economic
element consistent with the other element's formats. Commissioner Kosusko commented that
he was a little hesitant to change the vision statement without more consideration due to the fact
that the original had been drafted by citizens. He wanted to compare the original with the
proposed change before making that decision. Commissioner Wood read directly from an
example of an updated vision statement submitted by Richard Nerf on January 18, 2004.
Commissioner Streissguth had compared this example with the original and didn't feel there
Planning Commission Meeting May 18. 2004 Page 2 of 18
103
were any substantive changes; it was more of a rephrasing of what already existed. It was agreed
by the Commission to change the first paragraph of the element as suggested by Commissioner
Streissguth, to rephrase the Vision Statement as proposed by Mr. Nerf, and to move the city
profile and inventory (list of existing conditions) to the appendix.
Commissioner Kosusko noted that in §EC3, the element promotes a full-service, 24-hour
regional downtown center, but the section does not contain language regarding residents in the
downtown area; having full-time residents in the downtown center is essential to the economic
vitality of the area. Commissioner Buckingham agreed, noting the residential aspect may be
covered in the Housing element, but should also be mentioned in the Economic element when
describing what a full-service, 24-hour center is. Commissioner Streissguth suggested
referencing downtown residents under §EC3a, expanding the features that attract people to
downtown to include a residential component, or in §EC3d where there is discussion on
incentives for downtown redevelopment and reinvestment. Commissioner Kosusko thought it
should be treated as its own policy. There was some discussion on the vagueness of §EC3a and
it ~vas decided some clarification should be applied such as listing the types of events or
programs envisioned to attract people to the downtown area. Commissioner Buckingham
thought a broad statement regarding livability downtown could be included in §ECl. Paul
Rogerson raised the issue of §EC3i which lists cultural activities and special events which
appears to repeat §EC3a which could then possibly be available for other uses. It was generally
agreed to rewrite §EC3a to include reference to residential uses. Chris Hugo commented that
one of the ideas used by other urban areas looking to revitalize their downtown area, including
residential uses, is to create a downtown that is not only the heart of the community, but also as
its own neighborhood. Once the idea of the downtown area being a neighborhood is introduced,
other residential amenities such as shopping (grocery and retail), services, etc. come into the
picture.
Commissioner Buckingham felt that, in §EC3c, "Encourage services downtown for
commuters", should include "... and residents". Chris Hugo thought there may have been some
significance to only having commuters listed, so he proposed it read "... commuters as well as
residents". All were in agreement to amend §EC3c as Chris proposed.
Chris Hugo proposed §EC3a to read, "Encourage the development of downtown as a
neighborhood as well as the heart of the City and region." The Commissioners approved of the
change. Commissioner Kosusko voiced some concern as to whether or not "neighborhood"
conveyed a strong enough sense of having full-time residents in the downtown area.
Commissioner Streissguth noted that there would be more opportunity over time to revisit this
issue, especially when the Commission deals with zoning, in terms of density and creating
consistency bet~veen implementing zoning and what the goals and policies are.
Commissioner Wood read directly from Citizen Judith Fricberg-Nerf's comments regarding the
Economic Development of Bremerton, dated January 15, 2004. In summary, her comments dealt
mostly with developing Bremerton's commitment to the arts and education, and promoting green
or eco-friendly businesses and what part the City could play in bringing about that vision.
Commissioner Kosusko expressed concern about making such specific changes/additions to the
plan at this time. Commissioner Buckingham noted that §EC3i covers arts and cultural events.
There was some discussion about adding ballet points to §EC3, but Commissioner Kosusko
reminded the Commission that §EC3 pertains only to the downtown region, but perhaps §ECl
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 3 of 18
204
might be more appropriate. Chris Hugo cautioned the Commission against introducing new
material into the plan at this time because of time constraints; the task at hand was to review and
comment on what the various committees had produced and any additional input should be
weighed in terms of how consistent it is with what the committee had presented, how much work
does it entail and how much time would be needed to implement the additions. Larger ideas can
be given to staff to hold on to until the first annual update. Items that appear to be critical should
be addressed immediately to prevent gaps in policy.
There was additional discussion regarding the higher education items in Judith Frieberg-Nerf's
comments. Commissioner Kosusko suggested expanding on §EC6d and include a reference to
higher education by changing the second bullet to read, "Support educational opportunities
through public, private and higher education institutions". There was general agreement on this
addition.
In response to Judith Frieberg-Nerf's suggestion on promoting eco-friendly businesses,
Commissioner Cockburn noted that, the way the plan was written, no reasonable business
would be precluded from being part of the Bremerton's economic plan and didn't see the benefit
of listing specific types of businesses. Chris Hugo asked if there was a policy statement about
diversification; he felt the public comment was questioning the diversity of businesses, noting
the main businesses within Bremerton are Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and car dealerships.
Paul Rogerson noted there were a couple of references to promoting new business within the
text and appendix, but thought those statements may not be strong enough to satisfy the request
for more specific language regarding diversity. Chris suggested adding a policy to §EC4 that
reads, "Encourage a more diversified economic base to increase the elasticity in the local
economy." The Commissioners were in agreement on this proposed addition.
Chris Hugo asked for clarification on broadening the geographic area for the empowerment
zone. It ',vas his understanding the document was supposed to set the framework for a city-wide
empowerment zone designation. Paul Rogerson did not think that subject was addressed.
Matthew Keough, Growth Planner, responded in kind. [His full comment was not audible on
the recording as he was speaking from the audience and not using a microphone.] After reading
§EC4b regarding tax breaks and incentives, Chris remarked that that was what an empowerment
center was and suggested adding a comment to include enabling a city-wide empowerment zone
or something to that effect. This was an item that the State of Washington had been advised
would be included in Bremerton's Comp Plan. It was suggested to list this item as a second
bullet point under §EC4b that ~vould read, "Maintain all eligible areas of the city as an
empowerment zone to qualify for state tax credits". All were in agreement. Commissioner
Cockburn thought only certain areas were designated for empowerment zones, not the whole
city. Chris agreed, noting only census tract 8-13, (part of a "blight" designation), is currently
designated as an empowerment zone. When reviewing the criteria for getting tax breaks, nothing
that could be done in census tract 8-13 qualified, so an eligible piece of geography was created
that inherently wouldn't be eligible because of the types of jobs created (primary jobs), the
magnitude of development that has to occur to create those jobs, and where the people have to
live in order to enable the tax break. He stated, "We made application to do something, and in
our form of application we limited our geography so greatly we made sure we could never do it.
That's what we did back in 1994." In talking with the State, the State said there was no reason
why one wouldn't qualify as much of the city as one could because that has to do with where the
resident workers come from.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 4 of 18
105
Moving on to the Land Use element, Paul Rogerson continued with the staff report. In
Addendum #6, there were five specific requests via public comments for changes to the 1995
Land Use map; the Commissioners' task is to assess how the changes fit (or do not fit) in one of
the three scenario maps that have been discussed throughout the deliberation process. This
portion of the addendum goes through the requests and relates to the Commissioners staff's
assessment of how the requests fit in one, more than one or none of the scenarios. The first
request was related to the Penn Plaza area at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, submitted by Mr.
William Palmer and Mr. Paul McConkey. Paul read directly from the request which was asking
for the entire property in question to be redesignated as BP (Business Park). Under Scenario #1,
the north end of the property remains designated BP and the south end of the property remains
MDR (Medium Density Residential); in other words, no change to the existing designation~ In
Scenario #2, the property is redesignated as requested. For clarification, Paul explained that the
designation BP is no longer available and would be referred to as IP (Industrial Park). Scenario
#3 recommends that the north portion be designated IP and the south portion be designated LDR
(Low Density Residential), which allows density in that designation to go as high as ten
residential units per acre. This is based on plan goals and policies that move all higher density
residential uses to centers while leaving industrial or business park type uses in place as there are
no employment centers to send them to. In reference to the scenario #3, Commissioner
Kosusko asked where a new business would be located. Paul rephrased his previous statement:
Limited areas of commercial or business park-type development would not fit easily into an
employment center because their large site or planned-unit approach to industrial park
development. In Scenario #3 staff did not recommend that ali IP uses be thrust into non-
conforming status and essentially directed toward employment centers. It does allow some of
those types of uses to remain in place in contrast to what staff has done with multi-family
residential development, for example. Wemer Road is one of the IP designated areas that is not
part of an employment center; areas such as this exist primarily because not all of that type o fuse
is going to fit in the large plan environment of the employment center.
The second request was submitted by the Roberts and the Donahues, co-o~vners of a property in
the vicinity of Northwest Corporate Campus. The request was to designate their property along
Highway 16 (south and east of Gorst) for commercial use. In Scenario #1, the property receives
a general commercial designation, reflecting Scenario #1's philosophy that commercial uses
would expand along arterials. In Scenario #2, the property receives an Industrial Park
designation, reflecting Scenario #2's philosophy that new designations will be used to address
traditional market forces calling for more industrial land. It is a similar treatment of the property
as Scenario #1, but employs the new Industrial Park designation. In Scenario #3, the property is
designated as part of the Northwest Corporate Campus employment center. This designation
potentially allows commercial uses, but is subject to future area specific plan process. [Using the
Scenario #3 Land Use map, Paul showed the area of the Northwest Corporate Campus
employment center and where the property in question is located in relation to the center.] Chris
Hugo further clarified the location of the property; it is where Highway 16 comes around the end
of Sinclair Inlet. At this point, Highway 3 comes from Belfair and splits to run North and South.
The southbound traffic is heading toward Port Orchard and is merging right before this property,
so there are three-lanes of highway traffic and a merging lane of traffic with the speed limit
increasing to 50 mph. In Chris' opinion, the biggest issue is xvhat can reasonably be achieved
with [that property] where the transportation is consistent with the land use. The transportation
function is this area is established, and it is a severe one; it is difficult road geometry because the
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 5 of 18
106
three lanes of Highway 16 traffic coming southbound around the comer creates a dangerous
situation for any vehicle attempting to access property along the road on the hillside. Under
Scenario #3, waiting until there is a sub-area plan that addresses all aspects [of this property and
its location], is most likely the only way this property could be redesignated from its current
LDR zoning. The terrain of the property makes it inaccessible from the highway; the current
access is via a long driveway that leads to an older single-family home. Chris commented that
sometimes you have to defer to the least dangerous situation; perhaps some development could
occur if the owners were able to secure access through the west side of the property (via
Sunnyslope, for example). Currently, with the situation of the road system, it is difficult to see a
better option than what is offered under Scenario #3. General Commercial could be another
option, but another growth strategy would have to be chosen and it wouldn't be consistent with
the overall plan framework; there is still the question as to how the County and State could
support a major road access at that property location. Chris speculated that the owners might not
have ever asked that question if they had, it might have solved their interest in the
mdesignation. Paul Rogerson further explained that when staff developed the paradigms used
to create scenario maps #1 & #2, they were not complex enough to address some of the
transportation issues. When staff recommended Scenario #1, for example, it was done on the
basis of the philosophy that did not have enough depth to it to anticipate or address all of the
issues Chris Hugo had described. Scenario #3, while it was not predicated with more attention to
transportation issues, it happens to address the transportation dilemma better than #1 or #2.
