Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/27/97 AGENDA
BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 239 4TH STREET BREMERTON, WA 98337 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AUGUST 27, 1997 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION: 5:00 - 5:30 P.M. A. General Council Business CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 P.M. A. Pledge Of Allegiance B. Invocation CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been distributed to Council members in advance for study and will be enacted by one motion. If separate discussion is desired on an item, it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda at the request of a Council member. A. Advertisement - Washington State Lodging & #AB97-193 Travel Guide 4. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS 5. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS 6. MAYOR'S REPORT 7. PUBLIC RECOGNITION -- (Comments Limited to 3 Minutes) NEW BUSINESS A. Budget Adjustment - 1997 Wastewater Fund 451 #AB97-194 RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution #2620 - Entry Into Emergency Services #AB97-195 Facility/Master Plan Agreement Regarding Joint Training Facility 10. ORDINANCES A. Ordinance (First Reading), Amending The Penalties For Violation Of The City Building Code (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) #AB97-196 J7 11. PUBLIC HEARING - 6:00 P.M. OR LATER A. Continued Hearing 1997 Docket Of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Related Rezones, and the Adopting Ordinances (First Reading) B. APPEAL/Dock In Oyster Bay Channel; Appellants: Richard Wright et. al; Location: 2000 Madrona Point Road AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ADVERTISEMENT Washington State Lodging & Travel Guide FOR AGENDA OF: August 27, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT: Mayor ORIGINATOR: L. Horton DATE SUBMITTED: August 21, 1997 2. CLEARANCES: Comment of back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Proposed Order ENDORSEMENTS . INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTA COUNCIL PRESIDENT ~~ 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Council is requested to approve the City's advertising in the Washington State Lodging & Travel Guide. Due to publication fimelines and pre-payment discounts, time is of the essence in placing this order. The cost of the ad will be borne by the Hotel / Motel Tax and Golf Course funds with an undetermined amount reimbursed from other parties. The administration believes that this advertisement is in the best interests of the City. 8. RECOMMENDATION; Motion to approve the proposed adverlJsement as part of the CONSENT AGENDA. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Mayor ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: N/A EXPIRATION DATE: 1998 REVIEW DATE: N/A PULLED I I V' TABLED ~TION APPROVED DISAPPROVED 11. AGENDA BILL NO: ~ 7-- /~,..~ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will not participate in this advertising opportunity. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCI~$; Expenditure of $12,160 from current appropriations; less whatever portion is later reimbursed by other parties. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES; 21718 66th Ave. W. · Su;le 200 · Mounfloke Terrace, WA 98043 · (206) 672-2963 * 1-800-$24-4938 * Fax: (206) 775-S727 A Tecknigrophi¢ Systems, Ir~¢. Publicotiofl ADVERTISER ' ' ' _" ' State ADVERTISING AGENCY [.] bill to Z~p I~one ~ Phone Fax Additional Color $ MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO TSI TERMS OF CONTRACT - ' AIl adve~ising motcricd ~s ~ubje¢~ k~ Publ;s~er'~ approval. I~ material d~s not m~t m~honicaJ ~u[remen~, or ;~ any changes ore ~uesmd on ~i~ng ad ~oleria{, Adveli~ wlll ~y f~ ~ o~d~t~onol charges se~ra~ ~om ~;s c~acL T~hn[grophic S~lems, ~nc. ~51J shall use i~ best effor~ ~ pr~uce etch bd~ing ~d ~e~ guide. AJI cites, cham~rs of comme~ce, convention and vlsi~r bureaus, visitor informolion comers end advertises agr~ to indomni~ a~ hold ~he publisher harmless ~ainst all Io~, liabitiw and exgense oss~iat~ wi~ all asp~ oF pr{nling and publishing of its adver~isemeni. Di~unts: 5% pre~yment d~scounts a~d 5% eddy ~ok discounts are ~aiJable, ask your sales represenlat/ve. A 1.5% sewice c~rge will ~ as~ssed on all ~la~ces 30 days ~st publi~tlon ~te. To qual~ ~t any a~ oil discounts, compllo~e wi~h ~ymem ~erms o~ onehol~and on~hal~must ~ met. Jf invoices are not ~id, n~ 30, y~ will ~ ~nvolc~ ~r ~e Camdlafien Pe~ ~ce ~is inse, ion order is slgn~ by ~e adve,is~ ~ advenlse/s ogenL con~l~ions are ~1 ~cepted. A slgn~ a~ertisi~ in~ion o~er r~r~nls ~ ~e~ser'~ commi~enl to ~ ~r s~ce re~. No ~e~s o~ any kind will ~ mode. ADVERTISER ACCEPTANCE- Are you a member o1: ~e WashingS'an State Ho~el & Mc~ld Associa'~;cn IW~H&MA)? AD SPECIFICATIONS- Color ~ black & ~;~e [~ ~ur color Spot Color ~ Blue ~ I Green ~ Purple I I R~ ~.; Ye~l~ Motched Color PM$ a Pa;~ ~ling ~ ; Yes ~ ~ E;iling Tc~ ~.~ ~e. ~'J t/2 Invoice ~ ~tc_~ Am~ -- R~d __ ~o;ce ~ Date __ A,~ ~cvd Prod~clion Nares: FOR_INTERNAL USLOblLY . ,, . R.F.P, Yes ~ No Would you tlke membership ~nformatlon:~ i i Yes ~ No Aurho~'Tzed S;9notu~'e WHJT~: Adve~iser YELLOW: $oresperson I~NK: Accoumlng AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - 1997 WASTEWATER FUND 451 FOR AGENDA OF: August 27, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works & Utilities ORIGINATOR: G. Sampley, Dir/PW&Util~f~ DATE SUBMITTED: Auqust 13, 1997 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on ba~ 3. EXHIBITS: if necess y) Director, PW &~ Budget Adjustment No. 97-,~, City Attorney · City Treasurer_~'-~~ Fin & Budget Operations Comm PRESIDENT SUBMITTAL: ....... 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: A number of project activities have occurred in the Wastewater Utility that necessitate adjustment of the 1997 Wastewater Fund Budget. The attached budget adjustment request outlines the adjustments to be made. The adjustments provide for the final costs on the WWTP Odor Control Project and 1997 property acquisitions in Oyster Bay, Zone 1. Revenues include Public (Continuation on Page RECOMMENDATION: The city Council approve attached Budget Adjustment No. 97-,~ to Wastewater Fund 451 in the amount of $1,275,976 to reflect the correc~ status of the Fund. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director of Public Works and Utilities ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: Director of Public Works and Utilities EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED [] TABLED [] COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED [] DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 77-/qf' SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Continuation Works Trust Fund loans and Centennial Clean Water Fund grants not previously included, and recognize the settlements received from Agri-Tech, Harbor Insurance and CH2M HILL. This adjustment also provides for ongoing contribution litigation against Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. Approval by the Council of the attached budget adjustment in the amount of $1,275,976 is requested. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: The City will be unable to close the WWTP Odor Control Project and to settle outstanding lawsuit-related obligations. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: Funds are available from various sources such as settlements received from Agri-Tech, CH2M HILL and Harbor Insurance; rental income; and funds from other capital projects. 8. RESEARCH SOURCES: Requesting Department: CITY OF BREMERTON BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUEST WASTEWATER FUND 451 No.__ 97-27 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Amount PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED NARRATIVE: USE OF FUNDS: Amount PLEASE SEE SCHEDULE ATTACHED This adjustment will authorize several changes to the Wastewater budget including litigation and claim settlements, capital projects at the VVVVTP and Callow Ave. CSO, capital funding from State grants and loans, and the acquisition and rental of Zone I properties. Department Head Signature Treasurer Comments: Date Director Signature Date Recommended ~ Not Recommended Treasurer's Signature Mayor Comments: Recommended ~ Not Recommended Approved [-~ Denied ~ '~~ ~ ~/~-? Fiscal & Budget Committee Comments: Mayor's Signature Date ~ Recommended [-~ ~-~ Approved ~'~ Not Recommended Denied Fiscal & Budget Committee Signature Date WASTEWATER FUND LITIGATION SETTLEMENTS Agri-Tech Harbor Insurance Co. CH2M Hill Charleston Beach Assoc Miscellaneous Claims Subtotal Settlements: LITIGATION COSTS Personnel Professional Services Subtotal Litigation Costs: NON--REVENUE RECEIPTS PWT'F Loan - W~rI'p (firal draw) CCWF Grant - VVWTP Dechlorination (final draw) CCWF Grant - CSO Wtr Quality Monitoring PWTF Loan - Callow Phase II construction Budget Adjustment #97-1 Subtotal Non-Revenue ReceilXs: CAPITAL PROJECTS WWTP Odor Control Callow Priority II Subtotal Captial Proiects PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS (ZONE 1) Remaining Purchases RENTAL PROPERTIES Rents received Maintenace Subtotal Renlal Properties: TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT CURRENT 1997 BUDGET TOTAL AMENDED BUDGET 1997 BUDGET AMENDMENT REVENUE ADMINISTRATION MAINTE~IANCE CAI~TAL TO TAL DRAFT COMMENTS //4 AUG 12, 1997 $500,000 $0 $0 300,000 0 0 1,180,000 0 0 0 2,875,362 0 0 40,500 0 $1.980.000 $2.915.862 $0 $0 $500,000 0 300,000 0 1,180,000 0 ~,875,362) o ~o,5oo) $0 ~935.862) $0 $57,000 $0 0 700,000 0 $0 $757,000 $0 $o ($57,ooo) o (700,000) $0 {$757.000) $350,000 $0 $0 8,310 0 0 13,376 0 0 2,275,200 0 0 (1,810,000) 0 0 $836,886 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 0 8,310 0 13,376 0 2,275,200 0 (1,810,000) $0 $836.886 $o $o $o o o o $400,000 ~00,000) ~400,000) 400,000 $ lOO,OOO $o $o o o 60,000 $100,000 $2.916.88~6 $1,713,520 $4.630.40~6 $3.672.86.~? $199.406 $3.872.26.~...~ 960,000 $27.100 $460.000 $0 0 $790,000 $1.250000 {~460,000) $100,000 (60,0OO) $4o,ooo t~1.275.976) source of funds for adjustment: Budgeted Ending Cash $1,407.369 Filename: Amend-/ Page 1 AGENDA i31LL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: FOR AGENDA OF: RESOLUTION ~;2620 ORIGINATING DEPT: Fire Entry into Emergency Service Facility / Master Plan ORIGINATOR: Chief McKinley/ Agreement regarding Joint Training Facility. ) DATE SUBMITTED: 10115/96 / 2. CLEARANCES: CoT/~e~o~b~k' if/~/~e/~]a/~,,~'~,,A,' 3. EXHIBITS: - Master Plan Agreement Operations ~/---~, K~ 4-~-----~ '~' '~ .~.~'~.~74~/ . "B" Fiscal & Budget ~ ~_/~~~~(, ~ Lease between State of Washington Military Department and Kitsap ~"~/~.~/~ County Fire Distdct # 1 City Attorney ~______________~-- - ENDORSEMENTS ~.~.R~4ATIO N AP PROVED BY,~,~UN~ClL P,R~-,~ D~OR S U BMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City of Bremerton Fire Department would like to enter into a agreement with various other Fire Districts and Departments to establish a Joint Fire Training Center on National Guard property located at 1299 Union Avenue. 8. RECOMMENDATION: To pass the resolutioryto establish a Joint Training Center. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: PULLED COUNCIL DIR..~ECTIVE: TABLED 10. NOTICE OF ACTION APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~. ^~,,~,^ ..,, ,o: ? 7- / ?£ 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Without passage the various other fire service agencies will proceed with the Joint Training Center without participation from the Bremerton Fire Department. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: According to the Master Plan Agreement, the Bremerton Fire Department is committed to $150,000.00 that may be payable over a six (6) year period, in equal annual payments. The Fire Department has those funds in the Fire Department Capital Fund 307. In addition there will be a annual maintenance and operation assessment of $5,000.00. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: RESOLUTION NO. PURPOSE: ENTRY INTO EMERGENCY SERVICE FACILITY / MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT regarding the Joint Training Facility. Name of Governmental entity entering into this resolution: City of Bremerton Preface: Previously, KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1, entered into an agreement entitled LEASED BETWEEN STATE OF WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT AND KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 (hereinafter called "JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT") with the STATE OF WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT dated June 10, 1996, for the general purpose of leasing from the Military, land on which to develop training, maintenance, operations, communications, and EMS administrative services, with other fire service agencies within Kitsap County, namely, KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS 2, 7, 12, 14, 15, 18, City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard, City of Poulsbo, Subbase Bangor Fire Department, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Fire Department, Keyport Base Fire Department, and the Olympic Community College (Fire Science Program). The governmental entity entering into this resolution has reviewed and agreed to be bound by the terms of the JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT and to join together with other fire service and educational agencies named herein for the purposes stated in the JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT and MASTER AGREEMENT (hereinafter identified) in order to economically and efficiently enhance its ability to deliver quality services to the citizens it serves. The JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT, at section 16., states that FIRE DISTRICT #1's interest in the leased property will be managed by a Joint Management Group comprised of one representative from each governmental agency who financially participates in the development of the training facility. To that end a document entitled KITSAP JOINT TRAINING and EMERGENCY SERVICE / MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT (hereinafter called "MASTER AGREEMENT") has been prepared. A copy of that agreement is attached hereto, marked 'Exhibit"A" ' and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof. The terms of the MASTER AGREEMENT are acceptable to this governmental entity as providing necessary organizational / operations structure to the participating fire service / educational agencies in Kitsap County. Now therefore, based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RESOLVED as follows: 1. The terms of the JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT are hereby accepted and agreed to; This governmental entity hereby adopts and agrees to the terms of the MASTER AGREEMENT as though the responsible legal representative of this governmental entity had actually signed the document on behalf of this governmental entity. This resolution shall serve in substitution of this governmental actually signing the MASTER AGREEMENT. After execution, a true and correct copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1, so District #1 may know the identity of all governmental agencies both within Kitsap County and outside who have determined to participate in this venture. Entry into this resolution by this governmental entity is not dependent or conditional upon any other governmental agency (or other person or entity) entering into or approving of the JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT or MASTER AGREEMENT. PASSED By the City Council of the City of Bremerton the ,1997 day of__ DAVID D. FARR, PRESIDENT APPROVED this day of ,1997 ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON, MAYOR KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY City Clerk KITSAP JOINT FIRE TRAINING & EMERGENCY SERVICE FACILITY MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, by and between Kitsap County Fire District's #1, #2, #7, #10, #12, ~14, #15, #18, City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard, City of Poulsbo, Bangor Fire Department, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Fire Department; and the Keyport Fire Department, has, as its sole purpose, to describe the criteria and formal actions of the "Joint Management Group" (JMG), officially identified in an existing lease agreement between Fire District #1 and the State of Washington Military Department. NOTE: This agreement may be altered based on the actual number of participants. I. PURPOSE: The Kitsap Joint Fire Training and Emergency Service Facility will be designed to be a multi-tenant, multi-purpose training and emergency service facility, under a lease agreement between Kitsap County Fire District #1 and the State of Washington Military Department. Said agreement gives considerable latitude for the use of the property, when not in conflict with the Military Department's schedule. The Joint Management Group shall have the responsibility of developing and implementing the site's master Plan, subject to the approval of the Military Department. Site development may include, but not be limited to the following uses: · Joint Use between the JMG and the Military Department KITSAP COUNTY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT Page 2 of 6 of the existing facilities; · Development of a Drill tower; · Renovation to the existing classroom area; · Development of special training props: e.g., emergency vehicle course, pump test pit, burn pad, etc.; · Establish areas for future building of other public agencies: e.g., EMS Council, CenCom, Emergency Management; · Establishment of a Central Purchasing Center · Establishment of a Emergency Vehicle Repair Facility. Exact size, design, structure and space will be as mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. II. SCOPE AND USE: (Reference Attached Exhibit #1) III. JOINT MANAGEMENT GROUP: A. MEMBERSHIP-IN-COUNTY: 1. Uoting: The Joint Management Group shall consist of one (1) Representative from each Kitsap County governmental jurisdiction who financially partici- pates in the development of the Kitsap Joint Fire Training and Emergency Service Facility. A full voting membership is established at One-Hundred Fifty-Thousand ($150,000), and may be payable over a six (6) year period, in equal annual payments. (It is acknowledged that District #1, #7, & #15, KITSAP COUNTY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT Page 3 of 6 along with Bremerton Fire Department have pledged previously their funding, not to exceed three (3) years. 2. Non-Voting: The Joint Management Group shall authorized participation in the development of the Kitsap Joint Fire Training and Emergency Service Facility from each Kitsap County governmental jurisdiction who initially contributes a minimum of Ten-Thousand Dollars ($10,000) . While they are a participant, they shall not carry a vote. B. MEMBERSHIP/OUT-OF-COUNTY: 1. Votinq: The Joint management Group shall authorize participation and full voting rights in the development of the Kitsap Joint Fire Training and Emergency Service Facility to any regional governmental jurisdiction who shall contribute One-Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand ($175,000), payable over a six (6) year period, in equal annual payments. 2. Non-Votinq: The Joint management Group shall authorize participation in the development of the Kitsap Joint Fire Training and Emergency Service Facility from any regional governmental jurisdiction who initially contributes a minimum of Fifteen-Thousand ($15,000) dollars. While they are a participant, they shall not carry KITSAP COUNTY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT Page 4 of 8 a vote. C. MEETINGS: The Joint Management Group shall meet at such times as required, but not less than once quarterly. The JMG Do E o shall meet no less than annually with the Military Department to review and update the Master Plan. A Chair, Recorder, and Treasurer shall be selected at an initial meeting. AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY: The JMG shall identify the responsibilities of each official representative. It is the intent to have the JMG perform those administrative functions necessary to carry out the intent of the Master Plan, and utilize work groups, task forces, and/or other yet to be identi- fied personnel, to complete specific work details. The JMG shall establish future capital investment amounts and payment schedules. Additionally, the JMG shall establish facility fees, revenue and expense management, and future development of the facility. FACILITY FEES: 1. Maintenance and ODeration (M & O) : Ail members identified in Section III, in addition to their initial assessment, shall contribute Five-Thousand ($5,000.00) for offsetting maintenance and operation costs. The JMG shall monitor and KITSAP COUNTY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT Page 5 of 6 IV, o review their actual costs on an annual basis. Class Fees: The JMG shall be responsible for establishing class fees for all classes held at the facility. Full voting members shall pay the prescribed class fee; non-voting members shall pay the prescribed fee plus 25%; and non-members shall pay the prescribed fee plus 50%. Facility Fees: (a) Voting members (b) Non-voting members (c) Non-members ACCOUNTING: 1. o No Fee; TBA; TBA The JMG shall establish a separate account with the Kitsap County Treasurer's Office, who shall receive and keep all funds due to the JMG. The JMG shall establish an accounting mechanism for the receipt and disbursement of funds, including required signatures for vouchers. EXECUTION: Signatures of the jurisdiction below constitute an agreement to terms of this agreement with other jurisdictions who KITSAP COUNTY/MASTER PLAN AGREEMENT Page 6 of 6 sign substantially similar agreements. CITY OF BREMERTON BY: Date LYNN S. HORTON - Mayor DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL: MICHAEL D. McKINLEY, Fire Chief, BFD APPROVED AS TO FORM: IAN R. SIEVERS - City Attorney LEASE BETWEEN STATE OF WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT AND KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1 This lease is entered into by and between the State of Washington Military Department whose address is Camp Murray, Bldg 36, Tacoma, Washington 98430- 5052 (hereinafter called the Lessor), and Kitsap County Fire District 1 whose address is 10955 Silverdale Way NW, Silverdale, Washington 98383 (hereinafter called the Lessee). It's intent is to identify specific uses and purposes of the site for training. and other related activities, outlined in a Master Plan (Attachment 1) of the "Joint Management Group", as further defined herein. LESSEE REPRESENTATION OF AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE LEASE The Lessee represents to the Lessor that Theodore C. Anderson, Chairman of the Board, of Kitsap County Fire District 1 is authorized to enter into this lease agreement on behalf of Fire District 1. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, performances, and promises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The premises located at 1299 Union Avenue, Bremerton, WA (legal description attached as (Attachment 2) and by this reference incorporated herein, which approximates thirty-five (35) acres of property. 2. USE OF PROPERTY A. Current The Lessor shall have unrestricted access to, and use of, the existing. buildings and improved lands around the facility, commonly referred to as the "Bremerton Armory", the "Training Annex", the "MCOFT pad", and other miscellaneous structures and devices located on the property. The Lessee shall have full use of the leased property within the guidelines and schedule as provided by the Lessor. The Lessee's intended use will include, but not limited to: /? State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 2 2-A Use of Property Con't. III. iV. V. Vi. vii. development of a drill tower and classroom facilities install a vehicle driver training course develop a central store and vehicle maintenance facility provide for a County Emergency Operations Center provide an area for Central Communications develop office areas for EMS and Administrative Services develop training props such as burn pads, and pump pits B. Future Upon completion of construction and occupation of the new Bremerton Community Center (Armory), the existing Bremerton Armory and Trainin9 Annex will revert to the Lessee, for their exclusive use. The "MCOFT pad" and associated equipment will be relocated to the new facility by the Lessor. Disposition and use of other nonessential structures and devices shall be determined as required by the Joint Management Group. Lessee acknowledges that, for their use, the leased property will be used for the provision of training and related activities for fire and emergency medical service personnel, within Kitsap County, to include all municipal fire departments and fire districts; Cencom; Kitsap County EMS Council; Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Keyport, and Bangor Commands. The Lessee shall HAVE AND HOLD the premises with their appurtenances for the term beginning January 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 2026. It is intended that this lease be perpetual, and shall be renewed in thirty (30) year increments, as long as the property meets the needs of the Lessee. State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 3 4. ASSIGNMENT/SUBLEASE The Lessee shall not assign this lease nor sublet the premises to another party or other Fire Districts without the written permission of the Lessor. The Lessor acknowledges that other agreements may be established between the Lessee and other participants of the Joint Management Group to establish scheduling; fee(s); training center funding and/or contributions. These other agreements shall in no way assign this lease or act to sublet the premises. 5. (~ANCELLATION Lessor may terminate this lease with seven (7) days notice in the event of an officially declared national and/or state emergency; or with six (6) months written notice in the event the Lessor in its sole discretion determines the facility is required for use by the Lessor. Lessee may terminate this lease with six (6) months written notice if the Lessee in its sole discretion determines the facility is not required for use by the Lessee. Lessee shall reimburse the Lessor for an appropriate and agreed upon amount of utility expenses. Such reimbursement shall be pro-rated based on use of the shared facilities. The Lessor and Lessee shall meet annually to determine Lessee's appropriate utility expense. 7. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Lessee shall maintain the premises in good repair, all structural and interior portions of the premises, and all appurtenances. The Lessee may make alterations to the structure to meet its expected needs. Prior to making alterations, plans will be submitted to the Lessor for approval. All alterations will be in accordance with state laws, and local codes and ordinances. Lessee will clean and maintain the grounds when in use, keeping them free of trash, debris, and unsightly objects. State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 4 Lessee will install a gate and/or fence to deny after hour access to the property, at the Linden Ave. access point. Lessor shall have access to whatever locking mechanism is utilized. Lessor agrees to evaluate the balance of the property for additional fencing and/or security from areas such as the sports complex. 9. FIXTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS The Lessee, upon written permission of the Lessor (such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld), shall have the right to make alterations, attach fixtures, and erect additions, on the structures in or on the premises hereby leased. At an appropriate stage of the redevelopment of the Training Annex, the Joint Management Group will agree to establish a storage unit (Butler Building) on an agreed upon site location to facilitate Lessors equipment currently housed in the Training Annex. Such building could coincide with another renovation period. Lessee agrees to provide grading, asphalt, and a parking lot upgrade per the Military Departments specifications as one of the initial project phases, and will be identified in the Master Plan. 10. ACCESS BY LESSOR For the purposes of inspecting maintenance of the premises or for other reasonable purposes, the Lessor reserves the right to request and be granted access to all premises used by Lessee. 11. VACATION Upon termination of this lease, the Lessee shall vacate the premises in a timely and orderly fashion. All alterations and improvements, with the exception of Lessee installed TRADE FIXTURES, e.g. fire apparatus; fire equipment and appliances; office equipment and movable hardware; and other fixtures solely for the use of fire and emergency medical personnel and/or departments shall become the property of the Lessor. State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 5 The Lessor recognizes that the Lessee's presence, occupation, and maintenance of the property protects the interests and the property's value to the State of Washington. Therefore, a lease amount of one (1) dollar per year shall be paid for the duration of the lease agreement. In the event the leased premises are destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake or other casualty so as to render the premises partially or totally unfit for occupancy, or the Lessor neglects and/or refuses to allow restoration of said premises to their former condition, then the Lessee may terminate the lease. If restoration is approved by Lessor, the Lessee shall, at their sole expense, restore the facility in accordance with the plans approved by the Lessor. 14. INDEMNIFICATION Lessee shall indemnify and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all claims arising from Lessee's use of the premises. 15. RESTRICTIONS Sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited in or on all properties owned by the Military Department. The Lessee agrees not to use this facility as a domicile or to house people overnight in any of the buildings. 16. JOINT MANAGEMENT GROUP For purposes of managing the Lessee's interest in the leased property, there is established a Joint Management Group, whose purpose will be to identify commitment to the project; establish protocols for the operation of the center; to establish fees; to set contribution amounts for the upgrade of the center: and to jointly write a Master Plan for the development of the facility. The Joint Management Group shall be made up of one (1) representative from each Kitsap County fire agency who financially participates in the development of the Kitsap Joint Fire Training and Emergency Service Facility. State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 6 16. Joint Management Group Con't: The Joint Management Group shall only make decisions after consultation with the signatories of the Joint Management Agreement, and the Military Department, who shall retain the right to veto decisions of the JMG, pertaining to scheduling and building plans. The Joint Management Group shall work in concert with the Military Department in petitioning the Washington State Legislature and the United States Congress to obtain the necessary funding to participate financially in the future development costs of this facility, to include the potential addition of a new Army National Guard Armory, for their exclusive use. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This lease contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or written, regarding the subject matter of this lease shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. This lease may not be modified or amended except by mutually agreed upon written amendment, signed by both the Lessor and Lessee. 18. TERMINATION If either party to this agreement fails to abide by the covenants herein contained, the other party may, upon 30 day written notice, terminate this agreement. Upon termination of this lease the Lessee shall deliver the premises to the Lessor in accordance with the terms of the lease. Disputes as to facts, arising under this Lease, shall be resolved by a panel consisting of one representative selected by the Lessor, one representative selected by the Lessee, and a mutually agreed upon third party. The dispute panel shall thereafter decide the dispute with the majority prevailing. State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 7 20. NOTICES AND POINTS OF CONTACT a. Official notices to Lessee shall be sent to: Kitsap County Fire District 1 10955 Silverdale Way NW Silverdale, WA 98383 (360) 692-2551 Point of Contact of Lessor is Washington Military Department: Assistant Director, Facility Operations and Maintenance, whose telephone number is (206) 581-8242. 21. SURPLUS PROPERTY Should the National Guard declare this property surplus during the term(s) of the Lease, they agree to offer the right of first refusal to the Lessee. 22. CAPTIONS The captions and paragraph headings inserted herein are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to define, limit or expand the meaning of any paragraph. 23. EFFECTIVE DATE This lease shall become effective upon the execution of the revision of the Quit Claim Deed #523130, dated May 4, 1950. The revision of the said Quit Claim Deed will allow for the use of the property for the purposes as described in this lease. State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 8 In witness hereof, the parties hereto have subscribed their signatures this/~¢day of ~__~____1996. STAT OF WAS INGTON: r./~y: MG/~reg/ory P. Barlow The A~/~tant General Attest: KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1' B'~. ~T~e0~lore C. Anderson / Chairman of the Board Approved as to Form: Assistant Attorney, General Richard Gross, Attorney District 1 Date: ATTACHMENTS: (2) Master Plan Legal Description lease:military/D- 1lA:word6 State of Washington Military Department Kitsap County Fire District 1 Property Agreement Page 9 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF PIERCE On this day personally before me, MG Gregory P. Barlow, The Adjutant General, Military Department of the State of Washington, the state agency that executed the within and foregoing instrument. He acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said agency, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument on behalf of the Military Department, State of Washington. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 0/ day of /~,,4 Y', 1996 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. My appointment expires March 15, 1998. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KITSAP On this day personally before me, Theodore C. Anderson, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Kitsap County Fire District 1, a municipal corporation, formed under Title 52, Revised Code of Washington, that executed the within and foregoing instrument. He acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Fire District, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument on behalf of Kitsap County Fire District 1. GIVEN under my hand and off'~,~ay ~ ,1996 ~o~'ary Pub,~in ,e/n,7~ the State of was"~ingt°n. residing at Poulsbbi', Kitsap County. Washington. My appointment expires May 29, 1999. AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL 1. SUBJECT: Ordinance amending the penalties for violation of the City Building Code FOR AGENDA OF: August 27, 1997 .~~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Legal ( ORIGINATOR: I. Sievers, City Attorne~..~_',~,~ DATE SUBMITTED: Aug. 18, 197 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) Donald Pratt, Director Community Development 3. EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance / CO~UNCIL COMMITTEES ENDORSEMENT~q INFORMATI~)N [] APPROVED BY COUNCIIfP4LESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COIfNCIL ACTION: A recent case has found that courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal court, are only authorized by court rule to issue search warrants upon probable cause to believe evidence of a criminal offense may found, and not authorized to issue warrants for evidence of a civil infraction. Many of the model codes adopted in the City Building Code, BMC chapter 17.04, contain specific misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor penalties. However, other sections declare a violation to be "unlawful," and under the default penalty of BMC 17.04.110, these would be classified as civil infi'actions. Since these construction and fn'e code violations often require on-site inspection for successful prosecution, it is recommended that the default penalty be changed to a misdemeanor to allow search warrants to issue. 8. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance on first reading. Pass Ordinance on second reading. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: 10. NOTICE OF ACTION PULLED [] TABLED [] APPROVED [1 DISAPPROVED [] AMENDED [] DATE: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO.: 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: Search warrants could not be issued by the Municipal Court for some suspected Building Code violations. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING. BUDGETS. FACILITIES. EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: None 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: CrRLJ 2.3(b) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE amending the penalty for violations of the City Building Code, and: amending Bremerton Municipal Code 17.04.110. Section 1. Amendment. Section 17.04.110 of the Bremerton Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 17.04. 110 PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS. Unless otherwise more specifically provided, any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of the City Building axtckFffe-Safe~ Code shall be deemed to have committed a civil h;fi-acfioi; misdemeanor and shall be deemed to have committed a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of the building code is committed, continued or permitted. (Oral 4418 § 1 (in part), 1993). Approved by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this day of 1997. Passed by the City Council ofthe City of Bremenon this 1997. day of Approved this day of DAVID FARR, Council President ,1997. ATTEST: LYNN S. HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Bk .tgCt×lc Pand - Ordimmcc I)isk 2 - 8/19/97 AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING &ORDINANCE 1997 Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, related Rezones, and the adopting ordinances. FOR AGENDA OF: August 20 & 27, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT: DCD/Planning ORIGINATOR: Ron W. Houqh DATE SUBMI-I-FED: Auqust 14, 1~)97 CLEARANCES:~~. if necessary) City Att o r n ey...-~~"¢~-~ Dir. Comm. Dev. ~~¥'~- 3. EXHIBITS: ,/ ,/ Staff Reports Planning Commission Resolution Comp. Plan Amendment Ordinance ('~;~ ,~ ~, , v' Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance Budget Com .~~'/--~ ~'-'~--~.- ,/---. Planning Commission Minutes Fiscal & Operations Comm. ENDORSEMENT~ INFO, RMATION__ APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDE, E, NT FOR-~UBMITTAL: 4. SUMMARY STATEMENT AND RECIUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan may be amended only once each year. The process begins with the April 1 deadline for applications. This year's ten amendment proposals were submitted to state agencies and other individuals and jurisdictions for review, and were processed by staff and the Planning Commission before arriving at the City Council for final public hearings. Six proposals, if approved, will require Rezones to maintain Plan/Zoning consistency. To expedite the process, the Planning Commission has considered the Rezones at public hearings and staff has scheduleU both the Plan Amendments and their related Rezones for simultaneous action by the City Council. Because of the number of proposals, and the complexity of some, the public hearing has been divided into two parts. It will begin on August 20 and continue to August 27 to allow time for questions and discussion. RECOMMENDATION: [for August 27] City Council approval of the attached Ordinances on first reading. City Council passage of the Ordinances on second reading. 9. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: REVIEW DATE: Donald L. Pratt 10. NOTICE OF ACTION: PULLED TABLED COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE: 11. AGENDA BILL NO: AMENDEI .11 Comprehensive Plan Amendments' PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE August 20: 1, Harbor Heights Apartments --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 2, Bremerton School District --- Plan Amendment & Rezone Auto Center Area Industrial --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 4. Broad Street Residential --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 5. South Smith Cove --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 6. Merit Company --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 7. Waterfront Access Plan --- WAP Amendment only August 27: 8. Land Use Descriptions --- Plan text amendment only 9. Removal of "Cemetery" Designation --- Plan Map amendment only 10. Capital Facilities Element Update --- Plan text amendment only .....Continuation of earlier discussions from Aug. 20 meeting. .....Ordinances --- adopting Plan Amendments and Rezones. 2. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 5. IMPACT ON NON-PASSAGE: Most of the proposed amendments are development-related. The applicants are attempting to change the City's Plan and Zoning in ways that they feel are positive and that will allow new homes, apartments, commercial and industrial development. They are awaiting the City's decisions. Non-passage will uphold the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the affected properties and the applicants will not be able to carry out their development plans. Denial will not seriously affect most of the proposals. Exceptions are the annual Capital Facilities Element updates, which are directly related to the City's ClP and Budget, and the Smith Cove proposals which will affect the expansion of Evergreen Park and the future use of contaminated former industrial areas. 6. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: Approval of these changes may slightly increase the review and permit processing demands of staff if new development occurs as a result. This would be considered a positive impact on the City. None of the proposed amendments or rezones are expected to significantly impact departmental budgets, staffing, facilities or equipment needs. 7. RESEARCH SOURCES: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE adopting 1997 amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted its revised Comprehensive. Plan by Ordinance No. 4545 in February 1996; and WHEREAS, requested and proposed amendments to the Plan were docketed in accordance with an adopted procedure for amending the Plan once per year, were processed through the Planning Commission public hearings in May and June, and were submitted for a mandatory 60-day review by state agencies on June 11, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission, following its public study sessions and hearings during May and June 1996, has recommended City Council adoption of the proposed amendments, as presented, subject to any adjustments that may be necessary as a result of comments from state agencies; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council conducted public hearings on these proposed amendments on August 20 and 27, 1997 to accept additional public comments and to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and state agencies; now therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN Section 1. The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended in the West Hills neighborhood south of Roosevelt Avenue to change the designation from "Utility" to "Medium Density Residential (MDR)", as shown in attached Exhibit "A", on a small portion of a City reservoir site that has been surplussed and sold for residential development. Section 2. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended on the east side of Wheaton Way, north of Dibb Street, to change the designation of two lots from "S (School)" to "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)", as shown in attached Exhibit "B". Section 3. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended in the vicinity of the Auto Center district to change the designation of four lots, consisting of about 22 acres, from "General and Professional Office (C-P)" to "Industrial Park (IP)", as shown in attached Exhibit "C". Section 4. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended to change the designation of the northern ten acres of a twenty-acre lot at the southwest corner of Riddell Road and Almira Drive from "Medium Density Residential (MDR)" to "Mixed Use/PUD (MU)", as shown on attached Exhibit "D". 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 1 Section 5. The Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended to change the designation of two small lots, comprising about one-third acre total area and located on the south side of Broad Street from "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)" to "Medium Density Residential (MDR)", as shown on attached Exhibit "E". Section 6. The Waterfront Access Plan, adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, i's hereby amended to remove the designation "minor viewpoint" from the Link 1-B and Link 1-C Plan maps at the east end of the Eleventh Street Place, and to amend the text of the WAP to remove related viewpoint recommendations, as described in attached Exhibit "F". Section 7. The text of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to incorporated the annual update of the Capital Facilities Program portion of the Capital Facilities Element, as attached hereto as Exhibit "G". Section 8. The Comprehensive Plan Map is he.reby amended to expand the "Parks & Schools (PS)" designation north of Sheldon Boulevard and Thirteenth Street, south of Smith Cove, and to expand the "High Density Residential (HDR)" designation to include two additional lots on the east side of Highland Avenue, as shown in attached Exhibit "H". Section 9. The Land Use Plan maps contained within the Comprehensive Plan are hereby amended to remove the designation "C (Cemetery)", as shown in attached Exhibit "I". Section 10. The text of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add descriptions of the land use designations used on Plan map, as contained in attached Exhibit "J". APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this day of ,1997. PASSED by the Bremerton City Council this ,1997. day of DAVID FARR, President Bremerton City Council APPROVED this day of ,1997. LYNN HORTON, Mayor 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 2 ATTEST: KATHLEEN McCLUSKEY, City Clerk Published: Effective: 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 3 Exhibit "A" HARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS --- Plan Amendment: This amendment changes the designation of the area shown below from "Utility (U)" to "Medium Density Residential (MDR)". All other portions of the site proposed for the Harbor Heights Apartments development are currently designated "MDR". This amendment brings the entire site under that designation and allows the surplus Utility land to become part of the development. Area to be amended from "U" (Utility) ~x · to "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) I Area recently annexed to the City. Designated "MDR". Zoned "MF" (Multi-family Residential) 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 4 Exhibit ~B ~ BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT--- Plan Amendment: This Plan Map amendment will allow the School District to sell two lots of surplus property for commercial development. The lots front on Wheaton Way and are adjacent to other commercial properties to the north and south. The Plan designations of the two lots are changed from "S (School)" to "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)".. Change the Plan designation on the subject property from "S" to "C-G". C-G MDR LDR - C:P' S LDR MU U C,-G: LDR 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. m Page 5 Exhibit AUTO CENTER AREA INDUSTRIAL --- Plan Amendment; This amendment applies to four lots (about 22 acres) located on the hillside above and to the west of the Auto Center district. The property is currently planned and zoned for office development. The amendment will change the designations of these lots from "General & Professional Offices (C-P)" to "Industrial Park (IP)". Proposed Map Amendlnent: The Amendment Area is shaded. This area is proposed to be changed from "C-P" to "IP", as described abow H! ,r Rd. P 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 6 Exhibit "D" MERIT COMPANY--- Plan Amendment: This amendment changes the designation of the northern ten acres of this twenty-acre lot from "Medium Density Residential (MDR)" to "Mixed Use/PUD (MU)" to allow a mixed commercial/residential development or the expansion of the adjacent shopping center. Approval of this Plan Amendment will be followed by a change in zoning to apply the "MX (Mixed Use)" zone, which is the primary zone for the "MU" designation. ~11 Road ~ 6-G LDR MDR ~ LDR ~ LDR~ 1II!I1 11 ll[lllll ! 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 7 Exhibit "E" BROAD STREET RESIDENTIAL-- Plan Amendment: This amendment changes the designation of two small lots from "General & Highway Commercial (C-G)" to "Medium Density Residential (MDR)". The lots are too small and too far removed from Wheaton Way to be suitable for commercial development. With the recent development of Broadmore Village, the west end of Broad Street has become a viable residential neighborhood. This change is consistent with that trend. Change two lots from commercial to residential 'C-G I I I 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 8 Exhibit WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN--- Plan Amendment: The Waterfront Access Plan, adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, is amended to remove the designation "Minor Viewpoint" from the Link 1-B and Link 1-C Plan maps at the east end of Eleventh Street Place, and to amend the text of the WAP to removed related viewpoint recommendations, as follow: Ao Page 27 --- Figure 8. Link One Plan: Remove the "minor viewpoint" symbol from the east end of the Eleventh Street Place street end. Bo Page 48 --- Eleventh Street Place Access: Remove the text of this entire section, including all recommendations. Page 49 --- Figure 14. Link l-B: Remove the "minor viewpoint" symbol from the east end of the Eleventh Street Place street end on this map. D. page 52--- Link 1-C Pathway System Recommendations: Amend the first recommendation to delete "... connecting the Eleventh Street Place Viewpoint with Evergreen Park..." Amend the second recommendation to read: "Develop a bicycle route connecting tl;e Eleventh Street Place ~ with Evergreen Park, following existing sidewalks..." Page 56: Figure 15. Link I-C: Amend the map to remove the minor viewpoint symbol and "Eleventh Street Place Access" notation. Fo Page 72: Phase Three: 10-30 years: Remove the sixth item (Eleventh Place Viewpoint) from this list of projects~ Page 73: Table 2. Water Access Facilities: Remove the ninth line of this table (Eleventh Place Access). 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. w Page 9 Exhibit aaG~ CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT AMENDMENTS: Draft Revisions August 12, 1997 Bremerton ComprehensA;e Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Part 2 of 2' Capital Facilities Program Prepared by: BREMERTON PLANNING Adopted: April 5, 1995 Revised: October 23. 1996 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 10 Exhibit "H" SOUTH SMITH COVE --- Plan Amendment: This amendment changes the designation of lands along the north side of Sheldon Boulevard and Thirteenth Street from "Mixed Use/PUD (MU)" to "Parks & Schools (PS)". This will achieve consistency, with the master plan for the expansion of Evergreen Park and prevent commercial or industrial development from disturbing documented soil contamination areas immediately south of Smith Cove and north of Sheldon/Thirteenth. The Plan designations on two lots on the east side of Highland Avenue are changed from "Mixed Use/PUD (MU)" to "High Density Residential (HDR)". DR~ ~c PROPOSED Mixed Use Neighborhood Convenience Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Hish Density Residential MDR __ __HDR~ Current 1997 Plan P~mend. Ord. --~ Page 11 Exhibit REMOVAL OF "Cemetery." DESIGNATION --- Plan Amendment: This amendment removes the designation "C (Cemetery)" from all Comprehensive Plan maps to remove the potential for confusion and conflicts with zoning. This change affects only two areas of the City, as shown below, and will have no effect on the ability of an existing cemetery to expand in the future. Location Maps: A: West Bremerton Land Use Plan DR Bay B: Central Bremerton Land Use Plan BP LDR: 1997 Plan Amend. Ord. -- Page 12 Exhibit Land Use Designations Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION LDR Low Density Residential: This designation includes existing and proposed residential neighborhoods at densities of 8 dwellings per acre or less. It is applied to areas that don't have the levels of urban services needed for higher density development, or that have terrain, sensitive areas (wetlands, creeks or shorelines), poor access, or special amenities (views) ~hat are best pr.otected through Iow density development. Large lots are allowed in LDR zones, especially in areas without sewer service. Developers are encouraged to cluster development on smaller lots in exchange for open space through the PUD process to make the best possible use of the site. Four F'rimary Residential Zones are directly consistent with this Plan designation (SF- I, SF-2, SF-3, and DR). The Limited Parking Overlay (LPO) and Parks & Schools (PS) zones are also consistent with all residential Plan designations. Small "secondary zones" may be approved within larger residential developments to serve local needs for convenience shopping, employment, education or recreation. MDR Medium Density Residential: This designation is applied to the older higher- density residential neighborhoods of Central Bremerton where lots are small and mixed development is common or desirable. Other areas may be designated MDR when found to be suitable for the 8-18 units per. acre density level. Such areas are generally near transportation corrido'rs and shopping/employment concentrations, and have adequate availability of urban services and facilities. MF and CBR are the primary zones in this designation. They allOw virtually all types of residential'developmet~t, including single-unit homes and duplexes on small lots, multi-unit developments, townhouses, and boarding houses. Limited mixed uses are permitted in these zones to provide convenient services to neighborhoods without causing land use conflicts. HDR tligh Density Residential: This designation allows the City's highest densities (more than 18 units per a.cre) and is dire~:tly consistent with the "MR" zone which allows up to 44 units per acre. HDR areas are intended primarily for locations along major transportation corridors, within and around the Central Business District and smaller business districts, and where such development can take advantage or' unique views or such amenities as shorelines, recreational facilities, or access to ferries or buses. Utilities, services and transportation must be adequate to serve HDR development. C-G General & Highway Commercial: This is the City's most intense commercial designation. It provides for the "GB (General Business)" and "SC (Shopping Center)" zones, both of which are automobile oriented and designed for application along highways and major arterial streets having high traffic volumes, direct auto access, and maximum drive-by visibility. These locatios~s are suitable for such "heavy commercial" uses as shopping centers, major grocery stores, auto services, auto repairs, motels, taverns, restaurants, adult entertainment, fast food, and large scale retailers that require very large structures'and expansive parking. Most types of businesses are permitted in these areas, along with office uses. Residential is permitted as a secondary use. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 45 Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION C-P General & Professional Offices: This designation supports the "PO (Professional Office)" zone. It's applied in locations that are uniquely suitable for oflice development, areas that have physical or locational features that might be less suitable for higher intensity uses, or areas in which office development might provide a butter or transition between two zones that might otherwise conflict. Office districts may consist of a mixture of offices and support services such as copy and computer services, office machine repairs, or mail services. Light retail, such as a restaurant, book or stationery store, art supplies store, delicatessen, or newspaper/magazine shop are usually compatible with this district. CBD Central Business District: This is downtown Bremerton. This desigation supports a number of zones, including BC. (Business Core), GB (General Business), PO (Professional Office), and the medium and high density residential zones MF and MR. The URD (Urban Renewal District).is on the CBD waterfront. The CBD is intended to provide a mix of uses that includes retail at the street level of the primary pedestrian streets, with offices, apartments, studio lofts, and other uses on the upper levels. The downtown zones allow the highest residential densities in the City with the fewest development limitations. Residential zones (MF and MR) may be permitted on side streets at densities up to 44 units per acre where it can be demonstrated that pedestrian retail is less important tha.n close proximity of full time downtown residents. CBD development should be designed to encourage walking, shopping, browsing, and the use of public transit, bicycles and the ferry system to reduce the importance of the private automobile in this compact downtown environment. NC Neighborhood Convenience: This designation supports the "NB (Neighborhood Business)" zone and is intended to provide small scale convenience services and retail goods within small neighborhood service areas. This district is often centrally located within neighborhoods and should minimize vehicular traffic and encourage short-distance walking. It should not include businesses with regional markets that bring traffic from other areas. Neighborhood Convenience centers often consist of small "Mom & Pop" markets and may also include such personal services as a barber/beauty salon, day care center, neighborhood or senior center, and other activities that might benefit the surrounding neighborhood. MU Mixed Use/PUD: Tl~is designation'is intended for areas that are in transition, usually from residential to commercial or industrial, or that are in a transitional location, such as between a residential neighborhood and a commercial district.' The "MX (Mixed Use)" zone is the primary zone and leans toward commercial development with residential allowed as a secondary use. In cases where the MX zone doesn't provide the needed flexibility, the MU Plan designation promotes mixed use developments through the PUD process. Single purpose developments that don't require a PUD and can't be built within the parameters of the MX zone should not be designated MU. 1997 Plan Amendznents-- Page 46 Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION HI Heavy Industrial: This designation is applied to the City's least sensitive areas and areas most suitable for.large-scale industrial uses. It supports the "IG (Industrial General)" and "MX (Mixed Use with industrial emphasis)" zones. Such uses include manufacturing, warehousing, trucki~.g operations, motor vehicle sales and service, large open display lots, and are often accompanied by extensive outdoor storage &supplies, vehicles, heavy equipment, products, or other materials. Businesses that typically generate noise, dust, odors, operate at late or odd hours, or that otherwise might not be pleasant neighbors could expect to find a home in the Hi district. This district is placed as close as possible to major highways, freeways, airports and rail lines, and as far as possible from residential neighborhoods and other sensitive land uses. IP Industrial Park: This designation supports the"IP (Industrial P~rk)" and "MX (Mixed Use with light industrial emphasis)" zones. It is intended to provide areas for a mix of office, wholesale, trade and distribution, bulk retailing, and light manufacturing in a Iow-density, campus-like environment. The district should be designed to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent areas and to present an attractive well-landscaped appearance. Businesses located within an Industrial Park should be contained within buildings and have very little, if any, outdoor storage other than business-related vehicle parking. All areas of the Industrial Park should be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees, etc., and all roads, driveways and parking areas should be paved. Preserved open space areas might include such employee amenities as walking/jogging paths or bike paths to encourage exercise or alternative commuting. BP Business Park: This designation was designed for very unique situations. It allows small and very unobtrusive businesses to locate within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The primary zones are "BP (Business Park)", "PO (Professional Office)", and "MX (Mixed Use with business emphasis)". These zones allow a limited variety of Iow-intensity commercial, office and manufacturing businesses that are most compatible with residential neighbors. Care should be taken to ensure that development within the BP district is attractive, well-landscaped and an asset to the neighborhood in which it is located. This designation may also serve as a buffer or transitional district. RE Resource Extraction: This designation is reserved for possible application to areas that may be identified as mineral resource sites of commercial s!gnificance that should be protected from other types of development. The City has not used this designation because all known mineral/gravel resource extraction sites within the City are already permitted, are in operation, and are zoned appropriately for industrial use. The P,E designation could be applied as the long-range intent on lands that are in a different short-term use. A phased zoning approach may work well in such a situation. T Transportation Facilities: This designation has been applied to major transportation facilities of regional significance, such as the ferry terminal and Kitsap Transit's bus maintenance and storage facilities. It might also be applied to locations found to be uniquely suited for commuter parking lots, heliports, etc. There is no zone that is specifically related to this Plan designation, but all commercial and industrial zones are considered appropriate. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 47 Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION P or OS Parks or Open Space: Ali active public parks and recreation areas and major passive open space areas are designated either "P (Park)" or "OS (Open Space)" on the Comprehensive Plan maps. The primary zone is "PS (Parks & Schools)" S School: All public schools are designated "S" on the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned "PS (Parks & Schools)". Private schools are not so designated but are included within their host zone. H Hospital: Harrison Hospital and the Naval Hospital in Jackson Park are designated "H" on the Plan maps. This designation is intended to show the locations of these facilities and not to determine their physical size. Hospitals are allowed in the "HC (Health Care)", "GB (General Business)" and "BC (Business Core)" zones. PW Public Works: This designation is intended to show the location of the City's major public works facility on Oyster Bay Avenue. It does not determine the physical size of that facility. Public Works facilities are allowed in the "IG (Industrial General)" and "IP (Industrial Park)" zones. U & UL Utilities & Utility Lands: The "U (Utilities)" designation shows the location of the City's main Utilities and Engineering offices on Olympus Drive in East Bremerton. Most utilities and their offices are permitted in other zones and don't require designation on the Plan maps. The designation "UL (.Utility Lands)" is applied to major areas that are owned and operated by the City's Utility, primarily in areas west of Gorst. WS Watershed: This designation is applied only to the City's Union'River Watershed that surrounds and protects the reservoir behind Casad Dam. The related zone is "WS (Water Supply)" which is a very restrictive zone intended to protect the water resource. Military This is a Iocational designation intended only to identify major military facilities such as Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Jackson Park and the Naval Hospital at Jackson Park. These facilities are also designated according to their primary uses. Only PSNS has a Plan designation but remains unzoned. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 48 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE revising the Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton, Washington to Maintain Consistency with 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton may amend its Comprehensive Plan once each year and the City Council has completed action on the 1997 docket of Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton maintains development codes that are consistent with its Comprehensive Plan and with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, and which include the Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map, which were both re-adopted on April 9, 1997 following major text revisions; and WHEREAS, some of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were site specific and require related zoning adjustments to maintain Plan/Zoning consistency; and WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted by the Bremerton Planning Commission on July 15 and August 19, 1997 to consider Plan-related zoning adjustments prior to making formal recommendations to the City Council; and WltEREAS, the Bremerton City. Council conducted public hearings on August 20 and August 27, 1997 to accept public comments pertaining to the proposed zoning adjustments and to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation; now, therefore THE CITY OF BREMERTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Bremerton is hereby amended to change the zoning of specific portions of the proposed Harbor Heights Apartments development site from the present designations of"FM (Forest Management)" and "SF-3 (Residential, Low- density)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)", as described in attached Exhibit "A". Section 2. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designations of two lots, located on the east side of Wheaten Way, north of Dibb Street, from "PS (Parks & Schools)" to "GB (General Business)", as described in attached Exhibit "B". Section 3. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designation of four lots, consisting of approximately 22 acres, in the Auto Center area from "PO (Professional Office)" to "IP (Industrial Park)", with conditions, as described in attached Exhibit "C". Section 4. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designation of 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 1 the northernmost ten acres of a twenty-acre lot at the southwest comer of Riddell Road and Almira Drive from "MF (Residential, Medium-density)" to "NIX (1Mixed Use)", with conditions, as described in attached E,vahibit "D". Section 5. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to change the designation of two lots on the south side of Broad Street, west of Wheaton Way, from "GB (General Business)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)", as described in Exhibit "E". Section 6. The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended to accommodate the expansion of Evergreen Park to areas south of Smith Cove, consistent with the Park Master Plan, by including all areas north of Sheldon Boulevard and Thirteenth Street and west of Highland, with the exception of the union building at the comer of 13th and Highland, in the "PS (Parks & Schools)" zone, and by expanding the "MR (Residential, High-density)" zone northward to include two lots on the east side of Highland Avenue, as described in Exhibit "F". APPROVED by the City Council on the first reading this day of ,1997. PASSED bythe Brememon City Councilthis ,1997. day of DAVID FARR, President Bremerton City Council APPROVED this day of ,1997. ATTEST: LYNN HORTON, Mayor KATHLEEN MeCLUSKEY, City Clerk Published: Effective: CPA-97:zma-97.ord 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. --- Page 2 _509 Exhibit "A" REZONE: Harbor Heights Apartments The area described and shown on the map below are hereby changed from "FM (Forest Management)" and "SF-3 (Residential, Low-density)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)". REZONE: Change from "FM (Forest Management to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)". Change from "SF-3 (Residential, Low-density)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)". FM MF IG LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 24 North, Range 1 East, W.M., in Kitsap County, Washington AND that portion of block 11, Ole Hanson's Navy Yard Addition, as per Plat recorded in Volume 4 of Plats, page 56, records of Kitsap County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Section 28; thence North 88°32'06'' West along the North line of said Section 28 a distance of 539.97 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 7°08'25" east 93.99 feet to the beginning of a 50 foot radius curve; thence along said curve to the left through a central angle of 50° 10'30" for an arc distance of 43.79 feet; thence North 43°02'05" West 44.52 feet to the center line of Jones Street being a point on a curve whose radius point bears North 43 °02'05" West 475.00 feet; thence southwesterly along said center line being a curve to the right through a central angle of 16036'53'' for an arc distance of 137.74 feet; thence South 26°25'12'' East 38.08 feet to the beginning ora 50 foot radius curve; thence along said curve to the right through a central angle of 33 °33'37" for an arc distance of 29.29 feet; thence South 7°08'25'' West 37.41 feet; thence South 88032'06" East 125.62 feet; thence North 7008' 25" East 15.07 feet to the Point of Beginning. 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 3 5/ Exhibit REZONE: Bremerton School District --- Wheaton Way The two lots shown on the map below are hereby changed from "PS (Parks & Schools)" to "GB (General Business)". GB PO 33R0 5'1. PS PS E. 30TH '~91'l'l 'S'L E. 30D 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. --- Page 4 Exhibit REZONE: Auto Center Area Industrial The four lots shown on the map below are hereby changed from "PO (Professional Office)" "IP (Industrial Park)", with the following conditions to be applied to Lots A, B, and C only: to New Development shall be designed to encourage a campus-like arrangement of buildings, parking, pedestrian walkways and open space. All areas not paved or built upon shall be landscaped or left in natural vegetation to minimize dust, mud and erosion. Development projects shall be designed to include a minimum of 15 percent open space, exclusive of required setbacks. When such open space is used primarily for hillside stabilization, visual enhancement, or sensitive area protection, the City shall consider waiving or reducing the requirement that 60 percent or more of the open space be used for active recreation. Outdoor storage of equipment, materials, products, etc., shall be placed toward the uphill side of buildings (not the view side) whenever feasible andJor effectively screened from view with landscaping or a combination of fences and landscaping. PS Pendergast ~orts Complex '.. IP 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 5 ISF-3 Exhibit REZONE: ~D99 Merit Company -- northern 10 acres of a 20 acre lot The northern ten acres of a 20-acre lot at the southwest comer of Riddell Road and Almira Drive, as shown on the map below, is hereby changed from "MF (Residential, Medium-density)" to "MX (Mixed Use)", with the following conditions: A. Ifa true residential/commercial mixed use development is proposed for the subject site, it shall be designed so that only residential uses front on Almira Drive and non-residential uses are oriented toward the Wheaton Way corridor. B. Site design shall not allow commercial traffic acess from Almira Drive but shall encourage pedestrian and bicycle access fi.om surrounding neighborhoods. C. If a commercial expansion is designed for the subject site without residential along Aknira Drive, it shall be separated from Almira Drive by a buffer of landscaping and trees to a depth of no less than one hundred (100) feet. [This provision can satisfy most of the site's 15% requirement for active and passive open space and may include a meandering pedestrian/bicycle pathway or other amenities, as well as pedestrian access to the shopping center.] D. Development of this site is subject to Site Plan approval by the Bremerton City Council, following a public hearing. 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. --- Page 6 Exhibit "E" REZONE: Broad Street Residential (2 lots) The area described and shown on the map below, consisting of two lots, is hereby changed from "GB (General Business)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)". SF-3 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. -- Page 7 Exhibit REZONE: South Smith Cove Zoning Adjustments As shown on the map below, the zoning north of Sheldon Boulevard and Thirteenth Street is adjusted to change the zoning of all areas proposed for Evergreen Park expansion from "BP (Business Park)" to "PS (Parks & Schools). East of Highland Avenue, the zoning of two lots are changed from "BP 'Business Park)" to "MR (Residential, High-density)". proposed fo~r rezoneS:These areas are proposed to be Rezoned .~ ',-- / ~ from "BP (Business Park) to "MR (Mixed Residential). Zoning Map after approval of these changes. PS MR 1997 Zoning Map Amendment Ord. --- Page 8 RESOLUTION NO.97-01 A RESOLUTION of the Bremerton Planning Commission recommending amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, adopted in February 1996 by Ordinance No. 4545, contained a process for annual Plan amendments and a schedule for the processing of those amendments through the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, Bremerton's amendment process begins at the application deadline of April 1 and extends to Council adoption, preferably in July or August; and WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission has reviewed the 1997 docket of proposed and requested amendments to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan and conducted public hearings on these amendments on June 3 and June 17, 1997, to receive and consider public comments; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION that the following changes to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan'are hereby recommended for City Council adoption: Ae Harbor Heights Apartments: Change the Plan designation from "U (Utilities)" to "MDR (Medium Density Residential)" in a small 0.3 acre portion of the West Hills site of this proposed apartment complex. [Staff Report p. 6] Bremerton School District: Change the Plan designation from "S (School)" to "C-G (General & Highway Commercial)" on a 1.6 acre site on the east side of Wheaton Way near Dibb Street. [Staff Report p. 11] Auto Center Area Industrial: Change the Plan designation from "C-P (General & Professional Offices)" to "IP (Industrial Park)" on a 22 acre area (4 lots) along the west side of the Auto Center District. [Staff Report p. 16] De Merit Company: Change the Plan designation from "MDR (Medium Density Residential)" to "MU (Mixed Use/PUD)" on approximately ten acres of a 20-acre parcel at the SW coruer of Riddell Road and Almira Drive. [Staff Report p. 22] Broad Street Residential: Change the Plan designation from "C-G (General & Highway Commercial)" to "MDR (Medium Density Residential)" on two small lots on the south side of Broad Street adjacent to Broadmore Village. [Staff Report p. 27] Waterfront Access Plan Amendments: Amend the text and maps of the "Waterfront Access Plan" to remove references to a public access viewpoint at the east end of Ge Eleventh Street Place. [Specific sections of the WAP to be revised are listed in the Staff Report, p. 31.] Capital Facilities Element Updates: To be considered ara public hearing at the July 15 Planning Commission meeting. [Staff Report p. 34] South Smith Cove: [Staff Report p. 37] 1. Change the Plan designation from "MU (Mixed Use/PUD)" to "P (Park)" on areas fronting on the north side of Sheldon Boulevard/Thirteenth Street, west of Highland Avenue, and 2. Change the Plan designation from "MU (Mixed Use/PUD)" to "HDR (High Density Residential) on all areas east of Highland Avenue. Removal of "Cemetery" Designation: Remove the designation "C (Cemetery)" from all Plan maps and map legends. [Staff Report. p. 43] Land Use Descriptions: Adopt the Land Use Designations table, to be inserted at page 77 of the Land Use Element, immediately before the Plan Maps. [Staff Report p. 44] PASSED by the Bremerton Planning Commission this '-~0~" ,1997. day of Laurence Stone, Chair ATTEST: Donald L. Pratt, Secretary to the Planning Commission cpa-97:pc97-1.res STAFF REPORT Comprehensive Plan Amenelmeni:s cpa-97:stafrept. 97 Prepared by: Ron W. Hough --- Dept. of Community Development --- 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337 INTRODUCTION A. Background and Plan Adoption: The 1986 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan was revised to comply with the Growth Management Act and re-adopted on April 5, 1995. The Plan was appealed in 1995 by the Association to Protect Anderson Creek (APAC) and later amended in response to a Growth Management Hearings Board Order. It was re-adopted by Ordinance No. 4545 on February 21, 1996. B. Plan Amendment Schedule: The Growth Management Act requiies most Plan amendments to be placed on a docket and processed at one scheduled time of the year. Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan includes an amendment schedule that leads to City Council action in late summer so that any financial impacts can move ahead into the fall budget process. C. Plan Amendment Process: Plan Amendments may be initiated by property owners, organizations, City staff, the Planning Commission or City Council. Amendment requests are accepted throughout the year until April 1. At that time, they are "packaged" and processing begins. The Planning Commission is the focal point for citizen involvement and makes recommendations for City Council action on each requested amendment. The package of amendments must also be submitted to the State for its 60-day review. The Planning Commission's study sessions and hearings are held during May and June and are ready for City Council consideration in July or August. Amendments to the Comp. Plan often trigger related Rezones, since the Plan and Zoning Maps must remain consistent with each other. While the Plan Amendments were being reviewed, the Planning Commission processed the related rezones so that the Plan Amendments and their Rezones could be considered together by the City Council. SUM_MARY OF PLAN AME ME S The 1997 docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests includes: 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page I /A. Harbor Heights Apartments: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA96-0001) To change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "U" (Utilities) to "MDR" (Medium Density Resid.) on a small area of the West Hills neighborhood south of Roosevelt Avenue. This is part of a larger parcel that was recently annexed with the designation "MDR" and consistent (MF) zoning. Relat6d Rezone proposals would change the zoning of two small parts of the development site from "FM (Forest Management)" and "SF-3 (Res. Low Density)" to "MF" (Res. Medium-density)" to be consistent with the Plan designation and to ensure that the deslignations of the entire property are consistent. B. Bremerton School District: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0001) To change the designation of two small lots .fronting on Wheaton Way from "S" (School) to"C-G" (General & Highway Commercial). The property is undeveloped and has been used for many years for access to an elementary school and for parking. The related Rezone proposal would change the zoning from "PS" (Parks & Schools) to "GB" (General Business) to be consistent with the Plan designation. C. Auto Center Area Industrial: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0002) To change the designation of two parcels on a hillside west of the Auto Center district of West Bremerton from "C-P" (General & Professional Offices) to "IP" (Industrial Park). The change will allow uses that are compatible with the light industrial character of the Auto Center area. The related Rezone would change the zoning from "PO" (Processional Office) to "IP" (Industrial Park) to ensure consistency with the Plan designation. D. Merit Company: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0003) To change the designation of approximately ten acres of a 20-acre parcel at the southwest comer of Riddell Road and Almira Drive from "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) to "MU-PUD" (Mixed Use/PUD). This will allow some existing businesses that currently front on Wheaton Way to expand into an undeveloped area to the east and to offer an opportunity for a mixed use (residential/commercial) development on the site. The related Rezone proposal would change the ZOning from "MF" (Residential, Medium- density) to "MX" (Mixed Use) to be consistent with the Plan. E. Broad Street Residential: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0004) To change the designation of two small lots from "C-G" (General & Highway Commercial) to "MDR" (Medium Density Residential). The lots are located at the entrance to a new (MDR) residential development and not suitable for commercial use. The related Rezone proposal would change the zoning from "GB" (General Business) to "MF (Resid. Meal-density)". F. Waterfront Access Plan Amendment: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0005) To amend the Waterfront Access Plan to remove the designation "Minor Viewpoint" from the Link 1-B and Link 1-C Plan maps at the east end of Eleventh Street Place and to amend the text of the WAP to remove related viewpoint recommendations. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 2 G. Capital Facilities Element Update: (File:'PLN 7-8: CPA97-0006) To review industrial water and sewer services, adjust and simplify the CFP format to facilitate annual updates, and to update the CFp and the 6-year Finance Plan (CIP) to year 2002. H. South Smith Cove: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0007) To review and adjust Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations in areas south of Smith Cove to accommodate Evergreen Park expansion and to prevent unnecessary disturbance of contaminated soils in the area. I. Removal of "Cemetery" designation: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0008) To remove the designation "C (Cemetery)" from all Land Use Plan maps to remove the potential for confusion and conflicts with zoning. J. Land Use Descriptions: (File: PLN 7-8: CPA97-0009) To add a new section to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to describe the land use categories that are used on the Plan maps. GENERAL LOCATIONS A. Harbor Heights Apartments B. Bremerton School District Co Auto Center Area Industrial D. Merit Company E. Broad Street Residential F. Waterfront Access Plan Amendment G, Capital Facilities Element Update H, South Smith Cove ,I LOCATION MAP for Comprehensive Plan Amendments t~ 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 3 CRITIERIA FOR APPROVAL of PLAN AMENDMENTS The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and will not result in Plan or regulation conflicts; and The proposal will change the development or use potential of a site or area without creating significant adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses, businesses, or residents; and o The proposed amendment can be accommodated by all applicable public services and facilities, including transportation; and The proposal will help implement the goals and policies of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan; and o If the proposal could have substantive impacts beyond the City limits, it has been sent to Kitsap County for review and comment. CRITIERIA FOR APPROVAL of REZONES Zoning implements the City's Plans and, therefore, the Zoning Map must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map. The following criteria must be answered "YES" for Rezone approval: Is the proposed Rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Is the Rezone justified for one or more of the following reasons? (a) It is in the public interest to approve the Rezone to accommodate needed changes within the immediate vicinity or neighborhood. (b) It will correct a zone classification or boundary that was inappropriate when established. (c) It is a planned step in a phasing process to gradually bring zoning into consistency with the 20-year Comprehensive Plan when appropriate. (d) It will place or remove an overlay zoning designation without affecting the underlying zoning. 3. Is there a public need for the proposed Rezone that will clearly benefit the local neighborhood and/or the community of Bremerton? 4. Are all essential public facilities and services available and adequate, or can be made available, to serve the types and levels of development permitted in the requested zone? 5. Will the area being proposed for rezoning become aprt of a larger zoning district or form a new district which will not be considered an isolated "spot zone"? 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 4 IMPACTS ON GOALS & POLICIES Element "C" (Planning Goals) of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan lists the state planning goals and local supporting goals. The following matrix provides an indication of how the goals may be affected by each of the plan amendments. Turn to the portion of this report that describes the particular amendment for additional information. Plan Amendments * State Planning Goals IA [B [C ID IE]F I G IH I 1 Urban Growth · er · · · .... · er 2 Reduce Sprawl · · · · · .... · .... 3 Transportation er · er · er ............ 4 Housing · ............ · ............ 5 Economic Development .... er · · ........ er er 6 Property Rights .................... · .... er 7 Permits er' / --:- er ........ vt .... 8 NaturalResource Industries ................................. 9 Open Space & Recreation .................... er .... · 10 Environment ............................ er 11 Citizen Part. & Coord. er er er er .... er er er 12 Public Facilities & Services er ct er er ........ · .... 13 Historic Preservation ................................ Impact Assessment Symbols: ..... No significant impact. /' Minimal positive impacts. ~ Significant positive impacts. *Amendments: A Harbor Heights Apartments B Bremerton School District C Auto Center Area Industrial D Merit Company E Broad Street Residential F Waterfront Access Plan Amendment G- Capital Facilities Element update H South Smith Cove 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 5 A. HARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS File: PLN 7-8:CPA96-0001 Applicant: Charles C. Haselwood HMI, Inc. P.O. Box 870, Bremerton WA 98310 Contact: Bob Miller-Rhees Rice Fergus Architects Phone: 360-377-8773 Location: Midway between Bayview D~'ive and Thi~d Avenue, north of Zircon Lane. Includes lots 20 & 21, Block 11, between Lansing Avenue and vacated Daniels Avenue. The site is southeast of Bremerton's Reservoir 4. Location Map: -I ltl 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 6 Request: The site proposed for this Plan Amendment (and subsequent Rezone) includes a small area of less than one acre. The legal description is on file in the Dept. of Community Development. The site is part of a larger development site that includes a total area of about 3.4 acres. The applicant intends to use the site for a multiple-unit residential developmenL The subject area to be amended is surplus City utility land and is being acquired from the City of Bremerton by the applicant for development. The current Plan designation is "U" (Utilities) which was consistent with the property's association with the water reservoir. Since that designation does not allow residential zoning and development, the applicant is asking for a change to the "MDR (Medium Density Residential)" designation. The larger part of the total site (about 2.8 acres) was recently annexed to the City of Bremerton and designated "MDR" upon annexation. That site was also zoned "MF" (Residential, Medium-density). This proposal, if approved, would bring all parts of the proposed development site under the same Plan (MDR) and Zoning (MF) designations so that development can occur as planned. EXISTING Comprehensive Plan: LDR MDR C-G P IP U Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential General & Highway Commercial Park (Pendergast Regional) Industrial Park Utilities Warner Rd. i 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 7 REQUESTED AMENDMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Change from 'U" (Utility) to "MDR (Medium Density Residential) ZONING MAP; Change from "FM (Forest Management) to 'MF (Residential, Medium-density) Change from 'SF-3 (Residential, Low-density) to 'MF (Residential, Medium-density) NOTE: This area was recently annexed to the City of Bremerton and is currently zoned "MF" for residential purposes. Goals & Policies: This proposal has no apparent adverse effects on state or local goals or policies, but is expected to have positive effects in the following areas: 1. Urban Growth: The proposed change will allow the applicant's proposed multi-unit development to be designed and constructed within the City and at an urban density of up to 18 units per acre. This will provide needed affordable housing to help meet the City's anticipated growth. 2. Reduce Sprawl: Providing more land for higher-density residential development within the City where the needed facilities and services can be provided will reduce the pressure to seek new sites in rural areas. 3. Transportation: The subject site has good access to State Route 3, the backbone "freeway" through Kitsap County. It also has good direct access into the City of Bremerton via Werner Road and Loxie Eagans Blvd. for shopping, employment, education (public schools and Olympic College), recreation, and other pursuits. Bus access to downtown and other communities is nearby (Werner Road), with ferry connections to Seattle.' The site itself is somewhat isolated and will not be adversely affected by the. freeway or arterial streets. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 8 4. Housing: Bremerton has accepted a generous allocation of the Countywide population projection and must provide opportunities for the development of new housing to meet its growth needs. The proposed Plan Amendment will provide a new site for the needed development of affordable multi-unit dwellings within the City where they can be adequately served with needed facilities and services. 5. Permits: The location of the applicant's proposed development was partially in the City of Bremerton and partially unincorporated. To develop the site as planned, he needed an annexation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone on different parts of the site in addition to the more routine development approvals. Some of these are being processed simultaneously to avoid unnecessary delays in the approval and permitting processes. 6. Citizen Participation & Coordination: The annexation, Plan Amendment, and Rezone processes all involve notification and considerable opportunity for early and continuous public participation through study sessions and public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council so that all relevant concerns can be presented and addressed. 7. Public Facilities and Services: The location of this project is within the City of Bremerton and all needed facilities and services are available. The site is nearly adjacent to a water reservoir, a short distance from the City's sewage treatment plant, within walking/bicycling distance of Pendergast Regional Park, served by City police and fire, and will enjoy easy access to arterial streets and to the freeway (SR-3) at Wemer Road. Approval Criteria: All proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map must meet the criteria listed on page 4 of this report. This proposal meets the Plan Amendment criteria as follows: Consistent with GMA and regulations: This request is consistent with the land uses, circulation and utilities proposals of the West Hills Area Plan, a pre-annexation neighborhood plan that was developed for this area in 1990 and adopted as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ail areas covered by the West Hills Plan have since been annexed and given City Plan designations and zoning. This Plan Amendment is necessary to convert a small comer of the reservoir site City utility surplus) to a Plan category that will allow its development for non-utility uses. The process to do that will ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act and City procedures. 1997 Plan Amendments m Page 9 No significant adverse effects: The property is currently undeveloped but is not within a sensitive area --- environmentally or otherwise. A large apartment/condominium development (Sunn Fjord) lies directly to the south, the City reservoir is to the northwest, and an older low-density neighborhood exists to the north. The City has development regulations in place, including its Critical Areas Ordinance, which will apply Jo future design and construction on the site. The applicant has already worked with City staff in pre-application review meetings to ensure compliance with codes and minimal impacts. Can be Accommodated by all necessary public services, facilities, and transportation: This area benefits from inclusion in the West Hills Area Plan which provided direction for the long-range planning of streets and utilities. All necessary public services, facilities and transportation will be available to this site for future multi-unit residential development. Will help implement the goals and policies of the Comp. Plan: Development of new sites for housing, particularly larger sites for multi- unit affordable housing, is essential to implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is directly consistent with the City's goals of accommodating its allocation of countywide population, reducing sprawl by providing suitable development sites within the City, providing housing in close proximity to jobs, and providing a variety of housing choices and opportunities for all segments of the community. The proposed amendment is consistent with all adopted goals and policies. Impacts beyond the City limits: This project is within the City of Bremerton, will be served by City utilities and City streets, and will have minimal impacts on areas outside the City limits. The only unincorporated property adjacent to the site is to the south and consists of the large Sunn Fjord residential development. Kitsap County, as an adjacent jurisdiction, was asked to review this proposal and comment on any potential adverse effects. No comments were received. Recommendations: The Bremerton Planning Commission has conducted public hearings on both the requested Plan Amendments and related Rezones, has found the requests to meet the City's approval criteria, and recommends: (1) Approval of the requested Plan Amendment ("U" to "MDR"), and (2) Approval of the related Rezones ("FM" and "SF-3" to "MF"). 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 10 B. BRE/ ERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT File: PLN 7-10:CPA97-0001 Applicant: Bremerton School District 100-C 300 North Montgomery Avenue Bremerton WA 98312 Contact: Walter S. Draper IV Director of Finance and Operations Bremerton School District Phone: 360-478-5113 Location: A 1.6 acre site on the east side of Wheaton Way near its intersection with Dibb Street. The site consists of two 35,000 sq.fi, lots, both of which are currently undeveloped. Each lot has 160 ft. of frontage on Wheaton Way and each has a depth of 219 feet. Location Map: [ I I I[I Il[,ll i O 1997 Plan Amendments- Page 11 Request: The Bremerton School District requests that the subject two lots be removed from the Comprehensive Plan designation .... S" (School) and included in the Plan designation "C-G" (General & Highway Commercial). The lots are no longer needed for school purposes and have been declared surplus for sale. The District feels the most reasonable use of these lots would be highway-related commercial, office or similar types of development allowed under the "C-G" designation. The School District has submitted a Rezone request to change the zoning to "GB" (General Business), pending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. C-G MDR CgmDrehensive Plan: Change from 'S (School)' to 'C-G (Gen. & Highway Commercial)' Zonina MaD: Change from 'PS (Parks & Schools)' to 'GB (General Business)" LDR - S LDR C-G: LDR U Goals & Policies This Plan Amendment would allow the conversion of surplus school property to a retail, service, office or similar use. The change will provide a new opportunity for commercial development on one of Bremerton's most heavily traveled arterials. Significant adverse impacts were not found. The proposal is expected to have positive_effects in the following areas: 1. Urban Growth: Thc subject site has remained undcvclopcd as Whcaton Way developed into an intense commercial corridor. The site is enclosed by business zoning on the north and south and offers a good opportunity for commercial infill within the City where all needed urban facilities and services can be provided. 1997 Plan Amendments -~- Page 12 2. Reduce Sprawl: Kitsap County is growing rapidly and there is a need for new commercial development opportunities. Much of the new commercial development has sprawled into unincorporated rural areas over the past couple decades. This is an opportunity to provide a new 1.6 acre site for commercial development inside the City, which is consistent with the intent to reduce sprawl. 3. Transportation: Vehicular access and safe pedestrian access to View Ridge Elementary School is a priority of the City and the School District. The subject site has been used for such access over the years but is no longer needed for that purpose. In fact, it is more desirable for school traffic to use other routes than to maintain the direct access onto Wheaton Way where left turn movements are nearly impossible much of the time. This proposal is good for traffic. 4. Economic Development: The proposal will create two new commercial lots with a combined area of 1.6 acres on one of Bremerton's most heavily traveled arterials. The City i.s encouraging economic development, new jobs, and new businesses. This proposal is consistent with economic development policies. 5. Permits: If this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, the City will consider the School District's request for a rezone to "GB" (General Business). 6. Citizen Participation and Coordination: Prior to Plan adoption, the City Planning Commission will conduct at least one public hearing before recommending the Plan to the City Council for another hearing and adoption as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is the policy of the City and GMA to encourage early and continuous public involvement. 7. Public Facilities and Services: The proposal involves a site that is already served by most needed public facilities and services, including water, sewer, storm drains, police, fire, and public transit. Development of this site for commercial purposes will result in a more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Approval Criteria: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must meet the City's Plan Amendment criteria. This proposal meet~ the criteria as follows: Consistent with GMA and City regulations: The School District's request is being processed in accordance with the City's Plan Amendment procedures. The process is consistent with the GMA and related regulations and requirements. The Plan Amendment, if approved, will allow follow-up zoning to a zone that is consistent with the "C-G" Plan designation. The zoning regulations will determine thc types of land uses that may locate on the site. Future 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 13 development of the site must conform to Zoning, Building and other applicable code requirements. e No significant adverse effects: Adoption and implementation of this Plan will have no significant adverse effects on the immediate area, the community, or the region. Any unique impacts on traffic, noise, or other areas of concern will be addressed through the development approval process. g Can be Accommodated by all necessary public services, facilities, and transportation: All necessary services and facilities are available along Wheaton Way for commercial development. Wheaton Way itself is a five-lane arterial highway that carries a large volume of traffic, provides excellent drive-by visibility for businesses within the corridor, as well as good vehicular access. Public transportation (Kit. sap Transit) also serves the corridor. Will help implement the goals and policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan: The goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan that will be most directly affected by this amendment are those related to promoting economic development, clustering intense development, encouraging pedestrian movement, using public transit, encouraging urban infill, and getting the most efficient use of our public streets and other infrastructure. Impacts beyond the City Limits: The Wheaton Way (Highway 303) Corridor leads directly into unincorporated areas of Kitsap County. Considerable new growth and development has occurred beyond the City limits, including Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart, Safeway and numerous other developments. Impacts resulting from the future development and use of the two small lots that are the subject of this amendment will be minimal and not likely to have any measurable impacts beyond the City limits. Recommendations: The Planning Commission has conducted public heari,ngs on both the requested Plan Amendment and the related Rezone. The Commission found the requests to meet the City's approval criteria and recommends: (1) Approval of the Plan Amendment from "S (School)'' to "C-G" (Commercial), and (2) Approval of the related Rezone from "PS (Parks & Schools)" to "GB" (Gen. Business). 