The third request was submitted by Kitsap County Health District asking to redesignate a piece
of property owned by Kitsap County Health District in the Jackson Park area from its current
designation of MDR to General/Professional Office (as described in their testimony). In
Scenario #1, staff recommends the property remain MDR; redesignated public use is not
provided for in this scenario that would indicate it should be redesignated. Scenario #2 indicates
that a public sector redevelopment site designation should be applied to the property reflecting
Scenario #2's philosophy that public agency needs will be enabled as requested, using the new
land use designation. Scenario #3 also indicates a redesignation to a public sector redevelopment
site for the Health District's campus of buildings in the Jackson Park area, arising from plan
goals that are in the current draft plan regarding providing public services, accessible locations,
etc. Commissioner Buckingham asked if there currently is a public sector redevelopment site
designation. Paul confirmed this; the designation is in the plan and is applied to the map, not
only to this parcel, but to East Park and West Park. The basic philosophy is it is in the public
interest to [redesignate] and there is an overriding public benefit.
The fourth request is in reference to the Whitcomb property with testimony provided by William
Palmer. The property is in the vicinity of Highway 3 and Kitsap Way. The request was to
designate a small parcel behind an existing motel for commercial uses; the current designation is
Low Density Residential (LDR). In Scenario #1, the property receives the commercial
designation that is requested, reflecting the scenario's philosophy that existing commercial
designations are expanded near arterials. In Scenario #2, the property remains designated LDR,
reflecting Scenario #2's philosophy that commercial expansion does happen near arterials, but
not in locations not fronting on that arterial. As an aside, Paul explained the remaining
ownership owned by this property owner receives the Freeway Commercial designation which
potentially increases the utility of this property. To clarify, this scenario does not redesignate the
parcel requested to Freeway Commercial, but does redesignate the other ownership this person
maintains in that vicinity to Freeway Commercial; there then is a benefit on existing property but
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 6 of 18
does not receive the requested redesignation on the small parcel in question. In Scenario//3, the
property remains LDR, reflecting the Scenario #3's philosophy that commercial uses expand
only in centers. Remaining ownership receives the Freeway Commercial designation, potentially
increasing utility of the adjacent property but not on the property requested. The reason neither
Scenario #1 and //2 recommends the designation be reassigned to General Commercial [and
remains LDR] is because there is LDR designation immediately behind the property; currently
the property in the adjacent areas are developed for single family residential uses. Staff cannot
see that redevelopment of the property under the commercial designation (if it were given) would
be compatible with the nearby neighborhoods. [Using the GIS map, Matthew Keough showed
the Commissioners where the property the request is for is located.] The property is currently
accessible only through the residential neighborhood; there is no access via the existing General
Commercial area due to topography and the nature of the development on the site.
Commissioner Cockburn asked if [the property owner] wanted to expand the motel out [into
the redesignated] area. Paul replied that while the description provided did not specifically state
that, it is staff's opinion that that is the property owner's plan. He commented that without a
specific development request and uncertainty as to how the development would be accessed,
staff is hesitant to recommend redesignation at this time. If the property owner were to submit a
specific development request that demonstrated access would not be through the residential area,
adequate buffering would be provided between [the development] and the neighborhood, and
would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and a subsequent rezone, staff could
review the request differently. Without that additional information, staff felt [the request] was
not consistent with the goals and policies to recommend the redesignation. Chris Hugo asked if
there was opportunity for buffering on the north side [of the property] to protect the
neighborhood if the expansion were to occur. Paul responded that he could not say with
certainty, but he assumed it would be difficult to provide adequate buffering because of the size
of the development site. After viewing a short plat of the area on the GIS, Chris Hugo noted the
significance of the tots directly north of the requested redesignation site; these lots are all single-
family residences and there is a market for the current designation of LDR. Chris asked if the
requested site's topography would allow for single-family residence development. Dri Ralph,
Environmental Planner, confirmed this and explained there is a stream and other drainage
running through that particular piece of land.
The fifth request was submitted by John Rosander asking for redesignation for property he has
an interest in located in the Kitsap Lake vicinity. He was not specific about the designation he
was requesting, but he "wished have a designation that allowed a wood flooring sales- and
storage-type activity." Under Scenario #1, the property is redesignated as [Business] Park,
reflecting Scenario #1 's philosophy that the City would continue to allow expanded industrial
uses in areas where industry already existed [there is currently adjacent industrial uses in the
general vicinity of this site]. In Scenario #2, the property receives an Industrial Park designation,
essentially the same rationale as above, but using the newer 2003/2004 designation to
accomplish the same outcome. In Scenario #3, the property receives the Reserve Center
designation (discussed earlier). The Reserve Center will be implemented with zoning that allows
a limited variety of commercial uses ~vhile preserving a potential for future neighborhood or
district center designation. Chris Hugo commented that he had recently met with the property
owner's representative. Mr. Rosander is not the property owner's official representative; he is
promoting the comp plan change because, as a citizen, a person can propose any change to the
[zoning] map through this legislative process; no person needs any particular standing to speak
for a property - they can speak on what they think is in the best interest of the City. In Chris'
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 7 of 18
108
conversation with the attorney representing the property owner, it was made known that the
property owner wants to have the same plan designation as the adjacent commercial uses. That
redesignation is not an issue since both properties share frontage on a four-lane arterial. Chris
assured the attorney that his client wilt be treated the same as the other property owner, whatever
that is, under the center strategy. Ctu'is said he would talk more about a zoning implementation
approach in the Director's Report. Paul Rogerson reminded the Commission that the Reserve
Center desi~-mation is the entire red "hatched" area on the GIS map, not just the area Mr.
Rosander was submitting a request for redesignation on.
The sixth and last request is on the McDonald property, with testimony supplied by Mr.
McDonald who is asking to redesignate a portion of a lot (approximately ¼ of the lot) to General
Commercial. Under Scenario #1, the property is redesignated General Commercial, reflecting
Scenario #1's philosophy that commemial uses expand in existing commercial areas. Under
Scenario #2, the property is not redesignated, reflecting Scenario #2's philosophy that, while
commercials are generally expanded in existing commercial areas, properties not fronting on an
arterial and adjacent to exist residential areas are an exception to the role. In Scenario #3, the
property is not redesignated, reflecting Scenario #3's philosophy that commercial uses are
generally not located outside of centers or corridors, with the exception of large scale
commercial uses that are allowed in freeway-oriented areas. Chris Hugo asked if existing
commercial areas were allowed to be in-filled. Paul said that that policy had been discussed, but
staff did not consider this request to be in-fill. Chris clarified his question by adding the point
that there could be commercial [uses] outside of centers and corridors, but only when they in-fill
within a contained area. Commissioner Buckingham asked what currently exists on the lot in
question. Matthew Keough responded that the property is currently designated residential and
currently there is a house on the property; the portion of the lot that the owner is requesting a
redesignation has had some development by the property owner in the form of Mr. McDonald
expanding his business onto his residential lot. This expansion conflicts with zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Buckingham asked for any additional comments or questions concerning the
requests for redesignation. Seeing none, he moved on to deliberations on the Land Use element.
Commissioner Streissguth started with a question of clarification on page LU-7, Urban Growth
Area (UGA): The last sentence in the first paragraph contains a question about the non-
associated UGAs and Commissioner Streissguth felt the question was partially answered with the
CPPs and a portion of the area that is being referred to [within the paragraph] is now associated
with Bremerton. It was her understanding that in the CPPs there was a section that runs from
Riddell Road to the ravine that is now associated [with City of Bremerton], and she asked if the
language should be amended to reflect consistency with the CPPs. Chris Hugo commented that
Commissioner Streissguth had raised a good point because this is an item that is timely now, but
is not going to have much value in a couple years. He did note that the reason this is in the Land
Use element is because there is a large paradigm to break which has not occurred yet, even with
the CPPs. Bremerton will have to make an historic case and it's being made [within the
deliberations]. If Bremerton is successful in redirecting that history into a more positive
outcome, using the CPPs and these arguments, in two to four years [the reference to non-
associated UGAs] will be taken out. Currently, the area above Riddell Road is still a non-
associated UGA and will remain as such until Bremerton makes a case and the County acts on it
in one of their own comp plan updates in the future that redesignates the UGAs.
Planning Commission Meeting May t 8, 2004 Page 8 of 18
109
Commissioner Streissguth moved on to Open Space, directing the Commission to page LU-1 !
and the goals and policies (§LU2) on page LU-15. Both items discuss the linkage of a trail
system and pedestrian pathways. Commissioner Streissguth felt a reference to linkage between
centers should be added either to the text on page LU-11 or to the sub-goals in §LU2. Paul
Rogerson noted in §LU12b there is specific mention of pedestrian and bicyclist access between
communities, centers and neighborhoods. Thc Commissioners were in agreement that this
wording addresses Commissioner Strcissguth's concerns adequately.
Commissioner Streissguth proposed the wording on page LU-31 be amended to read, "The
Sylvan/Pine neighborhood center in thc vicinity of thc namesake intersection..." instead of"...
located at the intersection..." Public comment had been received recommending this change;
there are different amenities in the vicinity that may be a more appropriate location for the actual
center, so when the neighborhood plan is developed, the neighborhood can have that discussion.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that this change would be consistent with the
Commission's past discussions of centers where the centers are not necessarily intersection-
centered.
On page LU-32, Commissioner Streissguth questioned thc reference to the height restriction of
six to eight stories in the commercial [areas]; she felt the eight stories was inconsistent with what
had been decided on for other centers and wondered if the limit should be six stories or if a
[numerical measurement] should be used in place of a reference to the number of stories.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that what had been discussed previously was in reference
to inconsistencies with thc WWRC designation, which is thc corridor outside of the centers; that
item had been resolved, which leaves the question of the appropriateness of the eight-story
height restriction. Paul Rogerson noted that, although this topic had come up in several of the
past meetings, no change had yet been made because of the lack of clear direction on the
amendment. He pointed out that the District Center designation refers to a five-story/50-fcet
maximum height limitation. Chris Hugo commented that, even at five stories, a local
amendment to the building code is needed to go four stories of wood over a first story concrete
podium. Commissioner Kosusko amended that statement by saying it was five stories of wood
over a first story of concrete; anything more than that would require a special exception. He
wondered if the height might be too restrictive because of thc way heights arc measured. Chris
reminded the Commission that it had been decided to propose removing the references to height.
Commissioner Buckingham then asked if any reference to the number of stories should be
removed from the text and refer only to the District Center designation and what is allowable
under that designation. Commissioner Kosusko pointed out that on thc next page under "West
Portion" there is a four- to six-story height limitation and felt that if thc references to height were
removed from "East Portion", it should be removed throughout the document for consistency.
Paul spoke about the different height limitations and how each center is unique; in the
designation descriptions [later in the chapter] the general parameters are given which would be
the maximum height allowed for that area. It was agreed to remove the reference to five stories
on pages LU-32 and amend the "West Portion" to read "four- to five-stories" instead of"four- to
six-stories".
On page LU-42 under Commercial Corridor in thc discussion section, Commissioner
Streissguth suggested to adding a sentence that talks about incentive based development and
encouraging placement of priority on preserving existing trees and vegetative buffers, especially
along Kitsap Way. Commissioner Streissguth offered to e-mail the exact wording of the
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 9 of 18
additional sentence to Paul Rogerson after the meeting. Paul referred to a recommended staff
amendment on the same discussion paragraph pertaining to going with a form based zoning
approach. The last sentence in the discussion reads "... a full range of services are included as
permitted uses including grocery, theaters, etc." Paul's recommendation is to strike that sentence
because not only is it too specific, but it also is not consistent with the form based zoning
approach that will be discussed later in the meeting. Chris Hugo disagreed, saying there should
be additional discussion with staff and with Paul on how far form based zoning can be taken.
Chris felt [form based zoning] works best when trying to manage a mixed-use environment so
not retaining more traditional language in more sterile commercial environments or industrial
parks; he advised against deleting that portion of the discussion section. It was agreed that no
change would be made until more information regarding form based zoning was available.
Commissioner Kosusko proposed deleting the portion of that same sentence that reads "... as
permitted uses..." because the body of the paragraph is "plan language" and that phrase is more
regulatory zoning. It was agreed the sentence should read "A full range of services are
accommodated, including groceries, theaters, restaurants, hardware, and gas stations, etc."
Commissioner Cockburn asked if there were other corridors in addition to Kitsap Way that
have the Commercial Corridor designation, for example 11th Street or 6th Street. Using the map
for Scenario #3, Paul Rogerson pointed to the area designated Commercial Corridor, which is
essentially along Kitsap Way. The portions of 11th Street and 6th Street Commissioner Cockburn
was asking about are designated Commercial with no reference to a corridor designation.
Commissioner Streissguth again referred to page LU-32, specifically the Wheaton Way
Redevelopment Corridor and the circulation issues there. She felt the discussion portion of this
section should address the appropriateness for access from the rear of a business via a frontage or
local access road in portions of the WWRC area. She thought that there should also be a
reference in the discussion section dealing xvith buffeting between commercial and residential
areas. Chris Hugo offered clarification: The first option of a frontage road was explained as a
suburban feature; they are primarily seen near large shopping malls in the form of large (six-
lane) arterials with smaller two-lane roads on each side that separates the uses tremendously
which result in large expanses of asphalt areas which is opposite of the goals the Commission is
working toward. Use of rear access roads is already referenced in the Land Use element and
Chris thought the addition of language regarding [traffic] circulation would be helpful.
Commissioner Streissguth mentioned that the comments they had discussed in the group were
reflecting local access, not necessarily frontage roads. Paul made note that in the fourth
paragraph on page LU-43, language was to be added regarding accessing properties from the rear
to retain pedestrian friendly streets. Matthew Keough suggested coordinating with the centers
adjacent to those areas because he feels that is where the Land Use committees were focused on
when buffering alternative circulation routes was discussed. This could be achieved by adding
the phrase, "... in coordination with the centers' alternative circulation routes and buffeting."
All were in agreement on those two issues.
Commissioner Streissguth moved on to the Public Sector Redevelopment Sites on page LU-44.
She felt a provision should be added for an open space requirement, her thought being, with
public projects it is the best opportunity to be looking at open space requirements and the link
there with public ownership. She did not see this as a strict requirement, but would like to have
language added to the discussion portion to reflect this thought. Her suggestion was, "Potential
development includes mixed-type residential developments with an open space component that
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 10 of 18
integrate context sensitive commercial and office development." Paul Rogerson made note of
that addition; all were in agreement.
In reference to the General Higher Education portion of the Land Use element, Commissioner
Buckingham questioned the scenario zoning maps which showed areas that are currently
residential, but are proposed to be zoned Higher Education. He asked if the maps should be
changed to reflect the decision of having Olympic College grow u/~ rather than out. Paul
Rogerson replied that that would be a policy decision and reminded the Commission that the
intent of the scenario maps was to reflect the Higher Education designation in place today; what
is noted on the maps was taken directly from the current designation. Chris Itugo asked
Commissioner Kosusko if he knew what the Master Plan boundaries were. Commissioner
Kosusko responded that the Master Plan included the residential areas in question. The college
is currently in the process of putting together a SEPA for that entire Master Plan area. Chris
commented, "This doesn't mean that you're bound by anything, but the intent of the policy
statement is it was drafted or conceived by staff to essentially look at this and say, (as opposed to
the last public issue that came up about expanding north to the water), 'Stay within this boundary
and get more efficient and more vertical; convert asphalt to parking structures; get a more urban
style campus and stay away from a suburban model.'" Commissioner Buckingham asked for
clarification of the phrase "Stay within this boundary..." Commissioner Kosusko and Chris
Hugo both stated that the current Comprehensive Plan includes that area. Commissioner
Kosusko further explained that the architectural firm he works for is the architect for this
planning process and currently the college has buildings "in the pipeline" that they are getting
fttnding for: A four-story science building which is in the permitting process at this time and a
four-story humanities building which will be built in the space vacated by the original science
building. There are plans to construct an academic building and a performing arts center in the
area that is currently being used as residential and is located between Warren Avenue and
Broadway. Also, a parking garage ~vill be constructed where the arts/music building is presently.
Chris Hugo added that to the south of the campus, there had been discussion of creating a more
"campus friendly" urban environment by encouraging campus oriented retail such as book
stores, coffee shops, music stores, etc. Paul Rogerson noted that on page LU-6 there is specific
language dealing with the area south of Olympic College and how future planning could better
meet the needs of college students.
Referencing the list of Specific Area Plans, Commissioner Kosusko noted that "Special
Redevelopment Sites" on page LU-6 should be "Public Sector Redevelopment Site" per previous
discussions. Also, in addition to Westpark and Eastpark, the Health District site should be listed
in the description, as well as clear delineation between the Evergreen Park Plan and the
Campus/Evergreen Plan~ Paul Rogerson commented that these changes will be regarded as staff
edits for clarification and would not be listed in the proposed amendments. Chris Hugo asked
for an explanation of why the Campus/Evergreen Plan was named as such. Matthew Keough
said that it was an existing plan from the 1995 Comp Plan that encompasses a large area which
includes Bremerton High School as well as Olympic College campuses and extends as far as the
Manette Bridge. Although it is a very generic name for a plan, it has some suggestions for future
projects, and staff does not want to lose sight of the provisions set forth in that plan which is why
it has continued to be honored. This does not prevent the Commission from issuing instructions
to make changes to reflect the acknowledgement that the area is too broad and needs to be more
specific to the neighborhoods within in it. Chris reminded the Commission that, unless the
existing sub-area plans have been posted/advertised for public comments, their formal validity
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 11 of 18
112
expires once the Comp Plan has been adopted because the public did not have a chance to
comment on [the sub-areas]. The sub-area plans are of value because they provide information
on what the planning histories and desires of the neighborhood are so they are kept in [the
Planning Department] library and will be updated as time allows; that means the titles can be
changed any way the Commission wants, for example, splitting the Campus/Evergreen Plan in
two to clearly define these distinct areas. Chris also pointed out that the language in the
introduction of that section references anticipated planning or work, not completed work.
Matthew Keough confirmed that staff's intent in writing this section was to say that the work on
the community plans that had already been completed would be honored and, he thought, to
incorporate [the work] to keep the validity of them. Chris thought a better place in the element
for this item was in the section that discusses the various centers designations such as in the
Charleston Center designation which is based on the Charleston Community Plan. Matthew
suggested referencing the Campus/Evergreen District Plan elsewhere in the document because it
is the only existing district plan. Paul summarized the instructions to staff as "Move reference to
existing neighborhood plan, etc. on page LU-6 to discussions of ..." [Paul's sentence trails off
here.] Chris Hugo asked Matthew Keough and Paul Rogerson if there had been discussion of
the mixed-use district around Evergreen as a part of the expanded downtown area. Paul said
there had been mixed-use designation discussions which, in some cases, where that area falls
would decide if that would be a centers or land use designation discussion.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that in the Neighborhood Center and District Center
descriptions, there was still a reference to the height of buildings measured in feet as opposed to
the story restriction suggested at previous meetings. Paul Rogerson responded that discussion
earlier in the meeting dealt with the height restrictions and it was proposed that all reference to
height measurements in feet be stricken from the various land use designation discussions.
Commissioner Kosnsko asked if the height limitation would be referred to in stories only,
would there be a definition as to what a "story" consists of. Chris Hugo said the specifics would
be explained in his explanation of form based zoning.
Commissioner Kosusko suggested that, since Bremerton does not have a Design Review Board,
the Planning Commission could be utilized to review projects and centers until regulatory
language is established. He was concerned about the amount of time that would elapse while the
centers are going through sub-area planning and committee meetings that need to occur;
opportunities may be lost in the centers during that time period. Chris Hugo explained that a
change like that would have to be presented in the form of an ordinance review which, in his
opinion, would not be any easier than creating another committee to get the design regulations in
place.
On page LU-41 in the description of the Downtown Regional Center, Commissioner Kosusko
asked for clarification on the boundaries of the DRC. Paul Rogerson replied that the DRC is
larger than the Calthorpe [Plan] Boundary (listed in the description); it extends from the
waterfront and shipyards to Warren Avenue on the west and to the edge of Evergreen Park on the
north. Paul suggested striking the reference to the Calthorpe Plan Boundary in the description,
as well as changing "DRC zone" to "DRC designation". Alt were in agreement on the editorial
corrections.
There was some discussion regarding the density definition in the Downto~vn Regional Center.
It was agreed upon that a minimum density should be listed in the description, not a maximum
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 12 of 18
113
density. Commissioner Buckingham expressed concern over the proposed boundaries of the
DRC because they incorporate established neighborhoods and he felt that by expanding into
those neighborhoods, the Commission was not being consistent with other elements of the Comp
Plan. There are areas north of the Manette Bridge that could potentially be shops and businesses
and Commissioner Buckingham felt that type of activity would not be appropriate for any area
north of 6th Street and from Cogean to the water. Chris Hugo responded that there are two
paradigms and it is up to the Commission to determine which is appropriate. He continued:
"Some of the conditions in that area between 6th and 11th include Pacific [Avenue] and Park
[Avenue] which both have quite mixed frontage environments and other uses which tend to disrupt
the residential area and character. But then Highland and Pleasant and down below the fire station
seem to have some nice neighborhood qualities. It's mixed, but there are some nice houses in there
and there are some that have been redone recently.., and downtowns do need a good residential
support environment around them. So maybe the thing to do is we need to say something here about
doing more sub-area planning... Finish the job (the Calthorpe effort) for the whole regional district,
including going up into the Evergreen neighborhood again and kind of confirming some things
because the neighborhoods have some ideas we need to consider. Right now the designation that
comes around there kind of picks up that south side of Evergreen Park and tries to recognize that
hillside from the park up towards 11th as a potential mixed-use environment where you can have some
three- and four-story condo development over some partial street-floor retail which could be really
interesting and urban and serve that neighbor hood well. I'm building off the Caf6 Destino back up
the hill with residential on top of more of that kind of neighborhoods serving retail or services or
restaurants. So there's one paradigm that would protect that residential between 6th and llth; there's
another one that says 'Go for it - convert it all to three- or four-story residential.' Those are the two
things that could happen in there and that's what you have to decide amongst those two paths now."