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 14 LETTERS RECEIVED: Bremerton School District Plan Amendment: [These letters were,originally handwritten. They were typed for ease of reading and reproduction.] Letter #1: dated June 2, 1997 City Council. In regards to the plan to change the zone from S to C-G on Wheaton Way (View Ridge), I would like to go on record as being against it. It would be rezoned as commercial later on. The Top Notch Burger place has sat empty for over a year and the ability to drive in and out on that highway is almost impossible. To get to the middle school the children can't cross at Dibb Street and people who do take their lifes in their hands. There use to be a cross walk and a blinking overhead light, and that even failed to hold the traffic and stop the accidents. To add more businesses to the short span with no in and out is not a good move. Yours sincerely, Bettie Schwendemann (owner of house at 1115 Dibb St.) Letter #2: not dated Re: Rezone to Commercial from School --- Bremerton Planning Commission Dear Sir: I couldn't write any soon as your envelop to me lacked postage, it is enclosed. I object to this rezone. We still need open space around schools. We need the trees. When you, again, need this property, we the people will pay double, double, double for it. If Ron Ross is involved in this, he will take out most of the trees and we'll have more of these gaudy, gaudy buildings like that hamburger stand. That thing has sat empty, with high weeds, more than a year, which devalues our neighborhood. It is a disgrace --- why add more of the same! The school should hold on to the property for future use. Remember that middle school over there, used to be East High. Now, the East High kids have to be bused across town to go to school. The City and school district should definitely hang onto this property. It is a fine investment for future school development. Sincerely, C.W, Wareham 1111 Dibb Street C. AUTO CENTER AREA ][NDUSTPdAL File: PLN 7-8:CPA97-0002 Applicant: Don Sandefur 2603 Sherman Avenue Port Orchard WA 98366 Contact: Alan G. Todd · MAP, Ltd. Phone: 360-692-5525 Location: Hillside properties .along the west side of the Auto Center business district in West Bremerton. Four adjacent lots totaling about 22 acres are being considered for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Location Map: 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 15 The properties are further described as follows: I MAP ] Assessor's I.D. I Acreaj[e I Land Use [ Owner of Record I A 212401-2-145 8.36 acres undeveloped HMI. Inc. B 212401-2-146 7.95 acres undeveloped HMI. Inc. C 212401-1-082 5.1 acres one residence Raymond Mears D 212401-1-074 0.90 acres undeveloped Peninsula Truck Lines TotalAcres: 22.31 acres - - - [ '~ .......... I,l ~ , e:.;'),-.;l~.els:l'-Z.,.. ,i..- r-"i .... ........ ' .... ,~-~.,-.~,,.-,:.-, . .. Request: The applicant represents Lots A and B, the largest two of the four lots being considered for this Plan Amendment. The lots are currently designated "C-P" (General & Professional Offices) and zoned for professional office development. The applicant feels there is no demand fbr more office development at this time, nor in this location. He cites as advantages, the property's close proximity to the freeway (SR-3), the adjoining Auto Center (commercial/industrial) district, available City utilities and services, the need for economic development, and the current pressures for new industrial sites. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 16 Based on his knowledge of current market conditions, the applicant feels that the highest and best use of this particular site is for a mix of light industrial and office uses within the guidelines of the "Industrial Park" designation. The present "Professional Office" zoning is too restrictive and doesn't allow most light industrial uses. The applicant has requested an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan from "C-P" (General & Professional Offices) to "IP" (Industrial Park). In addition to lots A and B, the applicant has proposed to also include lot C which has similar characteristics and developmbnt potential2 In preparing the staff report, it was discovered that Peninsula Trucking Company's Lot D was also in the professional office designation, although it was adjacent to their trucking operation and used for truck parking. If the other Plan amendments were approved, Lot D would remain in a "spot zone" situation, surrounded by industrially-designated lands. To avoid that, staff made a determination that offices is not the best use of this site either and has included Lot D in the request for a change to industrial. Proposal: The adjusted proposal is to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan for the four subject lots from the present "C-P" (General & Professional Offices) to "IP" (Industrial Park). The related Rezone from "PO (Professional Office)" to "IP (Industrial Park)" should also be considered to maintain consistency with the Plan designation. Proposed Map Amendment: HI Park Comprehensive Plan: Change from "C-P (General & Professional Offices) to "IP (Industrial park)" Related Rezone: Change from "PO (Professional Office)" to "IP (Industrial Park)" HI IP, ,r Rd. P C-G ! I 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 17 Background: Approval of this amendment will change the City's original "vision" and development intent for this area --- as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. The hillside was recognized as an attractive backdrop for the Auto Center district. It's very visible from the freeway and surrounding areas. The visual and aesthetic importance of the hillside wasn't fully understood until part of it was logged several years ago, leaving a large open scar until brush and trees began to fill in. Portions of the subject area have been proposed (in concept) for a variety of different land uses over the years, from commercial and heavy industrial to high density residential. Without a plan or consensus as to the highest and best use, the City's 1995 Comprehensive Plan designated the area for office development. Office buildings can be multi-story and vertical in design, have a smaller footprint than sprawling industrial operations, and might be more adaptable to the terrain. Office developments tend to thrive on easily accessible locations and are adaptable to an environment of hilly terrain, trees and landscaping. The applicant feels that light industrial uses, mixed with offices, can also be designed and developed in a "park-like" setting with trees and landscaping, and in a hillside location. The "Industrial Park" Plan and Zoning designations encourage attractive campus-like developments of mostly indoor businesses and offices, surrounded by landscaped grounds, screened storage areas, and quality structures. A high-quality well-designed industrial park will be an asset to the Auto Center district and to the entire community. Because of its visibility, future development on this hillside will have a much greater visual/aesthetic impact on the area than will similar developments in less obvious locations. Goals & Policies: This Plan Amendment will change the development potential of four lots and more than 22 acres in the Auto Center area from primarily office development to light industrial, or "industrial park". The "IP" designation allows a greater variety of land uses and businesses, including offices. Thus, the affected property owners will gain additional development opportunities through this change. 1. Urban Growth: The area is in an ideal location for urban growth within the City limits and UGA. The site is easily accessible and can be served with all needed utilities and services. This is not a proposed addition to the City's commercial/industrial lands inventory, but an adjustment to a slightly higher intensity of allowed use. ' 2. Reduce Sprawl: The site is an extension of the Auto Center business district which is already well established. This change will increase the potential intensity of future land uses on a site that is well-suited for urban growth. In turn, this change will decrease the demands for new industrial sites in rural al'cas. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 18 3. Transportation: Excellent direct access to the freeway (SR-3). Main access into the site itself will be from Kean Street with the possibility of improving the Blumer Street connection to Werner Road as needed to accommodate future development. 4. Economic Development: This change is directly consistent with City and County policies related to economic growth and diversification. Currently, the number of available and improved (access, utilities and services) industrial sites is limited, both in Bremerton and throughout Kitsap County. 5. Citizen Participation/Coordination: This proposed change was subject to public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has met with some surrounding property owners, residents and businesses, and the Planning Commission received testimony. No specific opposition to this change was voiced, but questions and concerns were raised. 6. Public Facilities and Services: The City has indicated to the applicant that adequate essential public facilities can be provided to this site at adequate levels for industrial park development, with the understanding that the unique needs of each future development will be considered when those needs are known. Approval Criteria: Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must meet all approval criteria. This proposal meets those criteria as follows: Consistent with GMA and regulations: This proposal has been weighed against the state planning goals, local goals and policies, and planning requirements, and was found to have no apparent conflicts. The IP designation for the four subject properties is a reasonable land use designation, considering the present land uses in the area, the present deficiency of improved light industrial sites in urban areas, access, and other relevant factors. e No significant adverse effects: This change from "General & Professional Offices" to "Industrial Park" will increase development opportunities while ensuring that development on the sensitive hillside areas will be attractive and in a landscaped park-like setting. The possible impact of greatest concern is the potential visual impact of future industrial development, as viewed from the surrounding areas and from the freeway. Quality design that includes attractive buildings and signing, quality landscaping and trees, and limited outdoor storage that is screened from view, will mitigate these concerns and result in a positive addition to thc Auto Center district. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 19 Public Services and Facilities: The subject area is inside the City limits of Bremerton and all urban level services and facilities are already nearby or can be provided. e Will help implement the goals and policies of the Comp. Plan: This proposal will expand the possibilities for new business, particularly light industrial businesses within the City of Bremerton and is consistent with all land use and economic development policies. Impacts Beyond the City Limits: This amendment is a .relatively mi~or Plan adjustment that may result in a different mix of land uses within an area that is already planned and zoned for business uses.. No significant impacts or conflicts are .expected beyond the City limits as a result of this change. Recommendations: The Planning Commission has conducted public hearings on both the requested Plan Amendment and the related Rezone. The Commission found the requests to meet the City's approval criteria and recommends as follows: O) (2) Approval of the Plan Amendment from "C-P (General & Professional Offices)" to "IP (Industrial Park)" on the four identified lots; and Approval of the related Rezone from "PO (Professional Office)" to "IP (Industrial Park)" on the four lots; and (3) The following Rezone conditions shall be applied to Lots A, B, and C: ao New development shall be designed to encourage a campus-like arrangement of buildings, parking, pedestrian walkways and open space. All areas not paved or built upon shall be landscaped or left in natural vegetation to minimize dust, mud and erosion. Development projects shall be designed to include a minimum of 15 percent open space, exclusive of required setbacks. When such open space is used primarily for hillside stabilization, visual enhancement, or sensitive area protection, the City shall consider waiving or reducing the requirement that 60% or more of the open space be used for active recreation. do Outdoor storage of equipment, materials, products, etc. shall be placed toward the uphill side of buildings (not the view side) whenever feasible and/or effectively screened from view with landscaping or a combination of fences and landscaping. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 20 77' MERIT COMPANY File: PLN 7-8:CPA97-0003 Applicant: Merit Company 3020 South 96th Street Tacoma WA 98409 Contact: Carl Zarelli Phone: 206-588-9100 Location: Approximately ten undeveloped acres at the southwest comer of the intersection of Riddell Road and Almira Drive in East Bremerton. The property lies directly behind an existing shopping center. Location Map: [ ~{~{.{"lst. I NE Rlddell Rd. 1997 Plan Amendments--- Page 21 Background: A shopping center was developed at the southeast quadrant of the Riddell Road/Wheaton Way intersection years ago. A 20-acre portion of the property that now lies behind Eagle Hardware was not needed for commercial development at the time and has remain undeveloped. That property is currently designated "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) and zoned for multi-unit residential use. Although plans have been prepared for the residential development of all or portions of this property, development has not taken place and the property remains vacant and wooded. The Highway 303 Corridor (including Wheaton Way) is continuing to develop as an important commercial corridor. Large scale new developments, anchored by Fred Meyer, Safeway, Wal-Mart and others have located along this corridor but outside the City limits. The .unincorporated areas offer the advantages of larger undeveloped parcels that are fully served with utilities and other urban services. Bremerton would like to provide opportunities for commercial expansion of existing buinsess within the City limits so that they don't have to move into the unincorporated areas of the County. The impacts of local expansion are significant in terms of cost, service to increasing urban densities, reducing sprawl, public transportation, reducing traffic congestion, and making the most efficient use of our existing infrastructure. The subject property has been planned for medium density residential development for years. There may be a better option that allows residential development to occur in a manner that can be integrated with needed commercial expansion. Bremerton offers mixed use development opportunities through its Planned Unit Development process and encourages innovative mixed use design. Request: The applicant has asked for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan from the present "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) to "MU" (Mixed Use/PUD) on approximately ten acres of the twentY acre parcel. __lJ i.,-.-., LDR Hlmi lllH 1 C.Gl LDR j 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 22 Goals & Policies: The proposed amendments are intended to help implement the Plan and ensure consistency with state and local goals and policies. No adverse effects are anticipated. This amendment is expected to have particularly positive effects in the following areas: 1. Urban Growth: This site has been proposed for urban development for years, but as a location for medium density (8-18 Du./Acre) residential. The proposal envisions a solution that would allow the new housing while also providing for the needed expansion of the adjacent shopping center, possibly through a mixed use planned unit development. This would better accommodate both residential and commercial growth in a most suitable urban location. 2. Reduce Sprawl: The site is inside the City of Bremerton and along a commercial corridor that has seen a number of businesses move from Bremerton into unincorporated areas to meet their growth needs. Providing expansion opportunities for this existing shopping center will reduce the need to relocate. 3. Transportation: Wheaton Way is a major transportation corridor and several bus route serve this area. The shopping center has extensive off-street parking and the design and interaction of buildings and businesses can be improved to encourage pedestrian and transit use. The center is also within walking distance of the Almira Drive neighborhood to the east and pedestrian access could be greatly improved through this amendment and the Planned Unit Development process. 4. Economic Developmen}: Economic development is an important ingredient in the City's 20-year Comprehensive Plan, particularly in the provision of new commercial sites. The City's goals acknowledge the importance of small businesses, tourism, health services, education, and social and cultural activities in diversifying Bremerton's economy. In this particular situation, the City has an opportunity to expand the depth of an older shopping center so that it can modernize and better compete with competition from "big box" retailers that are locating on large sites in unincorporated areas beyond the City limits. 5. Permits: The requested Plan Amendment, if approved, will designate the site "MU". The related Rezone would then apply the Mixed Use (MX) zone. Development can then occur under the provisions of that zone, or the owner may design a more creative mixed use development, which can combine other zones for approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. 6. Citizen Participation & Coordination: Early and continuous citizen participation is encouraged for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezones, and tlu'ough thc processing of Planned Unit Developments (PUD). In addition to the 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 23 Planning Commission's public hearing, a neighborhood meeting was held at Sheridan Center on June 24, 1997 as which City staff and the applicant discussed the proposed amendment with citizens. 7. Public Facilities and Services: The urban utilities and services that will be most important to the expansion of the shopping center and to a new residential development are already available at the site or can be extended a short distance. The Site Plan Review process will ensure that the extension of sewer and water lines, street improvements, stormdrain facilities, and similar improvements will be properly provided to City standards. Approval Criteria: Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must meet the City's criteria. This proposal meets those criteria as follows: 1. Consistent with GMA and regulations: This proposal has been weighed against the state planning goals, local goals and policies, and planning requirements, and was found to have no apparent conflicts. 2. No significant adverse effects: The proposal will allow a combination of residential and commercial uses in a master planned configuration, designed to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The PUD process will allow public review and comment and will help to minimize any adverse effects of future development. 3. Public Services and Facilities: All needed public services and facilities types of development allowed under the change is not a significant change in the are available at levels needed to serve the "MU" Plan designation. The proposed levels of development intensity. 4. Will help implement the goals and policies of the Comp. Plan: Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan encourages new commercial and economic development as well as expansion of existing businesses. The City's Plan must provide new sites for residential and' commercial development to. help accommodate regional growth. The subject site is adjacent to shopping, jobs, services, and transit, and is a good site for medium density residential development. The proposed change will expand the range of development opportunities on the subject site, including opportunities for mixed use. 5. Impacts beyond the City Limits: The subject site is located at the City limits (Riddell Road). The adjacent shopping center is the last such center before leaving the City. The primary intent of this amendment is to allow shopping center expansion which may remove the 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 24 need for another major store to leave Bremerton for a larger building site in an unincorporated area. The impact, although minimal beyond the City limits, will have some impact on reducing sprawl and improving the economy of Bremerton. Conclusions: If this amendment is approved, structures and uses within the shopping center would be allowed to expand eastward toward Almira Drive. The wooded 20-acre Parcel behind the center has been serving as an effective buffer between the commercial activities and the neighborhood of single-family homes along Almira Drive. Although the undeveloped land is not a park or an official greenbelt, its loss should not result in adverse impacts on the peace and stability of the neighborhood. When the 20-acre site was rezoned to "MF" (Multi-family Residential) several years ago, the City Council imposed a condition that any future site plan would come through the Council for public review and approval. That condition assured the neighbors that they would have a chance to comment. The potential impact of a shopping center backing closer to the neighborhood deserves the same level of review. Recommendations: The Planning Commission has conducted public hearings on the Plan Amendment and the Rezone, finds that they meet the approval criteria, and recommends the following: (1) Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the northernmost ten acres of the twenty-acre Merit Company property from "MDR (Medium Density Residential)" to "MU (Mixed Use/PUD)"; and (2) Approval of a Rezone of the same area from "MF (Residential, Medium-density)" to "MX (Mixed Use), subject to the following conditions: ao If a true residential/commercial mixed use development is proposed for the subject site, it shall be designed so that only residential uses front on Almira Drive and non-residential uses are oriented toward the Wheaton Way corridor. bo Site design shall not allow commercial traffic access from Almira Drive but shall encourage pedestrian and bicycle access from surrounding neighborhoods. Co If a commercial expansion is designed for the subject site without residential along Almira Drive, it shall be separated from Almira Drive by a buffer of landscaping and trees to a depth of no less than one hundred (100) feet. [This provision can satisfy most of the site's 15% requirement for active and passive open space and may include a meandering pedestrian/bicycle pathway or other amenities, as well as pedestrian access to the shopping center.] 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 25 E. BROAD STREET RESIDENTIAL File: PLN-7-8:CPA97-0004 Applicant: FPH Construction, Inc. 3331 Kitsap Way Bremerton WA 98312 Contact: Michael Brown Phone: 360-479-4137 Location: The westernmost two lots on the south side of East Broad Street before entering the Broadmore Village development. Both lots are 0.16 acres in size and vacant. Assessor's Account Numbers: 4574-000-010-0204 and 4574-000-011-0104 Location Map: 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 26 Request: To change the City's Comprehensive Plan designation for the two subject lots from "C-G (General & Highway Commercial) to "MDR (medium Density Residential), and following with a related Rezone from commercial to residential. The owner feels the size and location of these lots is not conducive to commercial development but would provide a good location for residential development. Comprehensive Plan: Change from "C-G (Gen. & Highway Comc' 1.)" to "MDR (Medium Density Residential)". Related Rezone: Change from "GB (General Business)" to "MF (Residential, Medium-density)". Goals & Policies: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone a couple years ago changed the site of the Broadmore Village development from business to medium density residential. Since Broadmore Village is located at the west end of Broad Street, these changes and the subsequent Broadmore development had major impacts on other properties along Broad Street. The street now serves as the entrance to a new residential development as well as access to remaining businesses. The proposed change is consistent with other recent Plan Amendments and Rezones and with the general direction or changing "vision" for Broad Street. The change is not expected to have any adverse impacts but would have the following effects on these planning goals. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 27 1. Urban Growth: Bremerton expects to accommodate approximately 20,000 new residents over the next twenty years and will rely largely on redevelopment and residential "infill" to do that. These two lots will provide new infill opportunities in a location that has been zoned for business for years but is now considered better suited for residential. 2. Reduce Sprawl: The location of these two lots is within the City limits. The lots are small (0.16 acre~) and will provide new housing opportunities where all needed facilities and services are available and within walking distance of shopping, employment, mass transit and other features. 3. Transportation: The site is a short block from Wheaton Way, one of Bremerton's major arterials and an important bus route. The change from commercial to residential may also reduce the numbers of trips into and from Broad Street. Left tums from Broad Street onto Wheaton Way are nearly impossible at times, making Broad Street properties somewhat less desirable as locations for retail or other businesses that need easy access. 4. Housing: The impact of this change is not great in relation to Bremerton's total housing market. However, it will provide new opportunities for infill housing in a convenient location where City services are already available. Approval Criteria: All proposed amendments to'the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map must tneet the criteria listed on Page 4. This proposal meets the Plan criteria as follows: 1. Consistent with GMA and regulations: This proposal has been weighed against the state planning goals, local goals and policies, and planning requirements, and was found to have no apparent conflicts. It's a relatively minor change and in the best interests of the immediate neighborhood and the community of Bremerton. 2. No significant adverse effects: The development and general land use impacts under the present "General Business" zoning are potentially much greater than they would be under the requested residential Plan designation and zoning. No significant adverse effects are expected as a result of this change. 3. Public services & facilities: The subject area is inside the City limits of Bremerton and all urban level services and facilities are available for the type of development anticipated. Thc 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 28 development of these two small lots is not expected to have significant impacts on the City's availability or levels of service. 4. Will help implement the goals and policies of the Comp. Plan: This change will convert two commercially-designated properties that are not ideally located for commercial use to a residential designation. The change will help implement the City's housing goals and provide infill sites to help the City accommodate its 20-year allocation of regional population growth. This change will result in no apparent conflicts with Plan goals and policies. 5. Impacts beyond the City limits: This amendment is on the interior of Bremerton and not near City limits. Any impacts beyond the City limits will be negligible. Recommendation: The Bremerton Planning Commission has conducted public hearings on both the requested Plan Amendment and the related Rezone, has found the requests to meet the City's approval criteria, and recommends: (1) Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the subject two lots from "C-G (General & Highway Commercial) to "MDR (medium Density Residential); and (2) Approval of a Rezone from "GB (General Business)" to "MF (Residential, Medium- density)". 1997 Plan Amendments ~- Page 29 LETTER RECEIVED: Broad Street Residential --- Plan Amendment/Rezone: [This letter was originally handwritten. It has been typed for ease of reading and reproduction.] July 14, 1997 Bremerton Planning Dept. cio Ron Hough I currently own a 70 by 70 foot lot zoned BG adjacent to the east of two lots under consideration for zoning map amendments. This lot is now suitable only for a small business, but it the zoning change is approved, the change in setbacks required on my lot would render this lot almost useless. It would also cause me undue financial hardship. The plot of Broadmore was required to provide adequate screening to adjacent commercial properties and I feel it should be the responsibility for the owners of these two lots to provide the setbacks and screening to my lot to compensate for the change in zoning. Sincerely, Paul Schmidt P.O. Box 2298 Bremerton 98310 Staff Comment: The zoning code requires that a 10 ft. building setback be provided in the "GB" zone when adjacent to any residential zone. Mr. Schmidt currently has no side yard setback requirement because his neighbor is also in the "GB" zone. If this Rezone is approved, a building setback will be required. Staff has discussed options with Mr. Schmidt to deal with his concern. F. WATERFRONT ACCESS PLAN AMENDMENT File: PLN 7-8:CPA97-0005 Applicant: City of Bremerton --- Dept. of Community Development 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337 Contact: Donald L. Pratt, Director of Community Development Phone: 360-478-5275 Location: East end of Eleventh Street Place, which is located approximately one block north of the west end of theManette Bridge. Location Map: 1997 Plan ~mendments --2' Page 30 Background: The administration has held discussions with a property owner from the Eleventh Street Place neighborhood regarding Whether or not the development of the existing Eleventh Street Place waterfront road end is best undertaken by the City as a "low-key viewpoint" or by an adjacent property owner as part ora private residential property. The subject right-of-way is 30 ft. wide by approximately 130 ft. deep. It is undeveloped but currently occupied by a garage which was built without the City's permission years ago by a neighbor. The right-of-way has been landscaped and maintained as part of the yard of the parcel adjoining the site to the south. All other surrounding properties are developed for residential use. The development of small waterfront access/viewpoints in residential neighborhoods has been a controversial issue. It is the administration's belief that the introduction of a publicly developed access/viewpoint, available to the general public, creates a perceived threat to the security of the neighborhood and thus may not be appropriate. In neighborhoods where other public waterfront access/viewpoints are in near. proximity, additional small public access/viewpoints within the residential area are unnecessary. This neighborhood is well served by the public waterfront accesses at the Bremerton boardwalk and Evergreen Park, which are both in near proximity to the Eleventh Street Place road end. By State law and City policy, proceeds from the sale of waterfront right-of-way must be used to develop public access sites in the vicinity of the vacated ROW. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can be made only once per year. This proposed Amendment was heard by the Planning Commission in December 1996, with the understanding that the proposal would be included in the package of 1997 Plan Amendments. The proposal was updated to include a more specific list of needed changes and was included with the other Plan Amendment proposals that were considered by the Planning Commission in June. Proposal: To Amend the text and maps. of the City's "Waterfront Access Plan" to remove references to a public access viewpoint at the Eleventh Street Place location: A. Page 27 --- Fig. 8. Link One Plan: Remove the "minor viewpoint" symbol from the east end of the Eleventh Street Place street end. Bo Page 48 --- Eleventh Street Place Access: Remove the text of this entire section, including the recommendations. 1997 Plan Amendments m Page 31 Goals & Policies: Co Page 49: Fig. 14. Link I-B: Remove the "minor viewpoint" symbol from the east end of the Eleventh Street Place street end on this map. D. Page 52: Link 1-C Pathway System Recommendations: Eo Amend the first recommendation to delete "... connecting the Eleventh Place Viewpoint with Evergreen Park, ..." Amend the second recommendation to read: "Develop a bicycle route connecting tl;e Eleventh Place Iqc;¢~oi;;t with Evergreen Park, following existing sidewalks..." Page 56: Fig. 15. Link I-C: Amend the map to remove the minor viewpoint symbol and "Eleventh Place Access" notation. F. Page 72: Phase Three: 10-30 Years: Remove the sixth item (Eleventh Place Viewpoint) from this list of projects. G. Page 73: Table 2. Water Access Facilities: Remove the ninth line of this table (Eleventh Place Access). 1. Proper_ty Rights: A proposal contained in the City's Waterfront Access Plan, for the creation of a public "minor viewpoint" at this waterfront street end creates a perceived threat to the security of this neighborhood. The City administration feels that more adequate and accessible public access, both physical and visual, exists to the south and north of this location. This change recognizes that the owners and residents of this neighborhood have a basic right to peace and security. 2. Citizen Participation and Coordination: The Waterfront,4ccess Plan was adopted in 1990 as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is a policy document that identifies shoreline public access opportunities and an action plan for developing a public access system. The WAP is amended in the same manner as the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed amendments are given proper notice and are considered in public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Open Space and Recreation: This amendment will have l'ittle effect on the overall "system" of walkways and access-related facilities proposed in the Waterfront Access Platt. Public sidewalks will continue to be part of the system and views of the Port Washington Narrows are available at the Manette Bridge to the south and Smith Cove and Evergreen Park to the north. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 32 Approval Criteria: All proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must meet all five criteria listed on page 4. This proposal meets the criteria as follows: Consistent with GMA and regulations: This minor viewpoint was proposed in the Waterfront Access Plan. It was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan but was not a specific requirement of GMA. A minor amendment to that Plan through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process complies with GMA. No significant adverse effects: This amendment will remove a perceived threat to the security of the people who live and own property in the vicinity of this proposed viewpoint. There will be no significant adverse effects from this change. o Public Services and Facilities: This change may allow the expansion of an abutting residence or an accessory structure, but will not allow significant development that could threaten the provision of needed services and facilities within the area. Will help implement the goals and policies of the Comp. Plan: Among the most important goals of the Comprehensive Plan are those that would protect and strengthen neighborhoods. This change is in the best interests of the owners and residents of this particular neighborhood without sacrificing the larger community-wide needs for parks and recreation facilities. o Impacts beyond the City limits: This proposal affects'a very Small' site in the heart of Bremerton and will have virtually no impacts beyond the City limits. Recommendation: The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this Plan Amendment proposal, has found the request to meet the City's Plan Amendment criteria, m~d recommends that the City Council revise the Waterfront Access Plan to remove all text and map references to the development of a "viewpoint" at the Eleventh Street Place street end, as specified in the section "Proposal" above. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 33 June 24,1997 Brad Rucker 911 Highland Avenue Bremerton, Washington 98337 (360) 792-3371 L ,'TTER RECEIVED Waterfront Access Plan Amendmer "RECEIVED CIIY COUNCIL OFFICE" DATE ~ Bremerton City Council City Hall 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, Washington 98337 RE: 11th Street Place Overlook Dear Council Members, This letter concerns the Council's upcoming decision regarding the final disposition of a piece of property located at the East end of ]1th Street Place. As a homeowner/resident of this neighborhood, I believe this property would be best used as a small park and overlook. A little grass and a couple of benches is all that is required. This would be a convenient location to stop for a rest when walking between Downtown or Manette and Evergreen Park. There is no other such place. I understand the concerns of those who live next to this site, but I believe this park would primarily be used during the daytime by neighbors. It is not a likely location for late night carousing, if that is the main concern. In fact, this site Should be strictly for pedestrian traffic; parking places are not necessary. Small neighborhood parks are one of the keys to making the city a desirable place to live. There are too few parks of this type in Bremerton, and this one, with it's unique view of Port Washington Narrows, would be a real asset to the City. Please take this opportunity to convert what is now an abandoned space into something the we can all enjoy and appreciate. Sincerely, Brad Rucker LETI'ER RECEIVED: Waterfront Access Plan Amendment: August 13, 1997' "RECEIVED DATE __ ~ To: Bremerton City Council From: Raymond Gentz 1102 Highland Ave. Bremerton, WA 98337 Subject: The proposed amendment to Waterfront Access Plan 'Jo remove v~:wpo~iat rel~:rence ti'om 1'1 ~cx6'ireet ~hce. CITY COUNCIL OFFICE" I have been living at 1102 Highland in Bremerton for about 3 years and have always been interested in improving our neighborhood. To me in my personal opinion the proposed viewpoint at the (public owned) east end of Eleventh Street Place is a chance for our neighborhood to improve itself. The old collapsing, unsafe garage that is cur- rently on our "public land" should be removed and a new well kept view point put in its place. The thought that the neighborhoods under any type of security threat, because of a beautiful view point, in my opinion is a good excuse for someone to privatly aquire our public view point. Anyway, if the land does go up for public sale does everybody get a chance to purchase this land or has the city already decided who they intend to sell our public land to? Sincerely Yours G. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT UPDATE File: PLN-7-8:CPA97-0006 Applicant: Contact: Location: Background: Request: City of Bremerton Dept. of Community Development 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337 Kay Wilson, Senior Planner Phone: 360-478-5275 Citywide The Bremerton Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital Facilities Element. That element consists of two parts: (1) the Capital Facilities Plan (policy plan) and (2) the Capital Facilities Program (CFP). To comply with the Growth Management Act, all capital expenses must be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the City's budget must be consistent with the CFP. The CFP includes six-year finance plans for Fire, Police, Water, Sewer, Stormwater, etc. Since Bremerton prepares an annual budget, the CFP must be updated each year. The CFP established a timeline for annual review that begins in january and culminates in the adoption of the annual budget at the end of each year. If this process triggers the need for any other amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, they too must be processed in accordance with the Plan Amendment schedule which calls for City Council consideration in July of each year. Initial development of the six-year finance plans was done through a coordinated effort involving each affected City department. This annual review and update is being done, along with other amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, by the Dept. of Community Development. The April 1 deadline for amendment proposals provides ample time to amend the Capital Facilities Element and update the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) before the City budget is finalized. The CFP amendments are subject to public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Annual amendments to the CFP rely to some extent on other Comprehensive Plan amendments that may trigger changes in the City's finance plans and annual budget. Therefore, CFP Amendments are usually submitted separately and lag behind the other amendments by a couple weeks to a month. This will not result in project/budget coordination problems. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 34 Goals & Policies: Proposed amendments to the CFP are intended to implement the Plan and ensure consistency with state and local goals and policies. No adverse effects are anticipated. These amendments are expected to have particularly positive effects in the following areas: 1. Economic Development: Economic development is an important ingredient in the City's 20-year Comprehensive Plan, particularly in the provision of needed utilities to new commercial and industrial sites. This is ensured through annual adjustments to the CFP. The City's goals also acknowledge the importance of small business.es, tourism, health services, education, and social and cultural activities in diversifying Bremerton's economy. 2. Public Facilities and Services: Many of the most important capital expenditures go toward new and extended urban services, facilities and utilities. The extension of sewer and water lines, street improvements, stormdrain facilities, and similar projects will ensure the adequate provision of the utilities and services that will be needed to accommodate the City's growth projections. 3. Other Goals and Policies: It's important to note that an important function of the Capital Facilities Element is to tie together the specific needs, plans and proposals of the other Plan elements in a fiscally sound and efficient manner. In accomplishing that task, the spin-off effects will allow Bremerton to better accommodate new growth and change which, in turn, will ease the pressures for continued sprawl in rural areas. Implementing transportation goals and policies is expensive and must rely on the CFP. Having our capital facilities and utilities in place or committed gives the City an advantage in being able to approve permits for new development more quickly and with greater assurance and predictability. The advantages of having attractive parks and recreational facilities, efficient well-equipped police and fire department~, and adequate infrastructure will help the City move along toward implementation of its Comprehensive Plan. Approval Criteria: Annual amendments to the Capital Facilities Program are intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan and its goals, policies and proposals. During the CFP update process, the proposed amendments are checked to ensure that they meet all of the approval criteria, as follow: The CFP proposed amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act and will not result in Plan or regulation conflicts; and The CFP proposals may allow desirable changes to occur on a particular site or in a general area, but without creating significant adverse impacts 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 35 o on existing sensitive land uses, businesses, or residents; and The proposals will maintain a balance and not result in additional burdens on another public facility or service. The proposals result from specific needs identified by the departments that are most responsible for the implementation of their portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Most of the CFP proposals fall into the area of"fine-tuning" and are not major modifications of a scale that might have substantive impacts beyond the City limits. Even so, all City CFP data is being provided to Kitsap County and available to others. Recommendation: Amendments to the Capital Facilities Program are the responsibility of a number of affected City departments. Their work depends, in part, on the nature of other Plan amendments that are being processed concurrently. The final proposals were delivered to the Planning Commission in August and the Cbmmission's public hearing was conducted on August 19. The CFP amendments are necessary for Plan implementation and for the City's annual budget process. They are being submitted to the City Council separately, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. It is recommended that they be approved when ready. See: G. CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program (Under separate cover.) 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 36 Bremerton Planning Commission Recommendation BREMERTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT For August 27, 1997 Bremerton City Council Public Hearing Planning Commission Recommendation The Bremerton Planning Commission, at its August 19, 1997 public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Capital Facilities Element, passed the following motion: That the Bremerton Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed revisions to the Capital Facilities Element, with the following change: I. Municipal (pg. MU-4): Add discussion regarding the expense of operating and maintaining the current obsolete facilities. Communications, production, comfort, etc., are significantly more expensive in the existing facilities. New construction and design techniques will decrease operations and maintenance costs and improve maintenance. Proposed Wording: Consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation, the planning staffproposes the following revision (shown in shaded text): Municipal Proposed Municipal Facilities a. Municipal Buildincjs (2) Proposed Facilities Pg. MU-4, Paragraph 3: Although the City does not expect to need additional capacity by 2001, the City recognizes that it needs to continue facilities planning to further consolidate activities and replace aging structures. There is cgnsiderable exPesse !n operating and maiptaising the current obsolete facilities. C9~'m~nications, efficiency, a~d c0ordination are:sig~i~antlYmore te¢liniqu'es WOUld decrease ;opei~atib~s and maintenance COSTS and i~p[Ov~ the efficient p[~vi~io~ ~'~!ty~ices. Therefore, the City proposes to continue its on-going facilities study to focus on consolidation of City administrative functions, with the possible inclusion of courts and law enforcement functions, at one centralized site. If this can be done, the City expects that the effective level of service can be increased within the proposed LOS. Toward this end, the City is programming funds for replacement of City Hall, the Permit Center, and some or all of the facilities used by the Police Department (see Law Enforcement section) with once consolidated facility in 2002. RECOMNtEN.CFP (8/20/97) Exhil, it G Capi~l Facilities Element lJpdate CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRA~ {CFP) Six-Year Finance Program Background The following CIP summary sheets were not available in time to be included in the draft CFP: Pg. 24-A INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY --- Water Utility --- Wastewater Utility Pg. 24-B INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY --- Stormwater Utility --- Transportation --- Other Funds Recommendation Insert pages 24-A and 24-B in the J. Six-Year Finance Program section of the CFP. INSERT-J.CFP (8/20/97) CI--' OF BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY CIP ID # DESCRIPTION General Governmental Granl= - CDBG Granl- - EDA Wastewater Stormwater G.O. Bonds - Voted G. O. Bonds - Non-Voted Revenue Arterial Stree{ 101 Real Estate Excise Tax 109 Parka Capilal Facility 112 Pendergast Park 308 Gold Mtn Golf Course 407 Equip. Rental Reserve 510 Roosevelt Capital Asse[ 622 TIB(UATA) FAUS WSDOT ISTEA CountTIState/Fed NaW Street Vacation Other TOTAL SOURCES WATER UTILITY UTILWA87 IN98WA01 UTILWA18 UTILWA27 UTILWA23 UTILWA83 IN97WA01 UTILWA51 UTILWA47 UTILWA48 UTILWA84 UTILWA89 UTILWA2 UTILWA64 UTILWA45 UTILWA72 UTILWA21 12' DISTRIBUTION WATER MAIN WATER SYSTEM FLUORIDATION SR #3 TRANSMISSION MAIN SYSTEM IMPROVEME PUMP STA #14 REPLACEMENT & 12' TRANS. MAIN E396 ZONE TRANSMISSION MAIN & STORAGE WARREN AVENUE BRIDGE MAIN 12' DIST. WATER MAIN - SHOREWOOD DR TO RES WEST 540 ZONE DEVELOPMENT WEST 650 ZONE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR SEISMIC IMPROVEMENTS WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM CORROSION CONTROL TREATMENT FACILITY SILVERDALE MOBILE ESTATES WELL 18' SHERMAN HEIGHTS TRANSMISSION MAIN DOMSEA WELL DEVELOPMENT PINE RD. MCWILLIAMS TO WELL 21 36' MAIN EXTENSION SUB-TOTAL WASTEWATER UTILITY I IN97WW01 ~ANDERSON COVE BASIN CSO SEPARATION PROJ IN98WW02 lCSO DETENTION STRUCTURES UTILWW9 ICALLOW AVENUE DRAINAGE BASIN CSO PROJ IN97WW02 IWERNER ROAD SEWER EXTENSION ' UTILWW20 ISEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM IN98WW03 IINVERTED SIPHON ISOLATION VALVES UTILWW17 IOYSTER BAY BASIN iNTERCEPTOR IN98WW01 IPORT WASHINGTON NARROWS INVERTED SIPHON SUB-TOTALI I 30,0I 35.0[ 115.0[ 755.0[ 764.0[ I I 25°'°1 2s°'°l 25°'°1 3,522.°1 4,°35'°12,°~9'°1 I I · 104.0I 3,675.0 I 4,290.0 I 2,763.0 I 4,325.01 1,234.01 5o.01 5o3.0 CITY OF BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY CIP ID # IDESCRIPTION I .RIOR I 1997l 1999 STORMWATER UTILITY STORM01 KEAN STREE~rlROGERS STREET STORM DRAINAGE 68.0 430.0 STORM03 STORM DRAINAGE MAiN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 STORM02 EAGLE AVENUE STORM DRAINAGE 10.0 90.0 SUa-TOTAL 0.0 128.0 500.0 150.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 TRANSPORTATION TRANS1 MISCELLANEOUS 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 TRANS4 SYLVAN WAY OVERLAY - OLYMPUS TO WHEATON 20.0 203.0 TRANS6 KITSAP WAY RECONSTRUCT - WESLON TO AUTO 55.0 890.0 20.0 TRANS7 SR3/SR304 BREMERTON FERRY TERMINAL TO GO 2,200.0 5,579.7 6,243.0 4,704.5 1,600.0 786.0 TRANS3 WERNER ROAD/LOXIE EAGANS BLVD. IMPROVEM 8.5 40.0 35.0 TRANS5 WARREN AVENUE SOUTHBOUND OFFRAMP TO ~ALLAHAN 64.0 176.0 IN97AS01 iKEAN & UNION IMPROVEMENTS 120.0 33.0 TRANS8 SR303 CORRIDOR - MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY' 150.0 300.0 . 150.0 IN97AS02 RODGERS STREET CONSTRUCTION 345.0 80.0 IN98AS01 AUTO CENTER WY, BRUEN AVE TO SR3 S8 ON RAMP 30.0 250.0 SUB-TOTAL J 2,283.5 6,822.7 7,132.0 5,478.5 1,930.0 1,186.0 150.0 OTHER FUNDS IN97OF01 CONTINGENCY FOR UNID. INFRASTRUCT. PROJECTS 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 IN97OF02 TRAFFIC CALMING & SAFETY DEVICES 56.3 IN98GF01 ADA CURB CUT PROGRAM 12.0 IN98PKI3'2 ILLAHEE TRUST LANDS - PURCHASE 10,000.0 SUB-TOTAL 0.0 118.3 50.0 10,050.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 IGRANDTOTAL j 5,9~3.5 1 12,958.5 J~5,575.5 121,s~.5 1 s,939.0 J 4,954.0 1 6,363.0 I H. SOUTH S/VHTH COVE File: PLN-7-8:CPA97-0007 Applicant: Contact: City of Bremerton Dept. of Comrnunity Development 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337 Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager Phone: 360-478-5275 Location: North side of Sheldon Boulevard and south of Smith Cove. Location Map: 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 37 Background: In December 1992, Bremerton adopted the Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan, which included the Smith Cove area. The Plan recommended expansion of Evergreen Park, realignment of 14th Street, mixed use development along Sheldon Boulevard, and the eventual removal of the blighting influences around Smith Cove. Bremerton adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in February 1996. It incorporated the recommendations of the neighborhood plan. Included on the 1996 docket of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was an adjustment to expand Evergreen Park around the south side of Smith Cove and along Sheldon Boulevard. Non- park areas along Sheldon Boulevard were designated "MU (Mixed Use)", as shown on the following map.. The areas into which the park would expand were being studied for soil contamination and future development potential and, therefore, were not rezoned immediately. They continue to retain their "BP (Business Park)" zoning. P Park MU Mixed Use NC Neighborhood Convenience LDR Low Density Residential MI)R Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential MDR MU HDR~ 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 38 As the Campus/Evergreen Plan continued to be implemented during 1996 and 1997, heavy industries in the South Smith Cove area were moving to more desirable locations and the sc;il contamination and remediation cost studies were continuing. The City's consultant eventually recommended that the "Mixed Use" areas along the north side of Sheldon Boulevard be eliminated. The Evergreen Park master plan was then amended to show all lands north of Sheldon as future park and recreation and accessory parking, as shown below. ! 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 39 In November, 1996, an ordinance was passed by the City Council authorizing the acquisition of properties needed for the planned expansion of Evergreen Park in accordance with the master plan. The acquisition costs would be paid from the Roosevelt Field Replacement Fund 622. Proposal: Goals & Policies: Amend the Central Bremerton Land Use Plan map of the Comprehensive Plan as follows and as shown in the map below: Show all areas north of Sheldon Boulevard/Thirteenth Street and west of Highland, with the exception of the union building at the corner of Highland, as "P (Park)" and remove the "MU (Mixed Use)" designation from those areas. This is the 'area of the Evergreen Park Master Plan. Remove the "MU (Mixed Use)" designation from properties east of Highland Avenue and replace with the designation "HDR (High Density Residential). Two properties would be affected by this change. An existing office building would continue to be a conforming use in either of the City's high density zones. The owners of the larger property have no interest in a mixed use or business type development. They feel the site is best suited for a high-density residential development that would take advantage of the views, parks and recreation, and other locational features. This Plan Amendment will change the development potential of a small area from business use to parks & recreation. The change will help protect contaminated ground from further disturbance resulting from physical develoment and intense commercial or industrial use. The change will allow the expansion of Evergreen Park for recreational and related parking uses that are least likely to result in disturbance of the soils in thc area. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 40 1. Urban Growth: The change will allow the needed expansion of Evergreen Park, which is the primary city-center park. This facility will provide for the park and recreational needs of new infill development in and around the downtown Bremerton areas and will help replace the. recreational fields that were lost a few years ago to the Olympic College parking lot. The addition of a new high density residential site will allow more people to live within easy walking distance of these park facilities and provided for needed residential infill development. 2. Economic Development: This change will result in the removal of some lands from the City's inventory of commercial/industrial lands. However, the loss is small and has already been replaced by more suitable lands in other areas, such as the recently approved Pope Resources Industrial Park in West Bremerton. The economic impact of this change is expected to be negligible due to the poor suitability of the location for business uses and the probable costs of soil remediation to make such development possible. 3. Open Space & Recreation: This change will allow the expansion of Evergreen Park around Smith Cove and to include all areas between the Smith Cove shoreline and Sheldon Boulevard/Thirteenth Street. The area being changed that lies directly northwest of the Thirteenth/Pacific intersection is proposed for parking on the Evergreen Park Master Plan, while the area west of Highland Avenue would be developed as a "Multi-Purpose Open Space Play Field". 4. Environment: The primary purpose of this change is to Protect the Smith Cove natural environment from industrial soil contal~ination that has occurred over many years. The change will allow relatively light uses with minimal disturbance of the site for such improvements as foundations, footings, pipelines, etc. that might accompany business-related development. Approval Criteria: Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map must meet all City criteria listed on page 4. This proposal meets the Plan criteria as follows: Consistent with GMA and regulations: This proposal was weighed against the State planning goals, local goals and policies, and other planning requirements~-afid was found to have no apparent conflicts. The proposal would found to be the best solution to a difficult situation and was designed, in part, to meet the approval of the Department of Ecology. The expansion of the HDR designation is consistent with the City's infill and urban concentration policies, particularly in the downtown area. There are no conflicts with existing regulations. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 41 e 0 No sisnificant adverse effects: The expansion of Evergreen Park is intended, in part, to overcome decades of industrial neglect that resulted in the contamination of local soils from fuels handling and storage, landfills, and other activities. This Plan Amendment will allow the acquisition and sensitive development of these properties for parks and recreational uses and will prevent further disturbance that might occur as a result of new business development. The HDR residential expansion east of Highland is also expected to have less potential for adverse impacts than would more intense industrial or business development in this sensitive shoreline environment. Public Services and Facilities: All services and facilities needed for park/recreation and residential development of the subject properties are available or can be reasonably provided. The park itself is a major public facility that will better serve the community when fully exPanded and developed. Will help implement the goals and policies of the Comp. Plan: The proposal will help meet the City's growing needs for parks and urban recreation --- and in the downtown area which is planned for new residential growth, particularly near the downtown waterfront. Expanded parks and recreational facilities are needed to keep pace with growth and to maintain the City's adopted levels of service (LOS) for such facilities. Expanded opportunities for compact and affordable high density residential development are also important in m~d around the City's CBD. Impacts beyond the City Limits: Evergreen Park is in the heart of Bremerton and not near any unincorporated areas. Improvements to this park are expected to benefit Bremerton residents, for the most part, and will have little if any impact beyond the City limits. The provision of high density housing opportunities within the City will .help relieve pressures for new residential development in unincorporated areas. Recommendation: The Bremerton Planning Commission has conducted public hearings on both thc requested Plan Amendments and the related Rezones. It found these requests to meet the City's approval criteria (as listed on page 4), and recommends: (1) Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the designation "P (Parks)" to all lands north of Sheldon Boulevard/Thirteenth Street and wcst 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 42 (2) Highland, with the exception of the union property at the northwest corner of Highland and 13th Street and to change the zoning of all Evergreen Park planned expansion areas from "BP (Business Park)" to "PS (Parks & Schools)"; and Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to expand the "HDR (High Density Residential) designation to include two additional properties along the east side of Highland Avenue, and to change the'zoning of those properties from "BP (Business Park)" to "MR (Residential, High-density)". Areas proposed for rezones: ,R PS These areas are proposed to be Rezoned from "BP (Business Park)" to "PS (Parks & Schools). This area is proposed to be Rezoned from 'BP (Business Park) to 'MR (Mixed Residential). Zoning Map after approval of these changes. MR 1997 Plan Amendments-- Page 43/~)/~ PAUL $. MILNE~ P.O. BOX ~ EDMONO$~ WA. ~eO2G-0G~ MILNES DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. Fax (~)5~m. ee~s 20AUG97 Bremerton City Council 239 4th St. Bremerton, WA, 98337 RE: South Smith Cove Proposed Amendments Dear Council Members: This letter is to inform the Council Members of my support on the matter of rezoning the existing vacant lot located on the e~tem side of Highland ,avenue. This former site of the Chevron Bulk Terminal, because of its location near the existing Evergreen Park, downtown Bremerton, the ferry terminal and its waterfront location, would best be utilized were it to be rezoned to allow for High Density, Multi-Family uses. I am currently negotiating with Chevron for the acquisition of the property with the hopes of erecting a 62 unit apartment building on site. Now, as the Council Members are well aware, waterfront housing tends to be expensive such that the average working family generally finds it cost-prohibitive, By rezoning the existing property to accommodate such construction, the Council would allow for the maximum number of families to enjoy such a living environment, plus this would be a natural addition given the City's own plans for park expansion. Also, because of the existin8 residential nature of the neighborhood, a multi-family unit located at this site would be appropriate. And finally, the construction of such an apartment building can only lend to improving the look of Bremerton's waterfront. Any other use of this property would not enhance the look at all, in fact it would detract from it If the Council Members have any questions regarding this matter, then please feel free to cc~tact me at the above listed numbers or on my mobile phone at (206)550-9268 REMOVAL OF "CEMETERY" DESIGNATION File: PLN-7-8:CPA97-0008 Applicant: City of Bremerton Dept. of Community Development 286 Fourth Street, Bremertofi WA 98337 Contact: Proposal & Location: Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager Phone: 360-478-7275 To remove the designation "C (Cemetery)" from all Land Use Plan maps in the Comprehensive Plan document. Only the West Bremerton and Central Bremerton Land Use Plan maps are directly affected. The "C (Cemetery) designation was placed on the Plan maps to indicate the locations of existing cemeteries. It was not intended to guide the development of new or expanded facilities. Cemeteries are permitted (by Special Use Permit) in the SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3 Iow density residential zones. The "C" designation on the Plan maps causes confusion and may require a Plan Amendment whenever an existing cemetery expands within an SF zone. Removing this designations from maps and map legends will avoid confusion and unnecessary Plan Amendments. Recommendation: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider this proposal in June, 1997. It found no conflicts with criteria, rules or policies, and recommends City Council approval. Location Maps: A: West Bremerton Land Use Plan HDR Oyster Bay ~OR-~'~l~ B: Central Bremerton Land Use Plan 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 44 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS File: PLN-7-8:CPA97-0009 Applicant: Contact: Proposal: City of Bremerton Dept. of C6mmunity Development 286 Fourth Street, Bremerton WA 98337 Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager Phone: 360-478-7275 To add a new section to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to describe the land use categories that are used on the Plan maps. The accompanying table should be added at page 77 of the Land Use Element: Recommendation: The Bremerton Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider this proposal. It found no conflicts with criteria, rules or policies, and there was no public testimony at the hearing. The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of this Plan Amendment to add the "Land Use Designations" table to the Plan text. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 45 //,4 Land Use Designations Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION LDR Low Density Residential: This designation includes existing and proposed residential neighborhoods at densities of 8 dwellings per acre or less. It is applied to areas that don't have the levels of urban services needed for higher density development, or that have terrain, sensitive areas (wetlands, creeks or shorelines), poor access, or special amenities (views) that are best protected through low density development. Large lots are allowed in LDR zones, especially in areas without sewer service. Developers are encouraged to cluster development on smaller lots in exchange for open space through the PUD process to make the best possible use of the site. Four Primary Residential Zones are directly consistent with this Plan designation (SF-1, SF-2, SF-3, and DR). The Limited Parking Overlay (LPO) and Parks & Schools (PS) zones are also consistent with all residential Plan designations. Small "secondary zones" may be approved within larger residential developments to serve local needs for convenience shopping, employment, education or recreation. MDR Medium Density Residential: This designation is applied to the older higher- density residential neighborhoods of Central Bremerton where lots are small and mixed development is common or desirable. Other areas may be designated MDR when found to be suitable for the 8-18 units per acre density level. Such areas are generally near transportation corridors and shopping/employment concentrations, and have adequate availability of urban services and facilities. MF and CBR are the primary zones in this designation. They allow virtually all types of residential development, including single-unit homes and duplexes on small lots, multi-unit developments, townhouses, and boarding houses. Limited mixed uses are permitted in these zones to provide convenient services to neighborhoods without causing land use conflicts. HDR High Density Residential: This designation allows the City's highest densities (more than 18 units per acre) and is directly consistent with the "MR" zone which allows up to 44 units per acre. HDR areas are intended primarily for locations along major transportation corridors, within and around the Central Business District and smaller business districts, and where such development can take advantage of unique views or such amenities as shorelines, recreational facilities, or access to ferries or buses. Utilities, services and transportation must be adequate to serve HDR development. C-G General & Highway Commercial: This is the City's most intense commercial designation. It provides for the "GB (General Business)" and "SC (Shopping Center)" zones, both of which are automobile oriented and designed for application along highways and major arterial streets having high traffic volumes, direct auto access, and maximum drive-by visibility. These locations are suitable for such "heavy commercial" uses as shopping centers, major grocery stores, auto services, auto repairs, motels, taverns, restaurants, adult entertainment, fast food, and large scale retailers that require very large structures and expansive parking. Most types of businesses are permitted in these areas, along with office uses. Residential is permitted as a secondary use. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 46 Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION C-P General & Professional Offices: This designation supports the "PO (Professional Office)" zone. It's applied in locations that are uniquely suitable for office development, areas that have physical or locational features that might be less suitable for higher intensity uses, or areas in which office development might provide a buffer or transition between two zones that might otherwise conflict. Office districts may consist of a mixture of offices and support services such as copy and computer services, office machine repairs, or mail services. Light retail, such as a restaurant, book or stationery store, art supplies store, delicatessen, or newspaper/magazine shop are usually compatible with this district. CBD Central Business District: This is downtown Bremerton. This desigation supports a number of zones, including BC (Business Core), GB (General Business), PO (Professional Office), and the medium and high density residential zones MF and MR. The URD (Urban Renewal District) is on the CBD waterfront. The CBD is intended to provide a mix of uses that includes retail at the street level of the primary pedestrian streets, with offices, apartments, studio lofts, and other uses on the upper levels. The downtown zones allow the highest residential densities in the City with the fewest development limitations. Residential zones (MF and MR) may be permitted on side streets at densities up to 44 units per acre where it can be demonstrated that pedestrian retail is less important than close proximity of full time downtown residents. CBD development should be designed to encourage walking, shopping, browsing, and the use of public transit, bicycles and the ferry system to reduce the importance of the private automobile in this compact downtown environment. CD Charleston District: This District was adopted as part of the Charleston Community Plan in 1997 to encourage a mix of land uses that is characteristic of historic Charleston and that will help stabilize and strengthen the business district, including its pedestrian core along Callow Avenue. The district encourages development to be concentrated with minimal setbacks from sidewalks. MLxed use and pedestrian activities are encouraged, as is a higher emphasis on the use of transit and other modes of transportation. Light industry, non-retail, and other non-pedestrian oriented businesses should be located outside the pedestrian core. Related primary zones are "CD (Charleston District)", "(IP) Industrial Park", and "(PO) Professional Office". NC Neighborhood Convenience: This designation supports the "NB (Neighborhood Business)" zone and is intended to provide small scale convenience services and retail goods within small neighborhood service areas. This district is often centrally located within neighborhoods and should minimize vehicular traffic and encourage short-distance walking. It should not include businesses with regional markets that bring traffic from other areas. Neighborhood Convenience centers often consist of small "Mom & Pop" markets and may also include such personal services as a barber/beauty salon, day care center, neighborhood or senior center, and other activities that might benefit the surrounding neighborhood. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 47 Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION MU Mixed Use/PUD: This designation is intended for areas that are in transition, usually from residential to commercial or industrial, or that are in a transitional location, such as between a residential neighborhood and a commercial district. The "MX (Mixed Use)" zone is the primary zone and leans toward commercial development with residential allowed as a secondary use. In cases where the MX zone doesn't provide the needed flexibility, the MU Plan designation promotes mixed use developments through the PUD process. Single purpose developments that don't require a PUD and can't be built within the parameters of the MX zone should not be designated MU. HI Heavy Industrial: This designation is applied to the City's least sensitive areas and areas most suitable for large-scale industrial uses. It supports the "IG (Industrial General)" and "MX (Mixed Use with industrial emphasis)" zones. Such uses include manufacturing, warehousing, trucking operations, motor vehicle sales and service, large open display lots, and are often accompanied by extensive outdoor storage of supplies, vehicles, heavy equipment, products, or other materials. Businesses that typically generate noise, dust, odors, operate at late or odd hours, or that otherwise might not be pleasant neighbors could expect to find a home in the HI district. This district is placed as close as possible to major highways, freeways, airports and rail lines, and as far as possible from residential neighborhoods and other sensitive land uses. IP Industrial Park: This designation supports the "IP (Industrial Park)" and "MX (Mixed Use with light industrial emphasis)" zones. It is intended to provide areas for a mix of office, wholesale, trade and distribution, bulk retailing, and light manufacturing in a low-density, campus-like environment. The district should be designed to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent areas and to present an attractive well-landscaped appearance. Businesses located within an Industrial Park should be contained within buildings and have very little, if any, outdoor storage other than business-related vehicle parking. All areas of the Industrial Park should be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees, etc., and all roads, driveways and parking areas should be paved. Preserved open space areas might include such employee amenities as walkin?]ogging paths or bike paths to encourage exercise or alternative commuting. BP Business Park: This designation was designed for very unique situations. It allows small and very unobtrusive businesses to locate within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The primary zones are "BP (Business Park)", "PO (Professional Office)", and "MX (Mixed Use with business emphasis)". These zones allow a limited variety of low-intensity commercial, office and manufacturing businesses that are most compatible with residential neighbors. Care should be taken to ensure that development within the BP district is attractive, well-landscaped and an asset to the neighborhood in which it is located. This designation may also serve as a buffer or transitional district. RE Resource Extraction: This designation is reserved for possible application to areas that may be identified as mineral resource sites of commercial significance that should be protected from other types of development. The City has not used this designation because all known mineral/gravel resource extraction sites within the City are already permitted, are in operation, and are zoned appropriately for industrial use. The RE designation could be applied as the long-range intent on [ands that are in a different short-term use. A phased zoning approach may work well in such a situation. 1997 Plan Amendments --- Page 48 Land Use DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION T Transportation Facilities: This designation has been applied to major transportation facilities of regional significance, such as the ferry terminal and Kitsap Transit's bus maintenance and storage facilities. It mio~ht also be applied to locations found to be uniquely suited for commuter parking lots, heliports, etc. There is no zone that is specifically related to this Plan designation, but all commercial and industrial zones are considered appropriate. P or OS Parks or Open Space: All active public parks and recreation areas and major passive open space areas are designated either "P (Park)" or "OS (Open Space)" on the Comprehensive Plan maps. The primary zone is "PS (Parks & Schools)" S School: All public schools are designated "S" on the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned "PS (Parks & Schools)". Private schools are not so designated but are included within their host zone. H Hospital: Harrison Hospital and the Naval Hospital in Jackson Park are designated "H" on the Plan maps. This designation is intended to show the locations of these facilities and not to determine their physical size. Hospitals are allowed in the "HC (Health Care)", "GB (General Business)" and "BC (Business Core)" zones. PW Public Works: This designation is intended to show the location of the City's major public works facility on Oyster Bay Avenue. It does not determine the physical size of that facility. Public Works facilities are allowed in the "IG (Industrial General)" and "IP (Industrial Park)" zones. U & UL Utilities & Utility Lands: The "U (Utilities)" designation shows the location of the City's main Utilities and Engineering offices on Olyrnpus Drive in East Bremerton. Most utilities and their offices are permitted in other zones and don't require designation on the Plan maps. The designation "UL (Utility Lands)" is applied to major areas that are owned and operated by the City's Utility, primarily in areas west of Gorst. WS Watershed: This designation is applied only to the City's Union River Watershed that surrounds and protects the reservoir behind Casad Dam. The related zone is "WS (Water Supply)" which is a very restrictive zone intended to protect the water resource. Military This is a locational designation intended only to identify.' major military facilities such as Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Jackson Park and the Naval Hospital at Jackson Park. These facilities are also designated according to their primary uses. Only PSNS has a Plan designation but remains unzoned. 1997 Plan Amendments -- Page 49 UNAPPRO VED DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 3, 1997 Note: Taperecorder malfunctioned. No audio tape is available for this meeting. I. Chairman Stone announced and called the meeting to order. II. The Secretary called the roll: Those present were Adams, Din~eld, Robinson, Boyd, Olson, Stone. Absent was: Hancock. III. The agenda was approved as written, except that item X-1 (ROW Vacation) would be taken first. That item was scheduled for the May 20 meeting but wasn't considered due to lackof time. X. New Business: 1. Right-of-way Vacation/Dedication: IV: PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Item XI Right of Way Vacation - Type III Matt Mathes presented the staff report for the Dept. of Community Development. Commissioner Din~eld questioned the zoning (MF) in the neighborhood. Mr. Mathes confirmed that the existing zoning is "MF" on the site adjacent to the proposed right-of-way action. Commissioner Robinson stated the right of way to be vacated has varied ~vidths along the area proposed to be vacated. Mr. Mathes confirmed the right of way widths to be vacated vary (5 ft. wide, 20 fi. wide), so that the right-of-way after vacation will be a uniform width set at 60 ft. wide. Chairman Stone and Commissioner Robinson commented that any erosion control plans would be approved administratively. Commissioner Robinson moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the right-of-way vacation and right-of-way dedication as shown on Exhibits A & B. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion and it passed 5 to 1 (Dingfield). P.C. Minutes: Page 1 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS: --- Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Item A: Harbor Heights Apartments: Chairman Stone asked both the Planning Commission and the audience if there were any questions of appearance of fairness or conflict of interest on behalf of Planning Commission members. None appeared. Ron Hough gave staff report with recommendation for approval. He explained that this proposal was a small part (0.3 acres) of a larger site proposed for an apartment development in the West Hills area. The site is being acquired from the City and is currently designated for usc as a utility (reservoir) site. The proposal calls for a change to "MDR (Medium Density Residential)" and would be followed with "MF" zoning. Commissioner Robinson asked if the rezone was included with the Comp. Plan amendments. Hough stated that no, any necessary rezones will follow approval of these Plan Amendments. Chairman Stone asked for public comments. No comments were made. Commissioner Dingfield moved to approve this Plan Amendment as recommended. Commissioner Robinson seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Item B - Bremerton School District: Chairman Stone asked both the Planning Commission and the audience if there were any questions of appearance of fairness or conflict of interest on behalf of Planning Commission members. Commissioner Dingfield stated that she works for the applicant and she left the room during this item. Ron Hough presented the staff report and recommended approval of a change from "School" to "General and Highway Commercial" on a 1.6 acre site on the east side of Wheaton Way near Dibb Street. The School District didn't need the site for school purposes and intends to sell the property for commercial development. Hough read a letter from Ms. Betty Schwendeman of 1115 Dibb Street. She was opposed to the change for reasons of pedestrian safety and traffic. Hough read a letter from C.W. Wareham (2111 Dibb Street) who opposed the change because schools need open space around them and the district may need the land for future school expansion. Chairman Stone asked for comments from the audience. There were none. The Commission deliberated and Commissioner Boyd stated that she felt the proposed designation will not affect traffic significantly. Commissioner Robinson moved to approve the recommendation. Commissioner Boyd seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Dingfield returned. P.C. Minutes: Page 2 //? Item C - Auto Center Residential: Chairman Stone asked both the Planning Commission and the audience if there were any questions of appearance of fairness or conflict of interest on behalf of Planning Commission members. None appeared. Ron Hough presented the staff report and the request to change a 22 acre area on the west side of the Auto Center District from "General and Professional Offices" to "Industrial Park". He also explained a set of proposed conditions that might be attached to a future rezone, provided this Plan Amendment is approved, Chairman Stone asked for comments/questions from the Commission. Commissioner Robinson, referring to the Urban Growth discussion on page 18 of the staff report, asked why the change wouldn't result in an increase in the commercial/industrial land inventory. Ron Hough responded that this land is currently zoned for office use, which is a commercial category. Thus, the land is already included in the commercial/industrial lands inventory. Chairman Stone asked for public comments. W.L. Heyer from Sunnyhill Road asked about the height of future buildings that would be allowed in the Industrial Park zone and wondered if they would damage his view. Ron Hough informed him that the allowed building height in the Industrial Park zone is 40 feet. He also noted the IP zone buildings setback requirements. Marilyn Moen from Sunnyhill Road asked how much traffic will be put on Surmyhill Road and if there would be a greenbelt. She has been hearing a tot of noise (telephones and conversations) from the Auto Center businesses some distance away. A1 Todd from MAP Ltd stated that no site plans had been developed yet to identify, the buffer areas. He also stated that traffic will be routed to Auto Center and Kean Street. Donald Pratt explained the use of pre-application conferences in the City's planning and zoning process, as well as Site Plan Review. Jerome Mears, 1345 Kitsap Lake Road, stated he was here Mth his father who owns one of the sites (Lot "C") proposed for this change. They assumed this was to be a greenbelt for Auto Center. They had read in the staff report that an access was proposed for Blumer Street and Monroe Street. Mr. Mears asked what this would do to their taxes, will his father be liable for sidewalks, and what will happen to the streams on the property. Dick Blakey, who lives on the comer of Wemer and Blumer, stated that there are storm water issues with washouts along his property and wondered if this will make the road worse. Wemer Road is becoming undercut by stormwater. Jerome Meats asked if there will be an easement to build a road along Blumer Street. Donald Pratt further explained the zoning and building permit process and that the owner of a future develoment may have to acquire the needed right-of-way if Blumer is needed for access.' Commissioner Stone closed the hearing and asked for any comments from the Commissioners. P.C. Minutes: Page3 //? Commissioner Dingfield said she believed the proposed conditions were valuable and warranted and moved to approve the recommendation. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 (Olsen opposed). [A five minute recess was taken.] Item D - Broad Street Residential: Chairman Stone asked both the Planning Commission and the audience if there were any questions of appearance of fairness or conflict of interest on behalf of Planning Commission members. None appeared. Ron Hough gave staff report and recommendation to change the designation of two small lots from commercial to "MDR (Medium Density Residential)". The lots are on the south side of Broad Street and adjacent to the Broadmore Village development. Chairman Stone asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Olsen asked who the owner is. Hough responded that the applicant was Mike Brown of FPH Inc. Mike Brown, FPH Inc., stated the site was bought for commercial development and now feels it is better suited to residential development. The owners intend to build up to four single family dwellings under the requested "NIT" zoning, as in Broadmoor Village. Commissioner Adams asked how much have homes in Broadmoor been selling for. Mr. Brown stated $99,900 to $110,900. Since November they have had 28 sales of 42 available. They have averaged one sale per week. Chairman Stone asked for additional comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Stone asked if there were any staff comments. Hough stated that a rezone would follow. Commissioner Robinson moved to approve per the recommendation. Commissioner Dingfield seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item E - Waterfront Access Plan Amendment: Chairman Stone asked both the Planning Commission and the audience if there were any questions of appearance of fairness or conflict of interest on behalf of Planning Commission members. None appeared. Ron Hough gave a staff report and recommendation to remove all references to the future development of a public viewpoint at the east end of Eleventh Street Place. He pointed out that the Planning Commission held a hearing in December 1996 in which the Commission recommended approval of this issue. It was brought back again to be processed in the package with other Plan Amendments as part of our 1997 docket. Commissioner Boyd asked if it was the commission's policy to save such properties. P.C. Minutes: Page 4 Donald Pratt explained current policy and state law and noted that, if this street end is vacated and sold to adjacent property owners, the monev from that sale would be used to improve other public access locations. Commissioner Olsen moved to approve the recommendation. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 (Boyd opposed). Call to the public: No public was present. Director's Report: Donald Pratt updated the Commission on various matters of interest. Commissioners Boyd and Stone, and Ron Hough shared their experiences from the recent redeveloment conference in Tacoma. Study Session: None scheduled. Adjournment: The next regular meeting will be on June 17, 1997. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Donald Pratt, Secretary APPROVED: Larry. Stone, Chair P.C. Minutes: Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEET~G MINUTES June 17, 1997 Chairman Stone announced and called the meeting to order. The Secretary called the roll: Those present were Robinson, Stone, Hancock, and Dingfield. Absent were: Boyd, Adams and Olson. Donald Pratt stated that Commissioner Boyd had called him and indicated that she would be arriving between 6:30 and 7:00PM. Chairman Stone indicated that Commissioner Olson had called him and that he had a conflict with another meeting, and that Commissioner Adams was working and would not be able to get a boat until about 6:30PM. Chairman Stone called the meeting to order. **AGENDA** Motion by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the Agenda as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Hancock. Question called. Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes. **APPROVAL OF MAY 20, 1997 MINUTES** Motion by Commissioner Dingfield to approve the abbreviated minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Hancock. Question called. Stone, yes;' Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes. Motion passes. **APPROVAL OF JUNE 3, 1997 MINUTES** Chairman Stone indicated that on the bottom of page 1, "Commissioner Gray' should be Commissioner Boyd. Motion by Commissioner Robinson to approve the June 3rd minutes as Seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Question called. Robinson, yes; Hancoc~c,~yes; Dingfield, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes. **PAGE 1'* **CALL TO THE PUBLIC** No response. **DIRECTOR'S REPORT** Donald Pratt discussed the following: In about 4 weeks we will begin the 1998 budget process. Contemplating talking to the City Council about a 2 year budget as opposed to a 1 year. 2. Interest in an Environmental Technician to share with Engineering and Kitsap County. 3. Also, looking into a coordinated filing system for both Building and Zoning. Need to decide what neighborhood to study next year. Discussed a request from the state to keep an inventory of buildable lands. Discussed that the 1998 Community Development Block Grant process is beginning and City Departments are encouraged to apply for the funds for projects that are identified in previous neighborhood plans. Excellent response to the hiring notice to replace Jack Allingham. Eight applications were received, 5 are considered very strong and will be going through the interview process. Commissioner Robinson is part of the hiring process. Chairman Stone indicated that he met with the Mayor yesterday and discussed the Tacoma Conference. Indicated that how the Planning Commission has evolved in the last several months, we are moving more into a proactive role, information gathering, and fact finding. Stated that with that roll we would have a need for staff. The Mayor appeared to be enthusiastic about it. Donald Pratt stated that the City of Bremerton had written 3 letters to Kitsap County regarding the appeal of the Comprehensive Plan. It would appear that our letters were never received by the County. **PUBLIC HEARING//1-MERIT COMPANY** Chairman Stone asked to appearance of fairness questions. No response. Ron Hough presented the staff report. To change the designation of approximately 10 acres southwest of the intersection of Almira Drive and RiddeLl Road from "MDR' (Medium Density **PAGE 2** Residential) to MU-PUD (Mixed Use/PUD) to allow for commercial expansion. The applicant is Merit Company. Maps of the site were presented. Discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the buffers and the zone. Carl Zarelli, Vice President of Merit Company, discussed the history of the property and the difficulty of getting interest in Multi Family designation. Questioned if the 100 foot buffer, the open space requirement, also meet the requirements for landscaping. Ron Hough, stated there was a requirement for 15% open space. The 100 feet buffer would probably meet that requirement. It wouldn't meet the perimeter requirements as well as the internal parking lot requirements. Commissioner Robinson asked if this action required neighborhood notification, as there were no neighbors to speak on this issues. Ron Hough indicated that they had been' notified and that there is a District meeting for the neighbors next week with Councilman McConnell. Commissioner Dingfield discussed that she would like to see a County plan addressing the Wheaton Way corridor traffic situation. Donald Pratt indicated that they are not hopeful of getting anything out of the County and this is one of the reasons the City is looking at the Illahee land. Motion by Commissioner Robinson to approve the requested plan amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to change approximately 10 acres of this property from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use as shown in the accompanying map. Seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Question called. Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes. **PUBLIC HE~NG #2-South Smith Cove** Ron Hough presented staff report. To adjust the Plan designations along Sheldon Boulevard to accommodate Evergreen Park expansion and future private development. Presented maps of the area with requested designations. AppLicant is City of Bremerton. The map needs to show the Union Hall listed as MU. Discussion followed among the Commissioners. Commissioner Dingfield questioned the MU designation as opposed to Neighborhood Convenience. **PAGE 3** Ron Hough responded that a zone the size of the MU area would be too large for Neighborhood Convenience. Typically Neighborhood Convenience. is just two or three lots. The intent was to have a PUD developed in that area. Commissioner Boyd arrived at 6:55PM. Motion by Commissioner Robinson to move approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment residential designation to include properties along the east side of Highland Avenue and retain the smaller central area for mixed use south of Sheldon, excluding the present designation for the existing Union Hall. Seconded by Commissioner Dingfield. Question called. Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Robinson, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes. **PUBLIC HEARING #3-REMOVAL OF "CEMETERY DESIGNATION** Ron Hough presented staff report. To remove the designation 'C(Cemetery)" from all Land Use maps in the Comprehensive Plan document. Only the West Bremerton and Central Bremerton Land Use Plan maps are directly affected. It was put on to show the location of a couple of major cemeteries. It was not intended to guide the development of new or expanded facilities. The Cemetery would be included in the LDR zone. Motion by Commissioner Hancock to remove the designation 'C(Cemetery)" from all land use plan maps and the comprehensive plan document. Seconded by Commissioner Boyd. Question called. Boyd, yes; Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Dingfield, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes. **PUBLIC HEARING #4-LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS** Ron Hough presented the staff report. To add a new section to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to describe the land use categories that are used on the plan maps. The accompanying table should be added at page 77 of the Land Use Element. Discussion followed among the Commissioners regard the NC land use and the need for it. Ron Hough suggested pulling it out next year. Discussion followed regarding the Military designation. It is designated as Heavy Industrial. Donald Pratt stated that with the buildable lands survey; if the shipyard was not included, someone would want to encourage more industrial land. With the shipyard, the City is heavy on industrial land. The Navy wants to show conformance with local plans.. **PAGE 4** Motion by Commissioner Dingfield to amend the plan text to add the land use designation tables. Seconded by Commissioner Boyd. Question called. Robinson, yes; Hancock, yes; Boyd, yes; Stone, yes. Motion passes. **RESOLUTION//97-1'* Ron Hough indicated that the resolution covers all of the amendments heard tonight and at the last meeting, so that they can be sent on to City 'Council for approval. Commissioner Robinson asked if Item J "Capital Facilities' should be excluded? Ron Hough stated that the resolution should be on hold until a later date. Discussion followed regarding the property across the street from Ivy Green Cemetery. Donald Pratt stated that the property is under enforcement. Donald Pratt discussed the issue regarding the City Council and the Pacific Top Soil application. Matt Mathes was called to the Council Committee meeting unexpectedly and perhaps said more than he should of--thus some Council members excused themselves from the hearing. It was an error and we will be more careful in the future. Donald Pratt will be sending a letter to the Council apologizing for the error. Also stated that Matt Mathes did not say anything that was not said in the Planning CoMmission Public Hearing. Discussion followed regarding the Mperception" of fairness regarding hearings. Adjournment at 7:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, Approved: Mar~lyn ~albel ' Larry Sto~, Chairman STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 906 Columbia St. SW · PO Box 48300 · Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 · (360) 753-2200~ August 8, 1997 The Honorable Lynn Horton, Mayor City of Bremerton 239 Fourth Street Bremerton, WA 98310 Dear Mayor Horton: Thank you for sending us the adopted 1996 amendments and draft 1997 amendments to your comprehensive plan for the City of Bremerton. We apologize for failing to comment on the draft 1996 amendments when you sent them to us, but want to take this opportunity to provide comments on your adopted 1996 amendments that we received recently. We recognize the substantial amount of work that both the 1996 adopted amendments and the proposed 1997 amendments represent. We have included comments on both sets of amendments for your consideration. We note that you adopted some plan amendments 'in 1996 that implement and strengthen your plan, which include the following: You adopted a subarea plan for the Harrison District as an element of your comprehensive plan. The Harrison District Plan was developed pursuant to a need expressed in the comprehensive plan for a more specific area plan based on the City's vision fora regional medical complex around Harrison Hospital. The plan includes discussion of the City's Shoreline Master Program, concerns of neighborhood businesses and property owners, and integrated environmental review pursuant to WAC 197-11-235. We commend the City for an outstanding subarea plan that should encourage redevelopment of the area pursuant to the vision of the comprehensive plan while seeking to preserve the shoreline, steep slopes and other natural areas. You have also provided a good example of an integrated document under SEPA and GMA. You adopted other amendments to the plan that remove inappropriate land uses, encourage redevelopment, and promote higher density residential and mixed use development. The Honorable Lynn Horton, Mayor August 8, 1997 Page 2 Your proposed 1 997 amendments mainly' consist of zoning changes to offer better opportunities for development within the City. These changes appear to be consistent with the requirements of tl~e Growth 'Management Act. The Land Use Designations Table is a good addition to the.plan. However, we have one comment for your consideration prior to adoption of these amendments. We note that in the Summary of Plan Amendments on page 2, H. Other Miscellaneous Adjustments includes adoption of a "Concurrency Management Ordinance." Unfortunately, there is no other mention of such an ordinance in the document. In our June 6, 1995 letter, we commended you for including an optional element on "Implementation, Consistency and Concurrency." We continue to encourage you to implement the policies in your comprehensive plan by adopting a concurrency ordinance. Finally, based on our June 6, 1995 letter, we continue to recommend that you make the following revisions to your plan. We understand that the County has allocated 20,000 in projected population growth within the existing city limits by the year 2014, but has not yet made an allocation for the City's unincorporated UGA. We recognize that the City has to work on this issue with the County, which currently has an invalid comprehensive plan. We have been working with the County and cities to amend the countywide planning policies for UGAs and for urban growth agreements between the County and the cities. Upon resolution of the issue of the population allocation for Bremerton's unincorporated UGA, it will be easier to plan for this area. At that time, we would expect the City to conduct another land capacity analysis to show how it will accommodate the additional population allocation from the County within its planned UGA boundaries. The plan provides for no net loss of wetlands and references the Critical Lands Ordinance. There is no indication of the location of critical areas in the plan. At a minimum, overlay maps of critical areas should be provided. Critical areas include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. We understand that the reason the City has not included maps is because the current County GIS maps are somewhat general. Hopefully, the buildable lands project required by SSB 6094 will provide additional, information on critical areas that will allow the City to adopt overlay maps for those areas. The Honorable Lynn Horton, Mayor August 8, 1997 Page 3 We encourage you to continue your good growth management work and look forward to seeing your adopted 1997 plan amendments. Sincerely, Heather Ballash Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services HB:se cc' Don Pratt, Director, City of Bremerton Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Olympic Region Headquarters 5720 Capitol Boulevard. Tumwater P.O. Box 47440 Olympia, WA 98504-7440 (360) 357-2600 Fax (360) 357-2601 July 1, 1997 Mr. Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager City of Bremerton 239 4th Street Bremerton WA, 98337 Dear Mr. Hough: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Bremerton's 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Washington State Department of Transportation-Olympic Region Planning Office has reviewed this ordinance and has a few comments on the Transportation Sections: Page 2, Bremerton School District. Given your description, we support your suggestion to route school traffic onto other streets rather than use Wheaton Way. The City of Bremerton may want to consider taking advantage of the state's access management law and prohibit left turn lanes at this location. WSDOT recognizes Auto Center Way on its Signal Priority (improvement) List. However, current budget allocations prevent WSDOT from funding signal improvements at this time. WSDOT would like to reiterate the need to incorporate consideration to TDM strategies, as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Given that the proposed amendments encourage increased land use density, it is imperative for the City to incorporate safe connections for non-motorized' users and take measures to include facilities such as bicycle racks, sidewalks, and transit facilities. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Ashley Probart at (360) 357-2727. Sincerely, CASS BROTHERTON, P.E. Regional Development Engineer Draft Revisions August 12, 1997 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program Prepared by: BREMERTON PLANNING Adopted: April 5, 1995 Revised: October 23, 1996 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan ELEMENT H CAPITAL FACILITIES Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION A. AUTHORITY ............................................ CFP- 1 B. OVERVIEW ............................................. CFP - 1 C. DESCRIPTION .......................................... CFP - 2 D. BACKGROUND .......................................... CFP-3 E. SCOPE ................................................ CFP -3 F. PURPOSE AND INTENT ................................... CFP - 5 G. DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENT PROCESS ................ CFP - 6 2. CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (CFP) OVERVIEW ................................................ CFP - 9 A. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ................... FE - 1 B. LAW ENFORCEMENT ...................................... LE - 1 C. PARKS & RECREATION .................................... PR - 1 D. SANITARY SEWER ........................................ SS - 1 E. SCHOOLS ............................................... SC- 1 F. STORMWATER ........................................... SW- 1 G. TRANSPORTATION ....................................... TR- 1 H. WATER ................................................. WA- 1 I. MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS .................................... MU- 1 J. SlX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN .................................. SY - 1 LIST OF FIGURES Fi,qure CF-1 CF-2 CF-3 CF-4 CF-5 CF-6 CF-7 CF-8 CF-9 Page Capital Facilities Element Timeline ................................. CFP - 8 Population Forecast: 1990-2012 .................................. CFP- 10 Location of Fire Protection & EMS Facilities ........................... FE - 8 Location of Police and Fire Facilities ................................ LE - 7 Bremerton Park Facilities ......................................... PR - 10 Bremerton Wastewater System Service Area ......................... SS - 8 Bremerton School District ........................................ SC - 8 Bremerton Stormwater Drainage Basins ............................. SW- 5 Bremerton Arterial System ........................................ TR - 8 CF-10 Water Plan Service Area ......................................... WA - 10 CF-11 Location of Municipal Buildings and Parking Structures .................. MU - 8 Bremerton Comprehensive P/an ELEMENT H CAPITAL FACILITIES Part 2 of 2 -- Capital Facilities Program (CFP) 1. Introduction This Capital Facilities Program (CFP) document is the second part of the two-part document that makes up the Capital Fac/Titles Element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. A. Authority. The State of Washington Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) requires that the City of Bremerton develop a comprehensive plan which contains several elements, including a "capital facilities plan element". The long-range Capital Facilities Plan and the short- range Capital Facih'ties Program make up the capital facilities element required by the GMA. This Capital Facilities Element was developed under the direction of the City's Planning Commission and adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The element was developed pursuant to the authority conferred by the Washington State Constitution; the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 36.70A; and Chapter 2.12 of the City's Municipal Code. B. Overview The Capital Facilities Element is organized into two documents, which contain the following sections: PART I - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INTRODUCTION --Includes authority, overview, description, background, GMA requirements, scope, purpose and intent, and development and amendment process. PLANNING FRAMEWORK -- Lists applicable GMA goals and regional policies with which the Capital Facilities Element must be consistent. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN -- A long-range policy plan containing guidelines for capital improvements, Draft Capital Facilities Program CFP-1 /-~-~ _ 8/11/97 Introduction PART II - CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (CFP) INTRODUCTION --Includes authority, overview, description, background, GMA requirements, scope, purpose and intent, and development and amendment process. o CAPITAL FACILITIES Program (CFP) -- Includes an inventory of capital facilities, a forecast of future capital facility needs, and a six-year finance program for capital facilities. C. Description The Capital Facilities Element will guide public decisions on the use of capital funds. It will also indirectly guide private development decisions by providing a strategy of planned public capital expenditures. The element consists of two parts: a long-range Capital Facilities Plan and a short-range Capital Facilities Program (CFP). Part 1: The Capital Facilities Plan is a long-range policy plan containing the City's main guidelines for capital improvements. It contains policies and strategies for adequate public facilities and services, funding, programming, maintenance, economic development and neighborhood revitalization, location and design, and the urban growth area. The plan provides the long-range policy guidance to develop and provide direction for the Capital Facilities Program (CFP). Part 2: The Capital Facilities Program (CFP) contains an inventory of existing and proposed capital facilities, forecasts future needs for facilities, and identifies deficiencies in capital facilities and the actions necessary to meet such deficiencies. The program also provides the GMA-required six-year finance plan. The finance plan contains funding and scheduling of individual projects for all capital facilities including transportation and utility facilities. Detailed financial plans of outside agencies and special districts are included by reference. The CFP is under separate cover to facilitate an annual update of the six-year finance plan. The Capital Facilities Element is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as required by the GMA. Part 1 of the element -- the Capital Facilities Plan -- contains goals, objectives, and policies which are consistent and compatible with statewide planning requirements, goals and policies, with the regional goals and policies adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council under Vision 2020, and with the Kitsap Countywide Planning Policy. Part 2 -- the CFP -- contains a six-year work program to implement the Land Use, Housing, and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Introduction D. Background The Capital Facilities Plan and Program (CFP) differ from the City's previous Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Previously, the scheduling of physical improvements was based on anticipated available financial resources and on a priority listing of capital improvement needs for a five year period. While some projects in the CIP were incorporated into the Annual Budget, the CIP acted merely as a "wish list" of projects, often with no identified funding sources. In contrast, this Capital Facilities Plan sets policy direction for determining capital improvement needs, evaluating proposed capital improvement projects, establishing funding priorities, and guiding funding alternatives. The Capital Facilities Program (CFP) contained in Part 2 of the element establishes level of service standards for facilities and a financing plan for facility improvements covering the entire six-year period. Along with the Capital Facilities Element, the City's capital facilities planning effort also involves preparation of a Capital Improvement Program and an Annual Budget. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - The City's Capital Improvement Program is a six-year plan for spending public funds on capital facilities and amenities needed to address, support and implement the City's Comprehensive P/an and other adopted City plans and programs. The CIP only covers City of Bremerton programs. Annual Budget - The City's annual budget authorizes expenditures for all city expenses, including the acquisition or development of capital facilities. The annual capital budget differs from the financing plan contained in the Capita/Facilities Program in that it covers only capital projects receiving City funding. E. Scope The scope of the Capital Facilities Program (CFP) is city-wide and beyond. It includes all areas within the incorporated city limits, as well as areas surrounding the city which have been identified as Bremerton's urban growth area in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Public facilities and utilities include a variety of properties, improvements and services often administered by governmental agencies for the general public. Examples of public facilities include city administration buildings, parks and recreational facilities, libraries and public schools. Utilities include electrical, telecommunication, and refuse collection utilities. Certain facilities and utilities are provided by the City of Bremerton, while others are provided by other agencies, special districts, or companies. The Definitions section of this element defines "capital facilities", "capital improvement project", and related terms. Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Introduction Transportation and circulation-related facilities are addressed in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Public and private utilities within the City are addressed in the Utilities Element. The scope of the Capital Facilities Element extends from the general long-range Capital Facilities Plan to the highly specific short-range Capital Facilities Program (CFP). For the City of Bremerton, the scope of the Capital Facilities Program (CFP) is: fire and police protection; mu.r~!cipal buildings'and parking structures; parks, recreation facilities and open space; streets; schools; stormwater management; and sewer and water distribution systems. An inventory and analysis of certain publicly-owned capital facilities is provided in the CFP. Table CF-1 (page CFP-9) lists types, descriptions and providers of capital facilities specifically addressed by the CFP. For the purposes of this CFP, the City of Bremerton uses the following definition of a capital improvement project: A project to create, expand or modify a capital facility. The project may include design, permitting, environmental analysis, land acquisition, construction, landscaping, site improvements, initial furnishings and equipment. The project cost must exceed $35,000 in 1996 dollars. Capital improvements are major projects or activities requiring the expenditure of public funds over and above annual operating expenses. They have a life expectancy of more than ten years and result in an addition to the City's fixed assets and/or extend the life of the existing capital infrastructure. Capital improvements do not include capital outlay items such as equipment or vehicles. An exception for rolling stock could be a purchase necessary to accommodate increased service capacity due to population growth such as emergency medical service units or fire apparatus. Examples are: · Land or site acquisition; · Building or structure acquisition, construction or major maintenance; · Major repairs or renovations to the City's infrastructure (e.g., buildings, structures, etc.); · Major site improvements; · Utility installations or major replacements, repairs or improvements to utilities; · Street construction and improvements; and · Major design and engineering efforts associated with identified capital projects. The Municipal Utilities and outside agencies (Bremerton School District, Port of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit, etc.) work under their own definitions of capital improvement projects which may or may not include such things as rolling stock. Also, the City of Bremerton uses a somewhat different definition for its Capital Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Introduction Improvement Program (CIP), which includes projects costing $10,000 or more, and does include rolling stock. F. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the short-range Capital Facilities Program (CFP) is to establish the City's work program for capital facilities for the next six years, to carry out the intents and policies of the Capital Facilities Plan, Transportation Element, and Utility Element, and to give further direction to implement the strategies of the plans. The Capital Facilities Plan and CFP make up the plan element that will bring the rest of the Comprehensive Plan to life. It fulfills the GMA requirement to assure that needed capital facilities will be financed. This requirement is the mechanism to ensure that the growth envisioned in the plan can really happen. The available capacity of public facilities will affect the type, amount and rate of growth. Because of the complexity of the relationships between land use and public facilities and services, the Capital Facilities Plan and Program will lay a foundation for the coordination and consistency of infrastructure plans and programs, including those of transportation and utilities. The Capital Facilities Element is a tool for coordination of the City's physical and fiscal planning. It is a mechanism for ongoing communication and cooperation between various City departments, and between the City, the County, and other providers of public services. The Capital Facilities Element promotes efficiency by requiring the City to prioritize capital improvements for a longer period of time than the single budget year. Long range financial planning presents the opportunity to schedule projects so that the various steps in development logically follow one another with regard to relative urgency, economic desirability, and community benefit. In addition, the process of identifying adequate funding sources results in the prioritization of needs, and allows trade-offs between projects to be evaluated frankly. The Six Year Financial Program contained in the Element will guide decisionmaking to achieve the community goals as articulated in the Vision for Bremerton and Planning Goals Elements. The purpose of the Capital Facilities Element is to: Serve as a guide for making decisions that will improve the quality of facilities and services. Ensure the proper coordination and timing of the provision of adequate facilities and services with land use development. Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Introduction Coordinate and provide consistency among City plans for public facilities, including transportation and utilities, and capital facilities plans of regional, state and federal governments and plans of special districts (e.g. schools, libraries, and port districts). Provide direction to facilities and infrastructure service providers to help them meet the needs of existing and new development. Discuss locations and capacities of existing and proposed facilities. Maintain the quality of life by establishing level of service standards for public facilities. Determine the financial resources available for capital facilities projects and improvements. Document all capital projects and their financing. Provide direction for the provision of services in the City of Bremerton's urban growth area. Ensure the timely provision of adequate facilities as required in the Growth Management Act. G. Development and Amendment Process The Capital Facilities Element was developed by City of Bremerton Department of Community Development staff with the assistance of numerous citizens and city staff. A Parks and Recreation Capital Facilities Plan Subcommittee, consisting of Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission members, along with Parks & Recreation Department staff, helped develop parks-related material in Spring 1993. The Bremerton Planning Commission Citizen Advisory Committee worked on the draft element during 1994. Finally, the Planning Commission and City Council held several study sessions and public hearings before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in April 1995. The Capital Facilities Program will be updated annually in conjunction with the annual update of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and development of the annual budget. The objectives and tasks will be reviewed to determine what has been accomplished, and the strategies and activities of the Capital Facilities Plan and Utility Element will be reviewed to determine what future objectives should be undertaken. Tasks will then be formulated for the chosen objectives. (See Figure CFP-1 Capital Facilities Element Timeline.) Proposed amendments to the program will receive detailed review by the Planning Commission, and public hearing(s) will be held to solicit public comment. The Commission will consider any such comments and make a formal recommendation to the City Council. The Council will further review the Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Introduction proposal, hold a public hearing for public comments, make modifications if necessary, and adopt the proposed amendments as part of the Capital Facilities Program. Revisions to the CFP may occur, at most, once a year and must be considered concurrently with any other amendments proposed to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Introduction Relationship Among Capital Facilities Element's Policy Plan, Capital Facilities Program, and City Budget January Policy Plans through March: April through July: August- · through September: Programs Agencies' Capital ~ ..~ [mprovement w~ . Pro,rams -~.'.: ~ · F~ C~pIL~i FacUlties Program Summary '' City,s Operating Budget Capital Budget · S~u-le~ ..... .,..:-~!~?:?;ti:.ii.:::i':.i::: · M,,lnt~tn~e~ · l~t'oJe~'t '":'7': '.' ..: .'~::',::.F~-~;:~:::~;~::E:F:h2~: .:-. . ....· ??: Rev~u~ k :. :57:'::.:~:: : : ::::: ::::: ::::: :::::: ~:¥~ ~??:.~:~ · ~flon ' ... .... ~-~?:( ..~ . .:::.:: '~:¥:: .~?~'~:~::: ~::~:,i:~::~::~:.~:~?.'~%~:.?.~?~;;:::~:~: ::: .::~'.~::.: ?~;~::?~:;~.~ .: ".'.~.~ '.?.:~::~-. .... :...'....~: '..,.:~.:.:. : .. .~ . ....,..::... :~::-~;':;;./g'~;;~;:~A~.::.-~L..;,,;;~;;.-:-~:~g:?::.':$. ¥ /...;..--' Figure CFP-1 Capital Facilities Element Timeline Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 2. Capital Facilities Program (CFP) Overview An Inventory, Analysis, and Six-Year Financing Plan The Capital Facilities Program (CFP) is a six-year document which provides the main support for all actions that satisfy the policy intent of the long-range Capital Facilities Plan. This Program contains an inventory of existing and proposed capital facilities; forecasts future needs for facilities; and identifies deficiencies in capital facilities and the actions necessary to meet such deficiencies. It also provides the GMA-required six-year finance plan to fund the needed capital facility improvements and projects ~ for the next six years. The inventory presented in the Capital Facilities Program provides background information on those capital facilities for which the City has a responsibility. It also summarizes new capital improvement projects for the existing population, new capital improvement projects necessary for the growth projected through 2000, and major repair, renovation, or replacement of existing facilities. The six-year finance plan contains funding and scheduling of individual projects for all capital facilities including transportation and utility facilities. Detailed financial plans of outside agencies and special districts are included by reference. Types and Providers of Capital Facilities The chart on the following page lists the types and providers of capital facilities addressed by this Program. (Table CFP-1 Sections on each facility type follow in alphabetical order. The analysis of each type of capital facility includes: · Inventory of Existing Facilities · ~r~.S~ Future Needs · Levele of Service Standards · Need for Facility Capital Improvements · Plans of Other Providers ?r:,cr:,t:,c:. fcr Cr~p:,tr~', ',m,,prcvement~ · Planned Capital Improvement Projects Draft Capital Facilities Program CFP- 9 ~,,A ¢.~) 8/11/97 CFP Overview ~ TableCFP,1 Types and Providers of Capital Facilities ~ FaCilitY Type Provider ~ Description Applicable Plan(s) Fire and City of Provides facilities that support the provision of Emergency Bremerton Fire fire and emergency services. Services Dept. Law City of Provides facilities that support the provision of Enforcement Bremerton law enforcement services. Police Dept. Municipal City of Provides municipal: buildings and parking · Draft Bremerton Facilities Bremerton structures: Study, 1985 Parks City of Provides facilities for passive and active · Land Use Element Bremerton recreational activities. · Parks & Recreation Parks & Comprehensive P/an, Recreation 1995 Dept. Streets City of Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic controls, · Transportation Element Bremerton and street lighting. · Six-Year Transportation Dept. of Public Improvement Program Works & (TIP), 1997 Utilities Sanitary Sewer Bremerton Provides facilities used in collection, · Wastewater Municipal transmission, storage, treatment or discharge Comprehensive P/an, Wast·water of waterborne waste within most developed 1996 Utility portions of city and some surrounding unincorporated areas. Schools Bremerton Provides elementary and secondary facilities · Bremerton School District School Distdct for instruction in the several branches of Capita/Facilities P/an:/n learning and study required by the Basic Support of the School Education Code of the State of Washington. Impact Fee Program, July 1992 Storm Water Bremerton Provides facilities that collect and transport · Ord. 4454 Management Municipal stormwater runoff. · Bremerton Stormwater Stormwater Management Plan, 1995 Utility Water Bremerton Provides supply of potable water from system · Water System Municipal of surface water and wells. Service area Comprehensive Plan, Water Utility includes developed portions of city and 1992 surrounding unincorporated areas. Utility also contracts to provide water to additional areas (Tracyton, Rocky Point, PSNS, and Port of Bremerton airport and industrial park. Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 CFP Overview Growth Assumptions The CFP is based on the following population assumptions: Year Population 1996 38,500 2001 41,893 2012 58,142 The 1996 population estimate was prepared by the Bremerton Department of Community Development. Bremerton's population fluctuates regularly with shifts in PSNS staff levels. The State Office of Financial Management (OFM) prepares quarterly updates documenting changes in Navy population counts. This 1996 estimate represents an average of recent OFM quarterly updates. The year 2001 population forecast was prepared by the City. It represents continuation of existing growth trends until at least year 2001. This forecast is based on the assumption that the effects of Growth Management goals to promote infill in urban areas will not be seen in the city until some interval after Kitsap County adopts policies and regulations to limit sprawl in the unincorporated areas. This forecast is illustrated in the chart on the following page. The year 2012 population forecast was approved by the Kitsap Regional Planning Council in 1995 for use by Kitsap County in complying with the Growth Hearings Board order to revise the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. INTRO-97.CFP Draft Capital Facilities Program CFP-9 //---/~/'~ 8111197 [%~'~ %1. '1. LLff ' L 9~ t, %~'~ %Z '~ ~ ELL'~'~ Z;I.O~- I. OOE 1,00~-0661- ~;99'9§ ;/. I. 60Z'~§ ~ 600~ ~8~'~§ ~ gO0~ ggZ'Og ~[ ZO0~ 8Z~'6~ O~ 900~ LOg'Z~ 6 gO0~ ~0~ 6~9'0ff OZ~'8~ 0~9'68 Z~8'68 0a6'9~ 909'68 08~'g8 99L'6~ 066'g~ O~O'Z~ ~8~'8~ L ~Z:' Lff ~' 6661, oz~'o~ ~;661. t~66 I. ~661. ~:66 I. 1.66 I, 066 I, I(~6/o~) (gG/Z) uo!le3Olle I!ounoO §u!uueld leuos§~l des !)l :~1.0;~ 1.3unoC) Du!uueld I~uoIBa~l punocj sa§nd - lseoaJOl .SUeld §uBs!x-d,, :~ O0~:-ODS ~ g~ Off gl, uol§u.qseM 'uopeuJeJG jo ~ L0~:-066 L :1seoaJO-i uo!lelndOd -"' 8 A. Fire and Emergency Medical Services The City of Bremerton Fire Department is responsible for providing emergency and non- emergency fire, rescue and medical services. The capital facilities used by the Fire Department include station buildings, emergency medical services (EMS) vehicles, fire trucks, fire engines and fire boats. (See Figure CF-f) Emergency Medical Services (Ems) a. Inventory of Existing Facilities -- EMS The City has three EMS vehicles. Two units (Medic #2 and Medic #3) each cover half of the city, while one (Medic #2-A) is maintained as a reserve unit to fill in as needed. Under the City's rotation policy, EMS units are replaced every three years. Each time a new unit is added, the reserve unit is replaced by the next oldest unit. (Table EM-f) Medic #2 Callow Avenue to West Bremerton City Limits 1 Medic #3 Callow Avenue to Downtown to East Bremerton City Limits 1 Total Active Units = 2 Medic #2~A City-wide (replacement for #2 & #3) 1 Medic #3-A City-wide 1 Total Reserve Units = 2 Total Units= 4 Source: Bremerton Fire Department b. Forecast of Future Needs -- EMS ('1) Existing Demand Between 75-80% of Kitsap County CenCom (Central Communications) calls are for EMS. Over the last five years there has been a 5.4% per year increase in CenCom calls. The number of EMS calls inside the city has been increasing even though the population has not grown. This is due to a combination of factors, including an aging population, a Draft Capital Facilities Program FE-1 /~7~7 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medi(~'~l Services concentration of convalescent centers and retirement homes near the hospital, and an economy in which people may tend to call for EMS to avoid the expense of a doctor. Some 96% of the calls for service are inside the city limits. The current response time is about 4.6 minutes for all responses. There are deviations in some areas, such as the golf course. These are handled through mutual aid agreements with other fire districts. (2) Level of Service (LO.S) The level of service for EMS facilities is a function of response time and call volumes. These in turn are dependent on the number and location of fire stations, the number of fire apparatus units, and the number of firefighters available. The City is developing a LOS monitoring system that measures EMS response time (time needed to respond to a call) and call volumes (the number of calls received from different areas). In the meantime, the need for EMS facilities can be estimated by monitoring response times. The American Heart Association recommends a 4.0 minute EMS response time for Basic Life Support (BLS) and an 8.0 minute response time for Advanced Life Support (ALS). Past these times, a heart patient's chance of survival goes down significantly. · Current LOS = 4.6 minutes for BLS and ALS (or 3.3 minutes 90% of the time) · Proposed LOS = 5.0 minutes for BLS 8.0 minutes for ALS (3) Future Demand Bremerton's population is expected to grow by 3,410 by year 2000, and by an additional 16,590 by year 2014. CenCom projects a two-fold increase in calls between 1992 and 2005. The City is expected to continue to receive about half of these calls regardless of whether the population increases. (Table EM-2) Draft Capital Facilities Program F E-2 /Z/z/~ 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medical Services : ' Sixteen Year Need: EMS Time Period ~emand {Population) SiX-year Need ~ EMS units required ~ LOS 5.018,0 minute res ponse times 1996 38,500 3 1997-2001 (new) 3,393 0 Total as of 2001 = 41,893 3 2002-2012 (new) 1 Total as of 2012 = 16,249 58,142 19,642 1996-2012 (new) 1 Source: Bremerton Fire Department (4) Need for Capital Facility Improvements The anticipated total need for year 2014 is four EMS units -- three active EMS units and one reserve unit. Mutual aid agreements will satisfy other needs. (5) Plans of Other Providers The September 1994 Kitsap County Draft Capital Facilities Element recommends a five-minute response time (from time of call to first unit on site) in urban areas, and a ten-minute response time in rural areas. To provide this LOS, it recommends that stations be located within a five- mile radius of each other, and that a 24-hour career staffed station be located within 10 miles of all areas. It uses replacement schedules for EMS/Aid units based on a five-year replacement cycle, unless otherwise stated. (6) Proposed Facilities The City will need one additional EMS unit at Station #1 sometime within the next five years. Existing EMS units are scheduled to be replaced every three years. However, the replacement schedule may be moved up to every two years if call volumes continue to increase. Ct Six-Year Financing Plan -- EMS T~i ~i~y~i.~,q~.~'C!',~ g:~!~l~ay..:~o ~e,~e~!~g,~,n cyi ~,.,e.,,d,,!,cal .s e_rv,,!~,e~;f~ ities is.~,inc udedin Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 2. Fire Protection Services a. Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Fire Protection The City has three fire stations, one each located in west, central and east Bremerton. The City also has one drill towedboat house, which is due to be demolished. There are seven fire apparatus and two specialty vehicles. Three of six fire engines are reserve units, on stand-by to replace the three active units. Although there are seven fire apparatus, three engines are not staffed. The ladder truck, fireboat, and rescue crew are staffed by the Engine #1 crew. (Table FP-1) I: AddresS :' i :; :iI unit CaPaCity SiZe(square:feet) Fire Station No. 1 817 Pacific 15,346 Max Meigs Fire Station No. 2 5005 Kitsap Way 9,389 Ted Tiller Fire Station No. 3 3031 Olympus Drive 7,640 ~'=" Tcwcr/gcc. t '~ ..... (to bc ~cmcl:.shod) ..... o ................ ., Total Buildings = 32;375 : ;; ;I S]ervice::Area;;;: . :: : :' :: :: . Fire Trucks Ladder ¢1 I All of City Limits 1 Total Fire Trucks = 1 Fire Engines Engine ¢1 Downtown Bremerton to Callow Avenue 1 Engine ¢1-A (Reserve) Same as Engine ¢1 1 Engine ¢2 Callow Avenue to West Bremerton City 1 Limits Engine ¢2-A (Reserve) Same as Engine #2 1 Engine ¢3 East Bremerton to City Limits 1 Engine #3-A (Reserve Same as Engine ¢3 1 Total Fire Engines = 6 Total Fire Apparatus = 7 Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medical Services - Table FP-1 Inventory of Existing. Facilities - Fire Protection Facility:Name I Address I Unit Capacity Specialty Vehicles Marine-20 Fireboat Sinctair and Dyes Inlets 1 Rescue One City-wide 1 Total = 2 b. Forecast of Future Needs -- Fire Protection (1) Existinq Demand The City has three fire stations and four active fire apparatus serving about 38,500 persons -- approximately one station per 12,833 people, and one fire apparatus unit per 9,625 people. The current response time is about 5.44 minutes for both emergency and non-emergency calls. The City has a Class 3 insurance rating based on manpower, water supply, etc. (2) Level of Service {LOS) The need for fire protection facilities is a function of response time and call volumes. These in turn are dependent on the number and location of fire stations, the number of fire apparatus units, and the number of firefighters available. Until the City's monitoring system can be further quantified, fire facilities needs can be estimated by monitoring response times. · Current LOS = 5.44 minutes response time for both emergency and non-emergency calls. · Proposed LOS = 5.0 minutes response time. (3) Future Demand The projected population growth within the service area is for approximately 3,393 new people by year 2001, and an additional 16,249 new people by 2014. (Table FP-2) Draft Capital Facilities Program FE-5 /~../ 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Table FP-2 .~. Sixteen Year Need: Fire. Protection Apparatus Time Period Demand (Population) Fire Protection Units Required ~ LOS 5.44 minute response time Six-Year Need 1996 38,5O0 3 1997-2001 (new) 3,393 0 Total as of 2001 = 41,893 3 ~i. Twenty~year:NeedI -:: .? . · 2002-2012 (new) 16,249 4 Total as of 2012 = 58,142 7 1996-2012 (new) 19,642 4 Source: Bremerton Fire Department (4) Need for Capital Facility Improvements The anticipated total need for year 2014 is seven fire apparatus. No additional buildings will be needed. (5) Plans of Other Providers The September 1994 Kitsap County Draft Capital Facilities Plan recommends a five-minute response time (from time of call to first unit on site) in urban areas. To achieve this LOS it recommends that stations be located within a five mile radius of each other to provide blanket coverage throughout the county. The element uses replacement schedules for most vehicles based on a 20-year replacement cycle, and for rescue vehicles based on a 10-year cycle, unless otherwise stated. (6) Proposed Facilities (a) Buildinqs The City, in partnership with several Fire Districts, plans to replace the existing drill tower with a more suitable facility. (b) Fire Apparatus Because the City currently has seven apparatus, no additional apparatus will be needed. However, the City will need to replace its existing fire engines toward the end of the 20 year period, and additional crews will be needed to staff all seven apparatus. No change in the existing number of stations will be needed. Draft Capital Facilities Program FE - 6 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Gm Six-Year Financing Plan -- Fire Protection The six-year financing plan for fire protection facilities is located in Section J of this Capital Facilities Program. Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 Fire and Emergency Medic--'al Services - JJ Figure CF-3 Location of Fire Department Facilities Draft Capital Facilities Program FE-8 /,~~ 8/11/97 B. Law Enforcement 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Law Enforcement The capital facilities used by the Police Department are buildings and vehicles for patrol officers, investigations officers and administrative staff. (Since the cost of vehicles is less than the $35,000 capital facilities threshold, these costs are included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Annual Budget, but not in the Capital Facilities Element.) The Police Department is currently spread out over four facilities in four different locations. Administrative functions are concentrated in City Hall, convenient to the Municipal Court. A new Community Resources office is located in a store front setting next door to City Hall. However, the Patrol Division is housed in the West Precinct, along with the Animal Control Division, and the Drug and Gang units are located in the old Capital Hill Fire Station. (See Figure CF-4.2) (The City currently contracts with Kitsap County for jail services.) (Table LE-1) iLocafion :; size(sq?!i : city Hall/Police 239 Fourth Street 7,085 Community Resources 245 Fourth Street 1,400 West Precinct/Patrol Headquarters 4846 Auto Center Way 3,700 West Precinct/Animal Control 4846 Auto Center Way 450 Capital Hills Fire Station/Special Investigative Unit (SIU) 3001 Sixth Street 5,400 Total = 18,035 Sources: "Facilities Management Alternative Plans", Department of Public Works and Utilities, 2/14/94; and Bremerton Police Department. 