Commissioner Buckingham liked the first option of establishing a sub-area plan that recognizes
the residential districts. He felt this is important on many levels for many reasons, especially in
keeping with the other elements, the areas discussed should be preserved. Commissioner
Buckingham did acknowledge that there would be in-fill activity going on in those areas. Chris
Hugo pointed out that the way the scenarios had been created by staff tended to be most
protective of low density neighborhoods that had been planned and zoned as such. The reason
the above scenario was presented this way is because under PSRC it is part of the urban center of
the metropolitan center that Bremerton is. Historically, it has been planned for the kind of
increased density that is shown; it has been that way in the past and is consistent with the
regional framework. Paul Rogerson reminded the Commission that any of the centers implies
automatically by the fact of center designation that there will be an area specific planning
exercise applied to it; during that exercise, compatibility issues will be dealt with. In Paul's
opinion, in addition to what Chris had covered, the reason the designation is as broad as it is, is it
is recognized that there is potential for linking Evergreen Park with the downtown, providing
continuity in pedestrian experience between downtown all the way to Evergreen Park; taking
advantage of the park as an amenity for increased intensity of development to help bring more
residential base to the center in general and to somehow meld all those factors along with the
ones [Chris] mentioned requires an exercise like an area specific plan. In other words, a center
designation would enable just the exercise necessary to accomplish that kind of synthesis.
Commissioner Buckingham asked if there was language that specifically states that there will
be sub-area planning. Paul replied that there was not, but if the Commission felt that this is one
of the areas where a specific area plan would be applied and would like to recommend that the
Planning Commission Meeting May 1 $, 2004 Page 13 of 18
114
discussion paragraph repeat that which is found in §LU6 [on page LU-16], staff could make that
change. All Commissioners were in agreement to the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Kosusko commented that on the list of center on page LU-6, the Downtown
Regional Center had not been listed and thought it should be added. Chris Hugo responded that
the staff recognized that, even though there is a somewhat directed plan for the core, the support
environment around the core (west to Warren and north to Evergreen Park) is very mixed; there
are a lot of things that could happen there and more guidance is needed. At this time, areas
between Pacific Avenue and Warren Avenue are allowed to build higher than any building in the
core which is permitted in the existing zoning; this could lead to all kinds of speculative
possibilities so a revamping of the document is needed in the long run. Paul summarized the
staff instructions: Add reference to a specific area plan as needed in the Downtown Center and
add the Downtown Center to the list of areas subject to the specific plan requirement that is in
the discussion on LU-6. The Commissioners agreed on these two items.
On page LU-45, Commissioner Kosusko discussed the inconsistencies of the General
Commercial designation, specifically how multi-family structures outside of centers is not
encouraged, but commercial uses [outside of centers] are not treated the same way. One of his
main concerns was how other types of commercial designations have crept back into the centers
concept and thought there should be more language in the discussion portion of the document to
make the description more contained. Paul referred to the last sentence in the discussion section,
"Expansion of these areas is not consistent with the intent of this plan" as the key to the inclusion
of the General Commercial. Staff felt it was necessary to recognize the limited area of
commercial uses and not widely force them into non-conforming status. The area in question is
along 6th Street and a portion of High Avenue where there are some existing commercial uses
that are not part of the Charleston District plan and cannot be described as a corridor; also, the
nature of the businesses is not consistent with the description used to create the corridors. The
remaining existing commercial areas fall within the newer corridor designations. It was
suggested to change the designation name to Limited Commemial with the intent of"capturing"
areas and containing the commercial growth within those areas. It was further clarified that this
change of designation title was not to stop commercial growth, but to recognize that these are
areas are holdovers from the previous plan that need to be defined. It is understood that
commercial infill is allowed under the Limited Commercial designation, but expansion is not.
Commissioner Buckingham suggested spending more time on this subject and revisiting it at a
later meeting.
Commissioner Buckingham moved on to page LU-32, specifically the Wheaton Way/Riddell
District Center. He questioned why gas stations, repair garages, etc. where not allowed in an
area that is primarily accessed by automobiles. Commissioner Cockburn suggested
encouraging automobile specific businesses such as a repair shop within a parking garage. Chris
Itugo commented that that portion of the element is based more on the traditional way of looking
at zoning and the restriction of language used when trying to get away from an auto-dependent
zoning model. Chris thought that it might not be necessary to use that type of language or
perhaps in the discussion section, talk about it more in terms of relationships rather than outright
prohibition and keep in the ideas to make it more living friendly and not so auto-dependent.
That's not to say it won't be allowed for cars to still have a way to access the site and get auto
needs met. Commissioner Buckingham agreed, saying it needs to be remembered that
Wheaton Way is a highway; it is a major arterial - a road that has usage beyond the local intent
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 14 of 18
for it and seems like an ideal location for gas stations, etc., if there is a need. Paul reminded the
Commissioners that the corridor designation should anticipate automobile oriented uses, but the
centers themselves were more pedestrian oriented; that is why this type of language crept in. In
the Staff Report, Director Hugo will be talking about a zoning approach that will move a~vay
from the type of language that discussed what prohibited uses in various places are. Paul felt that
the dilemma of implementing this type of zoning approach is it may not be productive to go
through the plan and try to find and eliminate all the places where prohibiting various uses is
discussed until after the Commission had heard Chris' presentation and perhaps revisit this
subject at a future date if the Commission accepts the zoning approach. Commissioner
Cockburn commented that he thought the Wheaton Way/Riddell District Center is more
automobile oriented than the other centers and would remain that way. He felt perhaps there
should be focus on planning for it to be the most automobile oriented center and focus more on
walkability in the other centers. Chris Itugo commented that the Commission has to decide
what direction they want to take this subject because if the decision is to promote Wheaton
Way/Riddell as automobile dominant, it no longer is considered a center which promotes
residential growth with pedestrian access. Originally, Wheaton Way/Riddell was designated a
center because it seemed like there was much opportunity to redevelop land on the east side into
an urban village like University Village [in Seattle]. Commissioner Streissguth proposed
deleting the sentence in question because she felt the specificity is addressed Director Hugo's
proposal for zoning and this should be treated as a zoning matter. Paul summarized the
instruction to staff: "To eliminate the phrase after the hyphen that says 'although automobile
focus uses such as gas stations or repair garages are not permitted.'" All were in agreement on
this proposed amendment.
Commissioner Buckingham asked for any other comment from the other Commissioners on the
Land Use element. Paul Rogerson recommended a 50th instruction to staff to clarify Land Use
Goal #8 and choose between the two policies offered. Chris Hugo explained that there were
two policies listed because there was concern about the issue of creating non-conforming
properties and what the liability would be to property owners and to the City. Since then, there
has been council from another city's attorney (not Bremerton's attorney) saying that non-
conforming properties still have the ability to be insured and to be borrowed against because
there are protected non-conforming rights in Bremerton's code. He went on to explain, "The
dilemma was if you come up with a growth strategy based on these goals and policies, then how
do you leave existing built up multi-family projects in the middle of nowhere - how do you leave
them and say that's OK without saying 'If it's OK there, why isn't it OK across the street?'"
That is what the [other] city's Land Use attorney challenged Bremerton with; to not creme non-
conformities that will bring about issues for borrowing and insuring and without generating
unequal treatment under the current Land Use laws. The Land Use attorney advised that if
[Bremerton] has the right non-conforming protections in the zoning code (which Bremerton
does), then it should not be an issue. Paul noted in the instructions to staff to strike §LU8a. All
were in agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Streissguth and seconded by
Commissioner Kosusko to close deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan, have staff
incorporate into the document the fifty proposed amendments, designate Land Use
Scenario Map #3 as the preferred option while retaining the other scenario maps for review
and analysis under SEPA, hold the Comprehensive Plan until the associated zoning
package is prepared and then forward all components as a preliminary decision to the City
Council for official review and adoption. Called for a vote: Cockbum: No; Kosusko: Yes;
Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 15 of 18
226
VI. Business Meeting
A. Chairman's Report: Commissioner Buckingham acknowledged that completing
deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan to this point was a historic moment for the
Planning Commission, and also wanted to acknowledge Commissioner Wood's
contribution to the Commission.
B. Director's Report: Chris Hugo, Director of Community Development first spoke
about the Shoreline View Corridor issue. It has been decided to take a simple regulatory
change and add that into the zoning work; when the Commission goes through the zoning
update, the Shoreline View Corridors will be updated as well. It will be packaged and
advertised in a way so it can go through a public review process to be addressed with all
the new zoning. If the policy needed to be amended it would not be feasible to present
the Shoreline View Corridor in this manner, but the policy does not need to be amended,
only the regulation. Chris explained, "We'll advertise it and then talk about it during that
process, and then send it off to the State once we act on it. They have six months to
confirm what we've done after that."
Chris moved on to the subject of Commissioner Wood's replacement. An advertisement
had been posted in the Bremerton Sun; once applicants respond there will be a selection
process to find a replacement. Chris reminded the Commission of Commissioner
Wood's additional duty as a member of the Capital Projects Review Committee, which
was an appointment by the Chairman; it is the discretion of the Planning Commission to
fill that position. If any [Commissioner] is interested in that position, they need to inform
Commissioner Buckingham because the Block Grant staff needs a replacement. This
committee meets every year and it would be beneficial to have somebody participate two
or three years in a row.
Chris then referred to copies from the County that had been distributed to the
Commissioners prior to the start of the meeting. The copies were of two Comp Plan
amendments that have come to the County's docket. The first is a proposal by Mr. Paul
Pazuki and Kitsap Transit dated May 5, 2004, to change the zoning in the area where
Highway 303 tums into Waaga Way from Urban Low Residential and Urban Restricted
to Highway Tourist Commercial. Examples of that usage are a motel, an outlet store or a
convenience store, etc. The area in question is adjacent to rural or non-UGA and has
some environmentally sensitive land near it. Our goal is to maintain a non-urban
separator between Bremerton and Silverdale and to retain as much non-urban frontage on
as possible on High~vay 303. The second proposal involves changing the zoning of 144
acres of land outside the Urban Growth Area from rural residential (5 acre lots) to urban
restricted (1 - 5 dwelling units per acre). Having less than four dwelling units per acre is
not allowed under the GMA unless it is greatly restricted by environmental conditions.
There are no urban services in that area so this would involve moving the UGA
boundary. Chris stated that both of the proposals are inconsistent xvith the County-wide
planning policies as well as the direction that Bremerton is trying to go as a community.
Direction from the Planning Commission is needed as there is a hearing on June 22, 2004
with a comment period through that date. Both Planning Commission and City Council
can make comment on these two proposals. Chris encouraged the Commissioners to
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 16 of 18
117
make comments, particularly on the proposal involving 144 acres because of the myriad
problems related to the fact that the County still has a land use category that is inherently
inconsistent with the GMA. Chris reminded the Commissioners that time was of the essence,
giving the interim forest lands as an example of what happens when comments are not
submitted within the time allotted. Commissioner Kosusko remarked that the proposed
actions are counter to what the CPPs are presenting and therefore felt the [Planning]
department and City Council should make an argument against the proposals. All
Commissioners were in agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Buckingham
and seconded by Commissioner Streissguth to have staff draft a letter to the County on
behalf of the Planning Commission suggesting the Bremerton Planning Commission
does not approve of the proposed actions and also recommend to the City Council that
they address the issue as well. Called for a vote: Cockbum: Yes; Kosusko: Yes;
Streissguth: Yes; Wood: Yes; Buckingham: Yes. The motion carded.
Zoning was the last subject in the Director's Report. Chris gave a brief overview of how
traditional zoning is currently accomplished and how Bremerton's view on zoning is
more contextual and relational. During his trip to Washington DC for the APA National
Planning Conference, he was introduced to some of the newest zoning concepts: Form
based zoning and performance zoning. Form based zoning is regulating based on how
the form of something fits into the streetscape or development environment such as
building rise, setbacks, building details, orientation of building to parking and to
entrances, etc. Another way to regulate is based on how things perform [performance
zoning]: How much traffic, light pollution or noise is generated, odor, glare off of
signage, etc. If the environmental aspects can be controlled in ways that can make it
compatible with the neighborhood, then perhaps all of the issues have been addressed.
Therefore, if the performance is compatible and the look is compatible, one might ask
what the zoning would be. Chris remarked that the zoning could be almost anything. He
has been doing research on "hybrid zoning" which is taking form based zoning and
performance zoning, "melding" them together and regulating on the result rather than
referring to a list of uses and prescribed setbacks. Chris went on to say that when centers
are being described with what could or couldn't be in one, at this point there is no definite
answer: If the right set of form based and performance based regulations, there are a lot
of things that could possibly fit, but [the projects] would have to prove they could fit.
Chris proposed taking this approach for Bremerton's mixed-use, but not in the low-
density neighborhoods environments or auto districts where the traditional zoning
methods work best. The Commissioners agreed with Chris that this sounded like a good
approach. Chris also commented that if Bremerton was to incorporate this new approach
to zoning, it would be among the first 100 local governments out of 12,000 in the US to
do so. Commissioner Buckingham expressed concem that, by using this new zoning it
would make the permitting process more complicated. Chris responded that, with
enough up-front knowledge on what "compatible" means in terms of form and
performance, through a simple administrative review process up to design review (for
more complex developments) the permitting process could be accomplished more quickly
and efficiently. Chris hoped to have some ordinance examples within a couple months to
present to the Planning Commission and then subsequently introduce the new zoning
approach to public groups such as homebuilders, developers, commercial property
owners, etc. to get them involved in the dialogue. Chris further explained that the
neighborhoods would like the new zoning approach because it protects neighborhoods
Planning Commission Meeting May I8, 2004 Page 17 of 18
more consistently, plus the focus on form and compatibility in the centers sets the stage to
ensure the centers will work well esthetically as well as operationally.
C. Old Business: Reminder to the Planning Commission regarding the rules and by-laws.
D. New Business: None.
VII. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 15, 2004.
Respectful~ submitted by:
Exec~'~ve~Secretary '
Approved by:
'?
B. Sc, ott:Bl~ckil~'i~m, Chairman
Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 2004 Page 18 of l 8
119
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNI'Ty DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
1'o: Council President Nygren and City Council Members
From: Chris Hugo, Director
Date: November 17, 2004
Re: Bicycle Facilities and the Draft Comprehensive Plan
In response to questions asked during the initial Council hearing on the Draft 2004
Comprehensive Plan, the Public Works Department offers the following comments:
There are several reasons, both general and project-specific, why the specific type and nature of
bicycle improvements is not discussed in Section 4 of the Transportation Element. Generally
speaking, specific bike amenities would be provided as part of any future transportation project
that's located on a bicycle route as identified in the Comp. Plan. The updated comp. plan did not
revise the routes that were identified in the prior plan. However, the goals and objectives in the
new Comprehensive Plan clearly identify the need to prepare a separate and specific non-
motorized transportation plan, which will include a re-examination of the City's designated bicycle
routes, and what specific bicycle improvements should be planned on those routes. It's hoped
that work will begin on the non-motorized plan in 2005. This will be a 1 to 2 year effort, and will
involve numerous stakeholders, including (obviously) the bicycling community.
Given what changes may occur as part of preparation of that plan, it's a bit premature to specify
what specific bike improvements will be planned for future long-term transportation projects,
including SR 310 (Kitsap Way) and SR 3030Narren Ave. NVheaton Way). Note that the recently
constructed sections of SR 304/Navy Yard Highway do include bicycle lanes. The remaining
phase of SR 304 between the PSNS Missouri gate and SR 3 will include wide shoulders.
SR 310 is a project of very uncertain scope, and therefore gets very brief mention in the Comp.
Plan. All we can say right now is that we envision that portion of the roadway east of SR 3
appears likely to have capacity problems in the future. Potential fixes may or may not involve
widening the roadway. Depending on the recommendations of the non-motorized plan, solutions
that involve widening would very likely include bicycle facilities, but we can't really say with any
certainty right now how any transportation modes (single occupancy vehicles, transit,
pedestrians or bicycles, would be accommodated as part of a potential SR 310 project.
SR 303 is similarly uncertain. It is not currently designated as a bicycle route in the City's comp.
plan. Instead, the preferred bicycle routes follow parallel roadways that are less congested, and
therefore safer. Again, that may change in the future, and SR 303 may become the preferred
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNi[TY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Council President Nygren and City Council Members
/
From: Chris Hugo, Direct~/~
Date: November 22, 2004
Re: Request to revise Draft Comp Plan for Super 8 on Kitsap Way
In response to public testimony on the Draft Comprehensive Plan regarding the proposed
extent of Freeway Commemial land use in the vicinity of Kitsap Way and Highway 3, I made
a site visit this morning to confirm the conditions upon which the Planning Commission made
its recommendation. I believe the Commission's recommendation does offer the best futura
for this part of the community.
I was surprised to discover that the property that is proposed to expand the motel is, in fact, a
fairly nice single-family home (image 1). The home has a 2005 assessed valuation of
$151,430 and has appreciated in assessed valuation by 20% in the past three years. It sits
on a 0.4-acre lot in the SF-3 zone that encompasses many other homes in this
neighborhood.
Immediately to the north of this home is a recent subdivision that now hosts three new single-
family homes (image 2). These are nicely developed properties that face directly into the
subject site and the side yard of the first home. The view of these new homes includes the
partially-screened fac,,ade of the motel and the Denny's restaurant sign (image 3).
This residential "pocket" is continuing to show strength as a neighborhood. There is another
pending residential plat just a block north of the subject site.
Recommendation
I concur with the Planning Commission's analysis of this land use environment and the
Commission's conclusion that the draft plan's indicated boundary between Freeway
Commercial and Low Density Residential is appropriately drawn. The conditions that support
this are:
1) The existing land use plan and zoning edge between commemial and residential uses
follows the natural terrain. There is a beneficial 10 -15' grade separation between the two
classes of use. This helps protect the residential neighborhood from light and noise created
by motel patrons and adds a measure of privacy to the existing homes.
2) The market for continuing improvement of this residential area is strong - new housing
development continues to occur, and it is of good quality (image 4).
3) Changing the land use and zoning to commercial use would put a very intensive, auto-
oriented commercial use immediately adjacent to single-family homes, some just recently
built. The property values (as well as occupant enjoyment) of these homes would definitely
decline with this revision.
4) A small stream surfaces and runs adjacent to the street in this vicinity. The current Iow-
intensity residential use of the subject site is more conducive to protecting the environmental
quality of this down-slope stream than commercial use.
4) The scale of a multi-story motel addition at the same elevation and immediately adjacent
to the exiting residential development is not only inconsistent with the community values
expressed in the goals and policies of the new plan, it is directly contrary to specific policies
related to community character and compatible patterns of development. There is an
effective transition in the existing relationship between the motel and residential areas, and
any change to this situation would be a negative one for the residences.
· Page 2
DATE SUBMITTED: 10/28/04 BILL # 0q- ~3~.
AGENDA BILL
CITY OF BREMERTON 7 ~
CITY COUNCIL
............ ...................................................................
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Committee Meeting Date: 10/27/04
FY2005 City of Bremerton Budget COUNCIL MEETING Date: 11/3/04 & 11/17/04
Department: Financial Services
Presenter: Michael Wilson
Phone: 473-5590
SUMMARY. A public hearing has been scheduled for November 3, 2004 and November 17, 2004 to
afford citizens of Bremerton an opportunity to be heard regarding the FY2005 Proposed Budget.
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Mayor Bozeman's Budget Letter to City Council; 2) Notice of Public Hearing
FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount):
APPROVALS:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
\
CITY ATTORNEY: ~--..~___-._-._-._-._-._~--- -
FINANCE DIRECTOR:
FISCAL/BUDGET:
~t .~ - CONSENT AGENDA []
OPERATIONS:
COUNCIL
PRESIDENT
:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
No Action required.
COUNCIL ACTION: [] Avvrove [] Deny [] Table ["] Continue [] No Action
120
iii
Office of the Mayor
239 Fourth Street, Bremerton, WA 98337
. . Telephone.. 360-478-5266
Fax: 360-478-5883
cbozeman ~ c/,bremerton, wa.us
.Cary Bozeman, Mayor
October 22, 2004
Honorable Bmmerton City Council
City of Bmmerton
Bremerton, WA 98337
Dear Bremerton City Council Members:
On behalf of the staff of the City of Bremerton, I am very pleased to submit my proposed 2005 City Annual
Budget. Though the Council has not traditionally received the Mayor's proposed budgets until the first of
November, this early submittal should provide additional time for review, consideration and adoption of the
2005 Annual Budget.
It was our intent to again develop a practical and realistic City Budget that would carry forward municipal
services, programs and capital projects into the new year. Even with us continuing to straggle with limited
revenues, this budget demonstrates our ability to still fund the current level of services while undertaking
some significant capital improvement projects. The 2005 Annual Budget has been developed with a strong
emphasis on enhancing economic development and opportunities for investment in our community,
maintaining a responsible level of public safety services, providing customer-oriented municipal service
delivery, implementing the growth management programs, and pursuing major arterial streets and
water/wastewater/stormwater utilities capital programs.
Our approach in preparing this budget document was to build upon the cun'ent budget format that would
evolve into a stronger policy document with focus on clearly delineating the programs and objectives to be
accomplished by each of the City departments. In addition to some format and planning changes, this
budget proposes implementing sound financial management policies and a comprehensive long-range (six-
year) capital improvement program. This financial and budget planning effort should result in improved
efficiencies and accountability of all City departments in the effective delivery of municipal services to the
Citizens of Bremerton. This document provides the necessary direction and adequate financial resources to
work toward achieving the City Council's goals and meet the proposed 2005 programs and objectives as
guided by he Ctty s overall rmsston.
City Mission Statement: "Provide quality services as required by law or mandated by the public to
enhance the he~lth, safety and general well-being of the citizens of the City of Bremerton. "
Guiding Principles: In the development of City policy direction, the following principles have been
developed to guide the City in carrying out its mission statement.
Conduct City operations in a legal, ethical and fair manner
Provide professional leadership and operation excellence
Conduct the public's business in a manner that is responsive, accessible and open to all
Recognize that City employees and citizen volunteers are the foundation upon which these services
are provided
':° Preserve the heritage of the City both environmentally and culturally
121
Core City Values/Goals:
· :' Provide quality customer service
· We are here to serve the citizens
· Utilizing available resonrces, maintain a consistent level of service that meets or exceeds state
and federal mandates and community expectations
" Avoid frequent and/or dramatic service level fluctuations
Promote and maintain the highest level of employee morale · We are all part of the team, everyone counts
· We encourage individual initiative
· Attract aud retain qualified, committed employees
· Promote a conm'titment to continuous improvement
· Promote teamwork and strong labor-management cooperation
· Provide a healthy/safe working environment
· We celebrate our wins, and learn from our losses
· :'Foster operational efficiencies, innovation, inter-departmental and inter-governmental cooperation
and service coordination
'~' Promote long-term perspective/planning approach to avoid crisis management
· :'Focus priorities on "mandatory" an .......
d essential City services
· I'Promote public trust in city government by ensuring a high level of accountability and
communication
°I' Allocate resources to the support of the public safety system as a major priority within practical
funding restrictions
· :'Provide sound comprehensive planning to effectively manage the City's future growth and
development
°:' Maximize available revenue resources
'~' Ensure.the City maintains a financial base sufficient to provide a consistent level of City services
· maintain snfficient cash flow to meet normal operating obligations as well as contingent and
unforeseen needs
· maintain depreciation reserves
· establish and sustain sound credit rating
· restrict deficit spending
Council Goals: · Develop a financial plan for the City with long-range vision and goals, and short-term priorities.
· Improve community teamwork and communications.
· Stimulate small business expansion, new economic growth, and vitality in downtown and the
neighborhoods.
· Increase home ownership by providing a wider range of housing choices and improving the
existing housing stock.
· PromotE, encourage, and embrace the community's diversity.
· Take the initiative and provide visionary leadership on policy issues.
Consistent with the Council's goals, our primary attention will continue to be focused on putting together a
community partnership to turn around the economic depression the City has faced over the past twenty
years. This effort will emphasize changing the image of Bremerton, increasing the city's tax base in order
to improve service, appreciating property values so citizens can reinvest in their homes, bringing in new
businesses to the downtown core, and changing the physical connection between the Naval Shipyard and
the downtown. With these major goals in mind, the following is my list of budget priorities for 2005:
122
1) Econonfic Development
o Promote the redevelopment of the downtown core by attracting new investors
o Sign agreement with developer on Eastpark, complete master plan, and begin installing basic
infrastructure aud utilities
o Collaborate with Bremerton and Kitsap Coasolidated Housing Authorities on the redevelopment of
Westpark, begin Phase I on the commercial site
o Secure two million dollars from State Capital Budget to complete Maritime Park and Freedom Trail
o Issue building permits to the Housing Authority on waterfront condominium project
o Collaborate with the Department of the Navy on the move of Building 50 to its permanent site and
commence remodel work for the new Naval Museum
o Complete the Bremerton Downtown Library renovation project
o Work with the Bremerton Port District on the dotvntown marina expansion project
2) Public Safety
o Place a high priority on adequately fnnding public safety services and the criminal justice system
(police, fire/emergency medical and court services) '
o Complete construction of new fire station
o Commence construction of Public Safety Building
3) Financial Management
o Develop a long-range revenue plan to provide sufficient resources to fund mandatory, essential and
priority city services
o Implement nd update Financial Management policies
o Update the City's Capital Improvement program and funding options
o Place Patrol vehicles under the Equipment Rental & Reserve Fund
4) Streets/Transportation
o Work with the State Department of Transportation on the downtown pedestrian and transportation
center ingress and egress capital improvement project.
o Identify funding options and establish a strategy for implementing a street overlay program ($1.3
annual liability)
o Promote the operation of private fe~ry service
5) Utilities
o Restore financial stability to the water, wastewater and stormwater utilities through a utility rate
structure to adequately fund these services (3-year utility rate increases)
6) Community Development
o Implement an Urban growth plan: downtown/centers & Wheaton Way Corridor design standards,
downtown parking plan
o Develop an annexation program
7) Parks
o Develop plan for a 2005 Park Bond Issue to take to citizens to fund parks capital projects
o Prepare an urban trail system plan
o Parks funding - secure financial resources to provide on-going funding of parks operations and
maintenance programs
8) Personnel/Communications
o Develop=a plan for controlling the escalating employee medical benefit costs
o Modify the City's civil service process, update personnel policies
o Conduct community diversity forum
o Improve community teamwork and communications
9) Conference Center/Parking System
o Operate the Conference Center as a business enterprise with financial support from the use of
Hotel/Motel taxes
o Maintain the Parking System as a business at a level sufficient to pay debt, expenses and on-going
financial suppor~ to the Street Fund and General Fund
2005 BUDGET OVERVIEW
The proposed City of Bremerton's 2005 Annual Budget is comprised of thirty-four separate funds which
includes the creation of foul' new capital improvement funds for the utilities and deletion of one fund. The
proposed 2005 City Annual Budget totals $129,791,347. This compares with the 2004 Budget of
$142,877,232. The decline in the total City Budget for 2005 is primarily attributed to two factors: 1) the
remaining cost of the Conference Center being expended iu 2004, and 2) significant reduction in
Wastewater capital projects in 2005. Despite projected growth in the City's popnlation, renewed efforts to
pursue annexations and the increased cost of providing City services, this budget continues to be a cost-
conscious plan with limited finaucial resources to fund all of the needed services and programs.
The City of Bremerton has endured many years of very tight and restrained budgets due to the limited
growth, modest sales taxes revenues and restriction on property taxes. Although the significant challenge
in the development of the City budget is focused on balancing the General Fttnd budget, this
comprehensive budget has made considerable strides in identifying financial resources to fund futm'e
general government capital projects. The recent growth in growing real estate excise taxes is, however,
allowing the City to fund some additional, but still limited, general government capital projects.
One of the most significant priorities in 2005 will again be to pursue the maintenance of a utility rate
structure that will ensure the financial stability and service the debt obligations of the Wastewater, Water
and Stortnwater utilities. It will also be a priority tl examine different resources for funding the growing
maintenance liability of our Streets since there are virtually no resources available from the General Fund
to support the Street maintenance program. As we continue to enhance the development of our Parks and
open space areas, we will need additional resources to fund the increased Parks maintenance obligations.
Despite our continued effort to contain the growth of City staff, the budget does include the additiou of
8.75 new regular positions, 4 deleted regular positions, 1 deleted contract position, and 4 classification/job
title changes.
positions
_Salary Range/Band
· Municipal Services Coordinator (Executive) - new position Salary Band 13
.......... ~ ...... ~ ....... vmcnt/PW) - delete contract position $5,000/month
· ~ Paralegal (Legal) - reclassification Salary Band 6_8
· Planner I (Community Development) - new position Salary Grade 14
· Clerical/Accounting _ part-time/temp. (Municipal Court) Salary $9.04/hr.
· ,-~, c .......... zc~ Me,,~ Aquat~cs/Recreatmn Mgr. (Parks) - reclassification Salary Band 9 11
· ~ (Parks) - delete position --
· Lead £~r-,:~^o e_~:~., Salary Band 9
....... v .....~ot (Parks) - delete position Salary Grade 15
· Parks Maintenance Supervisor (Parks)
· D..1.~. e~?:" e Salary Grade 17
...... v ...... t ~r. (Parks) - delete two positions Salary Grade 10
· Parks Laborer (Parks) - two new positions Salary Grade 4
· Parks Laborer (Parks) - three new aA-time positions (2.25 FTEs) Salary Grade 4
· Parks L/tborer (Parks) - one new V~ -time position - Conference center Salary Grade 4
· Accc. unt Asst. Sr. _.Accountant (Water/Wastewater) - reclassification Salary Grade 44~ 1~4
· Electronics Technician (Electronics/Water/Conf. Center) - new position Salary Grade 15
· Office Assistant II (PW - Utilities Ops) - new position Salary Grade 5
There are seven categories of City funds within the Annual Budget comprised of the following: General
Fund, Special Revenue funds, Debt Sen, ice funds, Enterprise funds, Capital Project funds, Internal Service
funds, and Trust/Agency funds. In addition to preparing a comprehensive overview/sunmnary of each of the
major budgets, a comparison of the 2005, 2004 and 2003 expenditures of each fund is provided in the
summary below.
124
L GENERAL FUND
The proposed 2005 General Ftmd Budget, which is comprised of eighteen departments, totals $29,929,985.
This 2005 General Fund Budget reflects an 8.55% increase over the 2004 Budget (or $2.17 million). After
pnlling out the new expense of General Government debt, the adjusted iucrease will actually General Fund
Budget increase over last year would be 6.86%. The most siguificant factors contributing'to this increase
are: 1) payment of Government Center debt payment ($430,000) - new expense to the General Ftmd; 2)
increase payment to the LEOFF i Pension fund ($162,718); 3) increased set aside for medical and salary
increases ($187,713); 4) increase in PERS and LEOFF employer contributions ($119,000); 5) increased
paymeut to the ER&R fuud - adding patrol vehicles to ER&R ($167,000); increase to Streets - overlay
program ($50,000); Engineering ($176,000); and General Facilities ($46,000).
The high cost of employee's medical benefits, which has been budgeted at a 25% increase next year, is
taking a significant toll on the budget. It will be a major priority to explore with City employees and the
labor unions the prospect of shifting away from the traditional City-funded medical program to establishing
a medical benefit allowance for each employee to apply to their selected medical plan.
In order to fund this additional General Fund liabilities, the General Fand actual revenue resources have
been projected to iucrease by approximately 5.2% (or $1.37 million). Taxes comprise 79% of the General
Fund revenue resource and it is projected that we,will see a 7.75% increase in this resource next year.
B&O, utility and gambling taxes are all projected to provide healthy revenue resources in 2005, with
property tax only growing by 1.6% and sales tax growing by 3.5%. As a result, we are not proposing to
increase or add any new fees or charges for services in this budget.
The other good news is that two of our primary financial management objectives have been met this yea/':
1) not issue debt (interfnnd loans or tax anticipation notes) to fund the City's cash flow needs, and 2)
balance the General Fund budget without using "beginning fund balance". It is projected that the Genercd
Fund will eud this year with a fund balance of $2.35 million which compares to this year's "beginning fund
balance" of $975,000 (budgeted $600,000) since our 2004 revenues will likely exceed projections by nearly
$1 million. As a result of sound budgeting and strong fiscal constraints this past year, this will provide the
General Ftmd with a sufficient level of "beginning funds" to meet the Genercd Fund's cash flow needs
without having to borrow money through interfund loans or issuance of tax anticipation notes.
The most distinguishable objectives in the 2005 General Fund budget are as follows:
· Balance the General Fund Budget with expenditures balancing with projected revenues
· Increase the beginning fund balance to a level sufficient to support General Fttnd cash flow needs
· Maintain focus and continued support and strength for law enforcement services
· All Police Department patrol vehicles are be funded for maintenance and replacement through the
ER&R fund
· All services related to each department are funded by the respective departments (i.e., information
technology services and vehicle maintenance/replacement)
* Add an a~dditional planner to the Conmaunity Development Department to assist in the annexation
progranl and growth planning efforts
· Enhance the level of maintenance of City parks by implementing some organizational improvements
to the Parks Department (delete Recreation Manager, Lead Services Specialist and two Parks
Specialist Sr.; add two Parks laborer and three 3A-time Parks Laborers, Parks Maintenance
Supervisor to the Parks Department with an additional V2-time position funded to support the
Conference Center Park plaza)
· Add Municipal Services Coordinator back into the Executive Department to provide the Mayor with
administrative support
· Focus on the development of long-term funding options for Streets and Parks maintenance
· Maintain same level of funding fi-on/the General Fund for Street operation and maintenance
225
· Expand the ose of technology fol' the delivery of City services and use of the C~t3 s webs~te
Genera Fund 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budgct
Legislative - City Council $ 186,515 $ 211,149 $ 225,925
Executive 341,816 255,037 299,158
Financial Services (Administrative Services/Finance) 971,839 948,081 1,074,783
Information Technology 569,713 -0- -0-
Home Detention 94,752 -0- -0-
Parking System 610,000 -0- -0-
Municipal Court 717,704 799,932 818,809
Police & Fire Pension (no longer a General Fnnd department) 1,553,572 -0- -0-
Legal - City Attorney 525,621 529,351 571,354
Human Resources 253,819 291,824 347,067
Community Development 833,407 947,983 1,034,l 18
City Auditor 98,466 106,879 104,354
Economic Development 72,462 150,509 136,467
Law Enforcement 6,779,797 7,891,535 8,467,750
Fire/EMS 5,104,427 5,385,756 5,699,465
Equipment Services 1,377,206 -0- -0-
General Facilities 451,196 508,040 530,369
Engineering 296,088 287,647 469,696
Parks, Recreation, Pool 2,325,493 2,392,835 2,689,049
Non-departmental 7,584,989 4,748,510 5,111,621
Ending Fund Balance .9.74,875 1,355,964 ~,350,000
General Fund $27,452,001 $26,811,032 $29,929,985
II. OTHER FUNDS
Most of the City's ro rams
p g are funded from revenue sources outside the General Ftmd. These other funds
have combined expenditures well in excess of the General Ftmd budget amounting to nearly 78% of the
total City Budget. The nature of the sources of revenue for these funds mandate that these monies only be
used for specific purposes. As a result, they are budgeted and accounted for in separate funds. Summaries
for each fund can be found in the total Expenditure/Expense table.
A. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
The Special Revenue Funds are a category of funds which account for proceeds of specific revenue sources
which are legally restricted for specific purposes and expenditures. The proposed 2005 City Budget
includes eleven special revenue funds:
· ~rterial S~treets (Ftmd 101) - dedicated capital construction fund fol' the purpose of making capital
Improvements to the City's arterial street system as provided in the City's Transportation
Improvement Plan. The design and construction of the Navy Yard Highway Phase 1-D of the SR
304 Project and Warren Avenue off-ramp projects are among a number of transportation system
capital projects programmed for 2005.
· Street Operating (Fund 102) - the Street program is comprised of three sections: Streets
Maintenance (streets/sidewalk maintenance, snow/ice control, assist in abatement of hazardous
properties), Traffic Maintenance (traffic control devices maintenance), and Electronics
(maintenance of traffic signals, streetlights, telephones, radios, public facilities electrical).
· Continge~lcy Reserve (Fund 103) - this fund was established as a special revenue fund to protect the
Clt), s Genera Fund in the event of unforeseen and unfunded emergency requirements. The sale of
226
City Hall, Community Development building, and Fire Station are programmed m 2005 with much
of the sale proceeds scheduled to be used to pay off the 2003 interfund loan secured for the
purchase of the land for the construction of the new Fire Station.
· Civic lmprm,ement (Hotel/Motel Tax) (Fund 104) - established as a special revenue fund for the
collection and expenditure of lodging taxes which are to be used for stadiurn facilities, convention
center facilities, performing arts facilities, visual arts centers and the promotion of tourism. The
proposed use of these fnnds is to provide on-going financial support for the new Conference Center
and Admiral Theater.
· Parking System Operating (105) - established to account for the revenues and expenditures for all of
the City's parking facilities and lots comprised of the City Parking garage, Bremerton-Harborside
Conference Center Parking Garage, Fifth and Park lot and the Craven lots, all metered on-street
parking in the City and all fees collected from parking violations. The installation of a new
security system and elevator in the City Parking garage are projects programmed in 2005 in the
Parking System Operating Fund. In order to adequately examine the future fiscal health and
liability of the Parking System, a ten-year financial pro forma has been prepared.
· Com~nunity Development Block Grant (Fund 106) - the CDBG program is responsible for: 1)
administration of federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, and 2)
establishment and implementation of housing projects using federal, state and private funds.
· Abatement Revolving (Fund 108) - this fund was established as a source of funding for carrying out
repair, demolition or removal of conditions which are subject to abatement under the City's
building, fire, zoning and nuisance ordinances.
· Police Special Projects (Fund 110) - created to account for monies and proceeds from the sale of
property seized during drug investigations and forfeited pursuant to state and federal law.
· Public Access Television (BKAD (Fund 113) - this ftmd accounts for revenues and expenditures of
the Public, Education and Government (PEG) channel which provide public access television
service to the citizens of Kitsap County through franchise agreements with local cable providers.
The primary objective in 2005 is to resolve the goveruance issue of BKAT with focus on creating
an operational and funding partnership with the County and other public sector entities.
· Gift & Donation (F~tnd 114) - this fund was established as an expandable trust fund for the purpose
of accepting gifts and donations on behalf of all departments of the City.
· Cotiference Center Operating (Fund 120) - this fund was established to account for and fund the
operation, maintenance, security and capital improvements to the new Conference Center and
related complex. Monies have been programmed to set aside for fixtures, furnishing and
equipment in addition to future capital improvements. These additional costs will require an on-
going dependent use of hotel/motel tax revenues and the possible need for funding from the
General Fund. It is proposed to have a half-time parks laborer and half-time electronic technician
position funded from the Conference Center to provide necessary maintenance and support for the
plaza grounds, fountain, and exterior and interior of the complex. In order to adequately examine
the future fiscal health and liability of the Conference Center, a ten-year financial pro forma has
been prepared.
Fund ,, 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Arterial Street $2,121,714 $9,698,270 $16,237,545
Streets Operating 2,342,498 2,391,809 2,493,677
Contingency Reserve 1,623,281 890,000 2,536,300
Civic Improvement (Hotel/Motel Tax) 287,779 437,000 288,800
Parking System Operating 908,667 1,747,509 2,132,301
Comm. Dev. Block Grant 2,523,159 4,027,788 3,352,399
Abatement Revolving 182,8 l 3 197,100 357,330
Police Special Projects 324,291 255,000 278,300
Public Access Television 171,043 217,420 237,420
Gift & Donation 1 l 1,608 l 12,658 109,274
127
Discretionary Reserve (fnnd deleted in 2004) 1,082,000 1,020,000 -0-
Conference Center Operating .80,168 .8. 65,000 1,246,131
Special Revenue Funds $10,677,021 $21,859,554 $29,269,477
B. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
The Debt Sen~ice Ftmds are budgeted in order to establish a clearer understanding of the accounting and
expenditure of such debt service accounts. The City cun'entty has two debt service funds:
· Bond Fund (Fund 201) - established to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of
principal and interest for varions general obligation and local improvement district (LID) bonds
used to fund capital improvement projects and capital equipment acquisitions.
· LID GLmranty (Fund 202~ - this fund was established to guaranty the payment of bonds and
wan'ants issued through the establishment of various local improvement districts (LIDs).
Fnnd 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Bond Fund ' $1,843,789 $ 1,958,780 $1,964,310
LID Guaranty Fund 45,308 169,800 _171,500
Debt Service Funds $1,889,097 $2,128,580 $2,135,810
C. ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The Enterprise Fttnd$ are proprietary fnnds which contain activities that operate in a manner similar to
private business. The City has budgeted funding for eight enterprise funds for 2005:
· Water Operating (Fund 401) - the program was established to maintain a water supply system that
meets state water quantity and quality requirements. The most significant challenge to the water
utility will be to regain the financial health of the water utility through maintaining the plan set
forth in the utility rate study. The plan includes the increasing of revenues from user fees sufficient
to fund the Water system operations and no longer rely upon the use of water shed timber revenues
to support the operating fund. Add a new office assistant II position to assist utilities operation and
an electronics technician position (position is being split between the water utility and conference
center).
· Water Capital bnprovement (402) - this is a new fund established to segregate and account for the
receipt of revenues and expenditure of funds for water utility capital projects. The Eastside Flow &
Pressure Zone. Pump Station 4 Reconstruction, Anderson Creek West 580 Zone Development,
water main replacement program are among twenty-nine capital projects programmed for 2005.
Increased general facilities charges, revenues from timber sales and Water Operating funds will be
used to support funding from this capital program.
· ULID No. 2002-Ol(Fund 308) - this fund was established to account for and fund the construction
of the water system capital improvements that are to provide special benefit to property owners
within the boundaries of Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) No. 2002-01. This capital
project will be closed out in early 2005 with the establishment of the final assessment roll and
issuanc*of ULID revenue bonds.
· Wastewater Operating (Fund 451) - the wastewater treatment plant and wastewater utility system
provide for sewerage transmission, treatment and disposal services for utility customers. Similar to
the Water Operating Utility, the most significant challenge to the Wastewater utility will be to
improve the management of the wastewater debt and regain the financial health of the ntility
through maintaining the plan set forth in the utility rate study. The plan includes the increase of
revenues from user fees sufficient to fund the Wastewater utility operations.
· Wastewater Capital Improvement (452) - this is a new fund established to segregate and account for
the receipt of revenues and expenditure of funds for wastewater utility capital projects. The
Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity upgrade, Pacific Avenue CSO, Anderson Cove Basin 12,
128
Tracyton pump station, Cherry Beach Main are among sixteen capital projects planned fol' 2005.
· Stormwater Operating (Fund 481) - the stormwater Utility program has been established to provide
a city storm drainage capital improvement and maiutenance program
Stormwater Capital lmproveme~lt (482) - this is a uew fund established to segregate and account for
the receipt of revenues and expenditure of fnnds fol' stormwater utility capital projects. The Storm
drainage and catch basin replacement program will be funded in 2005.
· Utility Debt Reserve (Fund 499) - this is a new fund established to more effectively track and
account for the reserve fonds needed to meet the debt reserve requirements for the three utilities.
· Golf Cottrse Operating (Fund 407) - this enterprise fund was established to provide for the funding
for the operation and maintenance of the Gold Mountain Golf Complex. The Golf Course will
expend limited funds for pond improvements and minor capital projects.
Fund 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budgel
Water Operating Utility $11,035,184 $ 13,002,591 $ 8,778,736
Water Capital Improvements (new fund) 5,803,000
UL1D 2002-1 500,085 963,654 935,860
Wastewater Operating Utility 13,649,353 21,976,127 12,295,010
Wastewater Capital Improvements (new fund) 3,530,000
Stormwater Operating Utility 1,759,683 1,190,804 1,561,027
Stormwater Capital Improvements (new fund) 180,000
Utility Debt Reserve (new fund) 539,000
Golf Course Operating 3,861,851 4,195,728 3,865,280
Enterprise Funds $30,806,156 $ 41,328,904 $ 37,487,913
D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
The Capital Improvement Ftmds account for the acquisition and/or construction of major capital projects
by the City unless projects are financed by Proprietary funds. The City of Bremerton currently has eight
Capital Project Funds:
· Conference Center Capital Project (Fund 301) - this capital fund was established to account for and
fund the planning, design and construction of the Conference Center, Parking facility and Park
Plaza capital improvements. The sources of revenues include funds from the Kitsap County Public
Facilities District, real estate excise taxes, Kitsap Transit, sale of property, and LTGO and revenue
bonds. A small amount of resources ($200,000) will be carded over into 2005 to close out this
project.
· Public Safety Capital Projects(Fund 302) - established to account for and fund the costs for
constructing public safety capital facilities and acquisition of public safety vehicles as approved by
the voted approved 2002 Public Safety-Unlimited Tax General Obligation bond measure.
· Government Center Capital Project (Fund 308) - this fund was established to account for and fund
the City's proportionate share of the capital costs for the construction of the Bremerton
Government Center administered through the Kitsap County Housing Authority using funds from
the City's real estate excise tax, LTGO Bond proceeds and General Fund resources. A small
amount~of resources ($150,000) will be carried over into 2005 to close out this project.
· Parks Development (Fund 310) - this capital fund was established to account for expenditures
related to Parks capital improvement projects, including the skatepark construction in Eastpark,
thermacoat boardwalk railings, Lions shelter and other capital improvements in 2005 which may be
contingent upon successfully acquiring related funding.
· Pedestrian/BTC Access (Ftmd 309) - this fund was established to account for and fund the
administration, planning, design and construction of downtown pedestrian and transportation center
ingress/egress capital improvements which is being administered by the City on behalf of the
Washington State Department of Transportation.
· Maritime Park (F~md 303) - this is a capital improvements fund established to account for and fund
129
the adm/nistratiou, planning, design and construction of the Maritime Park/Naval Museum capital
improvement project from state and federal grant funds.
* General Government Capita/Improvements (real estate excise tot3;) (Fttnd 305) - this fund accounts
for expenditures related to various General Government capital improvement projects, major leases
and purchases and special projects. Excise taxes from real estate sales are receipted into this fired
and will be used to fund Government Center and Conference Center Park Plaza projects.
Significant growth has occurred over the last two years in the collection of real estate excise tax
resulting ill additional capital program funding for 2005. Our proposal is to nse some of these
resources ($250,000) to apply toward the Conference Center Park Plaza principal debt.
* 2005 Capital Projects - this list of capital improvement projects totals nearly $65 million in parks,
general government, golf course, water, wastewater, stormwater and streets projects to be initiated
in 2005.
· 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Program - this is a comprehensive list of capital improvement
projects totals more than $183 nfillion in parks, general government, golf course, water,
wastewater, stormwater and streets projects which are planned for over the 2005-2010 timeframe.
Fund 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Conference Center Capital Project $16,736,514 13,770,809 200,000
Government Center 1,035,492 7,862,956 150,000
Public Safety Capital Projects 13,201,236 9,950,998 8,965,825
Park Facilities Development 1,139,661 928,606 548,240
Pedestrian/BTC Access 324,165 5,700,000 4,359,000
Maritime Park -0- 1,000,000 2,885,000
General Govt. Capital (Real Estate Excise Tax) 4,221,244 ~928,606 _ 548,240
Capital Improvement Funds $36,658,312 $39,979,369 $19,387,065
E. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
The b~ternal Service Funds are used to account for the financing of goods and services provided by one
department/agency to another department/agency on a cost reimbursement basis. Within the City budget,
are three Internal Service Funds.
· Risk Management (Fund 503) fund - all expenses of risk management personnel (Risk Manager and
one-half of a City Attorney position) are funded out of the Risk Management Fund. In addition, an
adequate level of reserve funds will be maintained to continue to provide the City with security for
the general fluctuation of insurance premiums and claims.
· Equipment Reserve/Revolving (Fund 550) fund will assume the maintenance and support of 31
patrol vehicles which are planned to be brought into the ER&R fund by the end of 2004. Policies
which will address the ER&R fund's vehicle replacement practices are scheduled to be prepared in
2005, in addition to implementing new software program to improve fleet management.
· lnJbrrnation Technology (Fund 551) fund is to provide an on-going source of revenues through
coatribu~tions from various departments to fund the purchase of new and replacement computer
systems, software and support of the City's network systems, in addition to enhancing the City's
website and records management system.
Fund 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Risk Management $2,020,564 $2,306,071 $2,611,507
Equipment Rental & Reserve 5,017,755 5,814,141 5,896,711
Information Technology 7_56,440 1,009,239
Internal Service Funds $ 7,038,319 $ 8,172,061 $ 9,517,457
130
F. TRUSI7AGENCY FUNDS
The Trust/Agency (Fidttciaty) Fttnds acconnt assets held by the City of Bremerton in a ttx~stee capacity or
as an agent for individuals, private organizations or other governmental units or funds:
* Police/Fire Pension (Fund 601) - this fund accounts for payments for medical premmms, pension
and disability payments for firefighters and law enforcement officers hired under the LEOFF l
retirement program. The source of revenue that funds this program Comes from the Getzeral Fttnd
which includes a 9% increase in funding from the General Fund to support increased medical &
pension costs.
Fund 2003 Actual 2004 Budget 2005 Budget
Police/Fire Pension . -0- .1,903,141 $2,063.64~
Trust/Agency Funds $ -0. $1,903,141 $ 2,063,640
SUMMARY
We saw truly remarkable progress this past year in the changes to Bremerton's image with the
redevelopment of the downtown core. The opening of the new Government Center and Kitsap Conference
Center are landmark accomplishments in this revitalization effort. Next year, however, promises to be even
more special and rewarding as we embark upon new partnerships and opportunities which will lead toward
even further capital improvements and enhancements to our City.
The 2005 City Budget will provide the funding and policy roadmap for accomplishing the Council's goals.
Certainly the increase in demands for municipal services far outweighs the resources available to meet
existing needs. Over the years, the City has exhausted its cash reserves and has resorted to borrowing
fnnds to maintain services. We have been working hard to reverse this trend by presenting balanced
budgets which do not depend upon the use of borrowed funds to fund services, proposing the adoption of
sound financial management policies, and finding new ways to "grow" the local economy.
We believe the direction and decision of the City Council are appropriately reflected in this budget
document. As a result, this proposed 2005 Annual Budget provides the Council with a comprehensive
n~ to guide the City of Bremerton into the new year.
Cary Bozeman, Mayor
City of Bremerton
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Bremerton has fixed November
3, 2004 and November 17, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in the Bremerton City Hall Council Chambers, 239 4t~ Street,
Bremerton, WA as the time and place for the public hearing to consider the following:
2005 PROPOSED CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET
General Fund
City Council $ 225,925
Executive 299,158
Financial Services 1,074,783
Legal 571,354
Human Resources 347,067
Community Development 1,034,118
Municipal Court 818,809
City Auditor 104,354
Law Enforcement 8,467,750
Fire/Emergency Medical 5,699,465
General Facilities 530,369
General Parks 2,689,049
Engineering 469,696
Economic Development 136,467
Non-Departmental 5,1 l 1,621
Ending Fund Balance 2,350,000
Total General Fund $ 29,929,985
Arterial Street (101) 16,237,545
Street (102) 2,493,677
Contingency Reserve (103) 2,536,300
Civic Improvement (104) 288,800
Parking System (105) 2,132,301
Community Development Block Grant (106) 3,352,399
Abatement Revolving (108) 357,330
Police Special Projects (110) 278,300
Public Access Television (113) 237,420
Gift & Donations Fund (114) 109,274
Conference Center Operating (120) 1,246,131
Bond Fund (201) 1,964,310
LID Guaranty (202) 171,500
Conference Center (301) 200,000
Government Center (305) 150,000
Park Facilities Construction (310) 548,240
Public Safety Bond (302) 8,965,825
Maritime Park (303) 2,885,000
General Government Capital Improvement (308) 2,279,000
Pedestrian/BTC Access (309) 4,359,000
132
Water Utility (401) 8,778,736
Water Capital Improvement (402) 5,803,000
ULID 2002~01 (403) 935,860
Gold Mountain Golf Complex (407) 3,865,280
Wastewater Utility (451 ) 12,295,010
Wastewater Capital Improvemem (452) 3,530,000
Stormwater Utility (481) 1,561,027
Stormwater Capital Improvemem (482) 180,000
Utility Debt Reserve (499) 539,000
Risk Managemem (503) 2,611,507
Equipment Rental Reserve (510) 5,896,711
Information Services (511) 1,009,239
Police & Fire Pension (601) 2,063,640
Total All Funds $129,791,347
A copy of the proposed 2005 City Budget will be available to any citizen at the City Clerk's
Office located in the new City Hall, Norm Dicks Government Center, 345 6th Street, Sixth Floor,
Bremerton, WA after October 26, 2004. All interested citizens may appear at the public hearing and be
heard for or against any part of the proposed budget.
Paula Johnston, City Clerk
Publication Dates: October 25 and November 1, 2004
Number of Insertions: Two
No. Affidavits Required: Two
133