2. Forecast of Future Needs -- Law Enforcement a. Existing Demand The City has 62 law enforcement officers operating out of approximately 18,000 square feet of buildings -- 290 square feet per officer (including support staff). b. Level of Service (LOS) The need for law enforcement facilities can be estimated by projecting the number of officers that will be needed to serve the forecasted population, and calculating the building space needed per officer. Currently, with 62 officers, Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/12/97 Law Enforcement there is one officer per 615 persons. There is no consensus on staffing levels for local police departments. The ratio of both officers and total police employees to population size is significantly related to crime rates. However, there are many variables that enter into crime rates. Such standards have limited meaning because the actual number required will vary depending on the size of a city, geographic region, and type of city. Even cities of the same population size and type may differ widely in staffing needs because of differences in demographics, socio-economic characteristics, climate or other unique conditions. Washington State cities as a whole have an average of 1.6 officers per 1,000 population. Bremerton's staffing level is the same as the state average. Compared with available staffing levels from several Washington cities, Bremerton's staffing level falls between Yakima, which has a higher population, and Des Moines, which has a lower population.~ City Population Officers/1000 Seattle (1989) 531,400 3.06 Yakima 54,843 1.7 Washington average --- 1.6 Bremerton 38,500 1.6 Des Moines 21,330 1.5 Moses Lake 12,190 1.9 Poulsbo 5,415 2.3 The Police Department feels that its current staffing level is too Iow, given the City's crime rate. The Department recommends that 70 officers could provide a preferred level of service for the existing population. While the City's staffing level is the same as the state average, it may be that escalating crime rates are catching many cities short of staff. Another difficulty in linking staff levels to population in Bremerton is that the City's population fluctuates up and down with Navy population levels. For example, Bremerton's population dropped from 38,142 in 1990 to a Iow of 35,920 in April 1994. In 1995 it climbed to 39,610, and in 1996 it is down again to about 38,500. Police Department staffing levels need to take into account these typical population fluctuations. The following table contrasts 1990 and 1996 levels of service for officers with the Depar[ment's preferred staffing level. ~Source: Level of Sen/ice Standards: Measures for Maintaining the Quality of Community Life, Municipal Research Services Center of Washington, Report No. 31, September 1994. Draft Capital Facilities Program LE- 2 /..~ 8/12]97 Comprehensive Plan Amendments PUBLIC HF. RING SCHEDULE ~August 20: 1. Harbor Heights Apartments --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 2. Bremerton School District.--- Plan Amendment & Rezone :, // 3. Auto Center Area Ir~dustrial --- Plan Amendment & Rezone / 4. Broad Street Residential --- Plan Amendment & Rezone 5. South Smith COVe -~- Plan Amendment & Rezone 6. Merit Company --- plan Amendment & Rezone ,: 7. Waterfront Access Plan --- WAP Amendment only August 27: ~ ~8. Land Use Descriptions --- Plan text amendment only 9. Removal of "Cemetery" Designation --- Plan Map amendment only 10. Capital Facilities Element Update --- Plan text amendment only --- Continuation of earlier discussions from Aug. 20 meeting. rdinances --- adopting Plan Amendments and Rezones. Law Enforcement Table LE-2 Level of Service - Law Enforcement Officers Year Population officers Officers per 1,000 Population 1990 38,142 58 1.52 1996 38,500 62 1.61 Preferred * 38,142 70 1.84 · Preferred LOS for Law Enforcement Officers is based on actual 1990 population. Source: Bremerton Police Department. The Police Department considers the existing building space to be inadequate for the current staff level of 62 officers. The existing law enforcement facilities are spread out in four different locations, and building space is not efficiently designed for law enforcement purposes. This is particularly true at the Capital Hill facility, which houses nine officers in 5,400 sq.ft. (600 sq.ft./officer). A more accurate measure of the existing space per officer can be determined by omitting the Capital Hill facility and staff from the calculation. Including the Capital Hill facility and staff, the Current Level of Service is 290 square feet per officer. Without that facility and staff, the Adjusted Current LOS is 238 sq.ft, per officer (12,635 sq.ft. / 53 officers). The proposed LOS is lower than the Current LOS, but higher than the Adjusted Current LOS, assuming that the existing facilities will be replaced with a more efficiently designed facility. The Proposed LOS assumes that new facilities will be located in a remodeled existing building rather than in a new facility that could be designed to meet law enforcement needs most efficiently. · Current LOS = 290 square feet per officer · Adjusted Current LOS = 238 square feet per officer · Proposed LOS = 250 square feet per officer c. Future Demand The projected population growth within the City is for 19,642 new people by year 2012. At the current level of service for law enforcement officers, the City would need 94 officers by year 2012 -- 32 additional officers. At the Police Department's preferred staff level of service, the City would need 107 officers by year 2012 -- 45 additional officers. (Table LE-3) Draft Capital Facilities Program LE - 3 8/12/97 Law Enforcement - Table LE-3 Future Need - Law Enforcement Officers 1996 2001 2012 Total New Population/Officers 1996-2012 Population 38,500 41,893 58,142 19,642 Officers @ 1996 Officer LOS 62 67 94 32 Officers @ Preferred Officer 71 76 107 36 LOS Source: Bremerton Department of Community Development. d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements To maintain existing staff levels to year 2012 at 250 sq.ft, per officer, the Police Department would need 23,500 square feet -- an increase of 5,465 sq.ft, over 16 years. To maintain the Department's preferred officer level of service to 2012, it would need 26,750 square feet -- an increase of 8,715 sq.ft. (Table LE-4) ';} ~t996:Actuall 1:996 Needi i200iNeed 2012Ne~d: :: :1i996:;20~2iincrease 1996 Officer LOS 18,035 15,500 16,750 23,500 5,465 Preferred Officer LOS 18,035 17,500 19,000 26,750 8,715 * Staff levels per Table LE-3 @ 250 sq.ft./officer. ** 1996-2012 Increase = 2012 Need - 1996. The following table shows the future need for Police Department building area by year 2001 and by year 2012 at the proposed LOS of 250 sq.ft, per officer. · The year 2001 need is based on continuation of the 1996 Officer LOS (1.61 officers per 1,000 population). The year 2012 need is based on a gradual increase in staff levels after year 2001, with the goal of achieving the Preferred Officer LOS (1.84 officers/1000) by year 2012. (Table LE-5) Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/12/97 Law Enforcement .- - ': Table· LE-5. :.. Future Need: Law Enforcement Building Area · Time Period Demand (Population) Officers * Square Feet .. I Required (~ 250 sq.ft, per Officer :: SiX.Year Need 1996 38,500 62 15,500 1997-2001 (increase) 3,393 5 1,500 Total as of 2001 = 41,893 67 17,000 2002-2012 (increase) 16,249 40 9,750 Total as of 2012 = 58,142 107 26,750 Total 1996-2012 (increase) = 19,642 45 11,250 ' 2001 Need = 1996 Officer LOS; 2012 need = Preferred Officer LOS Source: Bremerton Department of Community Development e. Plans of Other Providers The May 3, 1996 draft Kitsap County Capital Facilities Plan addresses sheriff facilities, as well as corrections, work release, and juvenile facilities to serve county-wide needs. The draft CFP lists a current (1994) LOS for sheriff offices of 122 square feet per 1,000 population. The proposed LOS of 151 square feet per 1,000 population is 29 square feet per 1,000 population (24 percent) higher than the County's current LOS. The proposed LOS requires an additional 7,780 square feet of space through the year 2000. The draft six year financing plan lists two related projects to meet this need: expansion of the Sheriff Administrative Office, and construction of a Silverdale Precinct Building. f. Proposed Facilities The City has been working to develop a City Facilities Management Plan. A Facilities Management Alternative Plans study was prepared in February, 1994 to help plan for near- to mid-term facilities needs for various City departments. The goal and objective of this plan are the following: Consolidation of Departments to improve communication; coordination; and streamline department management goals and objectives; and Economics resulting in less property to maintain; centralize departmental needs; and reduce department managers lost-time due to existing decentralized departments. Draft Capital Facilities Pro~,m 8/12/97 Law Enforcement Work on the facilities plan is currently on hold, pending finalization of downtown waterfront redevelopment plans. One proposal under consideration would move City offices to a new location to free up the present location for redevelopment. The City is concerned about the rising costs of providing jail services. However, there is no expectation that it would be cost-effective for the City to construct and staff a new jail facility in compliance with State regulations. Therefore, the City proposes to continue to contract with Kitsap County to provide jail services for the foreseeable future. 3. Six-Year Financial Plan The total need for year 2001 is estimated at 17,000 sq.ft, in one consolidated facility designed for law enforcement needs. ^ f ...... p~.p~ - ~ ......... --;-,,,~- t,.-, .., ................, ,.,.,~, ' ...... The existing 18,000 feet, while not efficiently used, will accommodate this need, at least until other options can be examined. A proposa!.to construct anew. CitY..H.a.!!:iS:d[s~ussed UP.~ ~ ~iecti~n~!;,:.M :~i.C~! Pi a !~.B,u)!din g s; T~e s.i?y, ea.L~;§~a,~n,,~e P!a,n. if0C, .munic. ipal;b.Ui!dings is listed in Sectio~n d,~ander Other F.U~s;;~, .F,¢.Cj,!itie~i ? roje ¢~ts: LAW-97.CFP LE- 6 ////~ (~ Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/12/97 Law Enforcement Figure CF-4 Location of Police Department Facilities Draft Capital Facilities Program LE - 7 /~ / 8/12/9 7 C. Parks and Recreation The City of Bremerton provides a system of local parks (neighborhood and community parks), regional parks, and open space parks. This system is managed by the City's Parks and Recreation Department with the help of the Bremerton Parks and Recreation Commission. The park system service area consists of all land within the incorporated city limits. This parks and recreation capital facilities program reflects recommendations of the City of Bremerton Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1995, as updated by the City Parks & Recreation Department. 1. Inventory of Park Lands The following inventory lists local, regional, open space, and special use park lands. a. Local Parks To assist in analyzing service levels, local parks are divided into two categories: neighborhood and community parks. Bremerton has 206 acres of local park lands -- an increase of 1.05 acres since 1995. (1) Neighborhood Parjf¢ A neighborhood park is a combination playground and park designed primarily for non-supervised, non-organized recreation activities. In addition to their recreation value, neighborhood parks also provide a source of open space and aesthetic quality in the neighborhood. They are generally small in size (about 3-10 acres) and serve an area of approximately one half mile radius. The City's neighborhood parks range in size from less than one acre to more than 27 acres. The City has 39 acres classified as neighborhood parks -- an increase of three parks on 1.05 acres since 1995. The following table includes an inventory of the City's 13 neighborhood parks. (Table PK-I) Draft Capital Facilities Program PR- I 8/12/97 Parks and Recreation Table PR-1 : Inventory of Neighborhood Parks MAP#- Park Name Address Total Capacity (Acres) I Forest Ridge Park Summit Avenue & 1st Street 27.30 3 Kiwanis Playfield Between 4th & 5th at Veneta 3.00 32 McKenzie Basketball Court Juniper Court 0.02 5 Ninth Street Mini-park E. 9th & Shore Drive 0.02 33 Pu~ct Pc;vt: Lower Roto Vista Park Elizabeth Street end 1.00 6 Roto Vista Park 17th & Warren Avenue 0.70 7 S.P. "Pat Carey Vista Tracyton Beach Ddve 0.50 9 Smith Playfield 1198 Elizabeth 3.00 10 SR-3 Park Arsenal & Kitsap Way 3.80 34 .......,,, ,, ,~,, ,~" ~,---'-,, Arvon::Park Arvon Street 0.03 Total Neighborhood Park Acres = 39.37 (2) Community Parks A community park is planned primarily to provide active and structured recreation opportunities for young people and adults. In general, community park facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged. Community parks can also provide indoor facilities to meet a wider range of recreation interests. Where there are no neighborhood parks, the community park can also serve this function. Community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities. They usually exceed 20 acres in size and often have sport fields, water bodies, gardens, nature trails or similar facilities as the central focus of the park. Their service area is at least a 1-2 mile radius. The City's community parks range in size from one third acre to 54 acres. The City has 167 acres of community park lands. The following table includes an inventory of these community parks. The list includes 149 acres of "community parks 'of regional significance". These are parks that have traditionally served as local parks, but because of special features such as waterfront access have taken on a regional role as well. For example, while Bachmann Park is a very small waterfront park in the Manette neighborhood, it has become a popular regional sailboard launching site. These parks are listed as a subcategory of community parks because they have been identified in the Kitsap Countywide Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan as parks with regional significance which are eligible for countywide funding participation. (Table PR-2) Draft Capital Facilities Program PR-2 /g'~ 8/12/97 Parks and Recreation Table PR-2 ~ Inventory of: Community Parks Map# Park Name Address Total Capacity (Acres) 12 Bataan Park Sylvan & Olympus Dr 1,00 13 Blueberry Park Sylvan Way 6.90 14 City Hail Park 4th & Washington 0.30 18 Jarstad Park Old Betfair Highway 4.00 20 Manette Park & Senior Citizens Center 1140 Nipsic 2.60 24 Warren Avenue Playfield 11th & Warren Avenue 3.00 25 Wycoff Memorial Park 1st & Pacific Ave. (CBD) 0.02 Subtotal = 17.82 i i ~om:'m:unity pa~,ks ~fR~cJi~nal: Significancel 11 Bachmann Park Shore Drive & Trenton 0.50 15 Eastpark & G. Jarstad Aquatic Center Magnusson Way & Homer Jones 17.50 16 Evergreen Park 14th & Park Avenue 6.00 19 Kitsap Lake Park Price Road 31.90 4 Lent Lane Park Lebo Boulevard 1.50 22 N.A.D. Marine Park Shorewood Drive end 27.50 21 N.A.D. Park (upper) 6002 Kitsap Way 54.00 8 Sheridan Park (lower) Lebo Boulevard & Clare Street 6.00 23 Sheridan Park Community Recreation 680 Lebo Boulevard 4.00 Center Total Community Parks of Regional Significance = 148.90 Total Community Park Acres = 166.72 b, Regional Parks Regional parks are recreation areas that serve an entire region. They are usually large in size and often include areas of natural quality suitable for outdoor recreation activities such as golfing, picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping and hiking. If located within an urban area, they sometimes offer a wider range of facilities and activities which servee the entire region. The City's regional parks range from two to 50 acres. The City has 67 acres of regional parks. However, if the 149 acres of "community parks of regional significance" are included (see Table PR-2), there are 216 acres of City parks serving the local region. The following table includes an inventory of the City's three regional parks. (Table PR-3) Draft Capital Facilities Program PR-3 /E~'z/ 8/12/'97 Parks and Recreation Table PR,3 Inventory Of Regional Parks Map #' Park Name Address Capacity (Acres) 28 Bremerton Boardwalk Between 1st & 4th St. - downtown 2.00 waterfront 27 Lions Community Playfietd Lebo at Hefner 15.00 29 Andy Pendergast Regional Park 1199 Union 50.00 Total Regional Park Acres = 67.00 C. Open Space An open space park consists of undeveloped land primarily left in its natural environment, with recreation uses as a secondary objective. It is usually owned or managed by a governmental agency and may or may not have public access. This type of land often includes steep hillsides, wetlands, large forested areas or other similar spaces. In some cases, environmentally sensitive areas are considered as open space and include wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors, forested areas or unique or endangered plant species. The City's open space lands are often heavily wooded, and development, if any, is usually limited to trails. Bremerton has ~e 5.5 acres of open space, including a cemetery. In addition, the City maintains numerous beautification areas and pocket parks. The following table includes an inventory of Bremerton open space park lands. (Table PR-4) ;;Map# ;p~rk Name:' ;;' AddreSs Size (Acres) 7 Eastpark Nature Area Wheaton Way at Magnusson 14.40 13 Ivy Green Cemetery Naval Avenue 13.00 31 Stephenson Canyon Between Lewis Lane & Willow 2800 Beautification Areas/Pocket Parks various locations Total Open Space Acres = 55,40 Draft Capital Facilities Program Special Use Facilities The City-owned Gold Mountain Golf Course is located several miles south of the developed parts of the City. It is listed separately from other park and recreation facilities because it is an "enterprise" facility that is intended to pay for itself. PR-4 /~,,_~ 8/12J97 Parks and Recreation Generally, the development and operation of the golf course is financed with user fees and other special enterprise revenues, including development and operating agreements with concessionaires. The size of the facility will nearly double, from 190 to 360 acres, with completion of =~, c×~;r,;~c~, ................ or ~ the addition of a second 18 hole golf course. . Inventory of Special Use Facilities Map # Facility Name Address Capacity (Acres) 26 Gold Mountain Golf Course Old Belfair Highway 360.00 Total = 360.00 Total Park Lands The City has a total of 691 acres of park lands, including the municipal golf course. Without the golf course, the total is 220 acres. (Table PR-6) ;: ~ :~a~PaCitY (Acresi; Neighborhood Parks 39.37 Community Parks 166.72 Regional Parks 67.00 Open Space Parks 58.40 : SUbtOtal = :: 331:.49 Special Use Facilities 360.00 Total = 691.49 2. Forecast of Future Park Needs a. Existinq Demand With 691 acres of park lands serving 38,500 residents, the City has 18.0 acres of park lands per 1,000 persons (including the municipal golf course). Without the golf course, the City has only 8.6 acres of parks per 1,000 persons. (Table PR- 7) Draft Capital Facilities Program PR-5 /~.~ 8/12/97 Parks and Recreation b. Level of Service (LOS) The need for park lands can be estimated by companng the number of existing park acres per 1,000 persons with national standards. The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) recommends a total LOS of 15-20 acres per 1,000 persons for local and regional park lands. The following table compares the Existing LOS (ELOS) and the LOS recommended by NRPA. The overall City LOS is within the recommended range if the municipal golf course is included. Without the golf course, the City LOS is far below the NRPA recommendation. Compared to the NRPA guidelines, the City has ample regional park lands but falls shod in neighborhood, community, and open space park lands. (Table PR-7) (Acres t 1,000 P°p~laflon): ':: Neighborhood (1) 39.37 1.25 1.0 1.25 Community 166.72 5 4.3 3.98 Regional 67.00 5 - 10 1.7 1.60 Open Space 58.40 3.6 1.5 1.39 Special Use Facilities 360.00 - 9.4 8.59 Total Park Lands = 691.49 15 18.0 16.82 (1) The NRPA Neighborhood Parks LOS includes 0.25 to 0.5 acres mini-park. (2) Existing LOS = Acres / 1996 Population x 1,000 (1996 pop. = 38.5). (3) Proposed LOS = existing + new acres / 2001 pop./1000 (41.893). The NRPA standards are intended for a "typical" community, and of course all communities differ. For example, while the NRPA recommended LOS indicates that Bremedon is deficient in open space parks, the City is surrounded by thousands of acres of open water. Although water bodies may not fall within the traditional meaning of "open space", nevertheless many Bremedon waterfront parks provide visual and physical access to miles of open water that would be difficult to quantify with a LOS. Likewise, distant mountain views visible from many pads of the city add to the perception of open space. The NRPA standards were shaped in the early part of this century. Although they have been adjusted over the years, they may not represent today's needs and values. Accordingly, they are currently under review for possible revision. They are best viewed as rough guidelines -- useful, but not absolute. Draft Capital Facilities Program PR-6 / ~ "~ 8/12/97 Parks and Recreation The proposed LOS of 14.15 acres per 1,000 persons will be a decrease from the existing LOS. This is because even though park acreage will be increased by 12.95 acres by year 2001, this acreage will serve over 3,000 more City residents. A per capita version of the LOS is also listed for the purpose of calculating park needs to serve forecasted population growth. (Table PR-7) · Existing LOS = 18.0 acres per 1,000 persons (0.0179607 acres per capita.) · Proposed LOS = 16.82 acres per 1,000 persons (0.0168164 acres per capita.) c. Future Demand The projected population growth within the City is for 19,642 new people by year 2012, for a total population of 58,142. d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements The proposed LOS would result in a need for 286 additional acres of park lands by year 2012 -- a total of 978 acres. This goal may not be sustainable if the City's population grows as projected. (Table PR-8) ':..'~:.:.:..Time'Period' '. :: :;: Populatf0n: . Acres ~:0,0168164. · Current acres ' : NetreserVe or :i:~.:;:ii.?:~: ::~:: ~:;.::":". ':':: :. ;.:': :' ':' ' :. per Capita ' .-::. ::: .' available · : · : .... deficiency ?~ix.Yea¢:Need:?:' .::;.:;.....;:'i :.:-.;. ·. · :!.: :i .'..; .' . t996 actual 38,500 647.43 691.49 44.06 1997-2001 (new) 3,393 57.06 44.06 -13.00 Total as of 2001 = 41,893 704.49 0.00 -13.00 sixijeeH'~Year Need . :- ;...' . . .. 2002-2012 (new) 16,249 273.25 0.00 -273.25 Total as of 2012 = 58,142 977.74 0.00 -977.74 1997-2012 (new) 19,642 330.31 44.06 -286,25 Proposed a. Park Facilities Plans of Other Providers The 1994 Kitsap Countywide Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan recommends that the various jurisdictions undertake a coordinated, countywide Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/12/97 Parks and Recreation approach to facility development to meet present and projected park and recreation land and facility needs. The plan proposes a county-wide LOS of 12.75 acres per 1,000 persons. Both the existing and proposed City LOS are above the proposed County standard. The county-wide plan recommends that Kitsap County park and recreation agencies undertake a "strategic role" service approach where: a) the county provides park and recreation facilities and programs that no other agency can or is willing to provide; b) the county acts as a coordinator of local interests where facilities are provided by many other agencies; and c) the county performs as a facilitator where unique acquisition or development opportunities may occur that could be implemented or operated by the local city or other agencies. Under this strategy, the county will consider providing financial support for capital facilities that have regional use benefits. Examples in Bremerton are: Bremerton Boardwalk; Lions Field; Pendergast Regional Park; and Eastpark/Bremerton YMCA. The May 1996 draft Kitsap County Plan proposes a total LOS of 13.13 acres per 1,000 population for County-owned parks. This will require purchase of an additional 1,730 acres by year 2012. The County expects the LOS to decrease in future years, as park land acquisitions are completed. Expenditures will then be concentrated on development following acquisitions. b. Proposed City Facilities The City's 1995 Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan proposes ~ adding 184 acres of park lands. The largest project is an 18-hole addition to the Gold Mountain Golf Course (170 acres) "~-: ......... ~. ............... ; ....... ~.,.,... tc '-~ ............ Th Golf i high ity it capita! ..... ,, ...... ~ ........ of ..... e Course s a prior , as provides revenues for other city parks. The Plan also anticipates acquisition of an additional 14 acres of local park lands (one of which has now been acquired). (Table PR-8) The City recognizes the difficulty in maintaining the recommended LOS past the year 2000. There are few large tracts of undeveloped land left within the developed parts of the City today. As infill development continues there will be even less vacant land, and land prices are likely to increase correspondingly. These developments may make it impossible to meet typical acreage standards. To continue to pursue a goal of providing opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of open space in every neighborhood will be a particular challenge. Draft Capital Facilities Program PR-8 / ~ ~" 8/12/97 Parks and Recreation The City will need to seek creative ways of adding park lands within developed parts of the city where vacant land is scarce. For example, the City and School District are exploring the possibility of shared use of school recreation lands. Other solutions could include tree-lined "greenways" connecting park lands; and rooftop gardens, landscaped public courtyards, or fees in lieu of open space in high density areas. In the long run the City may need to develop LOS standards which will better measure alternative park and recreation opportunities. 4. Six-year Financing Plan T~e six-year financing plan for;parks and recreation facilities is included in Section J of this Capital .Faci!ities Program: PARK-97.CFP Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/12/97 c NO/~J3F~3H8 ~0 L ? // / D. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer facilities are provided by the Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities. A complete inventory, analysis of need, and capital improvements program are provided in the adopted Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (a.k.a. the "Wastewater Plan"). 1. Service Area The Wastewater Comprehensive Plan identifies a service area consisting of territory currently served by the Wastewater Utility, as well as areas adjacent to the city limits that are not now serviced but which could logically be served based on natural topography. The service area covers 13 drainage basins, of which five extend beyond the city limits into unincorporated county areas: Kitsap Lake, Tracyton Beach, Trenton Avenue, Sinclair Park, and Oyster Bay. The Utility provides sewage treatment to the sewered areas in the service area through direct service and through specific contractual agreements with the U.S. Navy and Kitsap County Sewer District No. 1 (Navy Yard City). (Figure CF-4 Bremerton Wastewater System Service Area) The Port of Bremerton operates a public wastewater facility located in Olympic View Industrial Park (OVIP) on State Route 3 west of Gorst. The Port is exploring alternatives to provide this area with high level municipal sewer. The City has entered into an agreement with Kitsap County to participate in a Gorst Area Sewer Feasibility Study, which will examine alternatives for sewering the greater Gorst area, including the OVIP and airport. 2. Inventory of Existing Facilities The City sewerage system consists of sewage collection, transmission, treatment, and bio-solids utilization facilities. Included are more than 188 miles of gravity sewers, approximately 16 miles of pressure lines, and 33 pump stations. These facilities convey sewage to a secondary wastewater treatment plant located just south of West Hills. Additionally there are 16 combined sewer overflow (CSO) sites located within the sewer collection system. Approximately 60 percent of the system is composed of combined sanitary and stormwater sewers. (Table SS-f) Draft Capital Facilities Program SS- '1 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer ' : Inventory: Wastewater Treatment Facilities Facilities Address Capacity Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant (1) 1600 Oyster Bay Ave W (3) 10.1 mgd Collection System: Pipe various 204 miles Wastewater Liftstations various 34 Forest Enhancement Sites One & Two (2) Near Gold Mtn. Golf Course 600 acres (1) City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, May 1996. (2) City of Bremerton 1993 Biosolids Report to Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District. (3) Average flow for maximum month per NPDES permit. (a) Wastewater Treatment Plant The existing wastewater treatment plant was designed to have a peak hydraulic capacity of 29.5 million gallons per day (mgd). Peak flows in excess of 25 mgd are typical during wet months. Normal dry weather peak flow capacity without stormwater inflow is estimated at 8 mgd. Current annual average and maximum monthly flows to the wastewater treatment plant are about 80 percent of the average annual and maximum monthly flows for which it was designed. It is estimated that 21 percent of the annual average flow and 44 percent of the maximum month flow is stormwater inflow. Stormwater will be reduced from the system over the next several years under the City's CSO Reduction Plan. Once stormwater inflow is reduced, the treatment plant will have the capacity to serve approximately 58,000 people. (b) Forest Enhancement Proqram -- Biosolids Utilization The wastewater treatment plant produces approximately five million gallons of anaerobically digested biosolids each year. Because biosolids have fertilizer and soil amendment value the City began an active land application program several years ago to utilize the benefits of this wastewater process by-product. Biosolids are used to enhance tree growth and are currently applied to 600 acres of Utility- owned forest land. Since June 1992, 100 percent of the biosolids produced at the treatment plant have been utilized in this beneficial manner. The objective of the City's forest enhancement program is to develop an environmentally sound method of using the resource value of bio'solids in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Draft Capital Facilities Program SS-2 / '~ 3 7/24197 Sanitary Sewer 3. Future Needs a. Existing Demand The Wastewater Plan estimates the 1990 population of the service area at 45,210, of which 38,140 were within the city limits and 7,070 outside the city. The plan estimates that approximately 37,000 persons within the service area were connected to the sewer system, leaving an unsewered population of 8,210.~ Kitsap County estimates that the total 1994 service area population was 46,928.z The City estimates that the 1996 population is approximately 52,762.3 The average daily flow, including stormwater inflow, is 6.0 mgd. As CS© separation occurs, the average flow will be reduced accordingly.'~ Minimum peak flow (peak flows occurring without storm water inflow) is estimated at 8 mgd. While the U.S. Navy is allocated 3.8 mgd, it is currently discharging only 1 mgd -- roughly equivalent to 10,000 population. (Table SS-2) b. Level of Service (LOS) The capacity of existing sewer facilities to serve future needs is determined by comparing the gallons of effluent per day now approved by the State, the number of existing connections, and the number of new people to be served. The number of new people is converted into the number of new residential connections based on assumptions of the number of persons per household, and the number of gallons of effluent generated per capita per day (gpcd). The capacity can also be estimated based on an existing and planned LOS for sewer service. The calculation of the current LOS excludes stormwater inflow. (Although the City's system experiences some infiltration, it is not a major component of the flow.) The proposed LOS is the existing county-wide average. · Current LOS = 97 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)5 · Proposed LOS = 100 gpcd 1Source: Table 1., City of Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, December 1995, p. A-2 (Estimate prepared in 1992). 2Source: Table SS-2. Kitsap County Capital Facilities Plan Sewer Facilities - 20-Year Population Allocation - CSF #1, Draft Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, Part II, April 1996, PG. 3-87. The County population estimate is for the total service area, and does not include an estimate of the sewered or unsewered populations. 3The City population estimate is based on the Kitsap County population estimate for the unincorporated part of the sewer service area, along with the City estimate within the city limits. (See page CFP-9) 4Source: Bremerton Wastewater Utility, 9/96. S"Executive Summary", City of Bremerton Sewer Comprehensive Plan, October 1991, p. 10. Draft Capital Facilities Program SS-3 / ~ ~ 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer c, Future Demand The May 1996 draft Kitsap County Capital Facilities Plan estimates that a total of 66,096 persons within the sewer service area will require sanitary sewer service by year 2012, an increase of 19,168 persons from 1992. The County plan estimates that this increase includes 1,111 persons that were not connected to the sewer system in 1992. (Table SS-2) : . i: TableSS,2 , KitSap Coun~ CapitalF'acilitieS: Plan: Sewer FaCilities. 20-Year Allocation : .;,PoPUlation: 1992: ' 1994 2000: : 2012 1992,2012 2012 :: ::i..' ; : : : :' :: :: : %change ::increase Total Population 46,321 46,928 54,370 66,096 29.92% 19,168 Sewered 45,210 NE NE 66,096 Unsewered 1,111 NE NE 0 Source: Table SS-2, Draft Kitsap County Capital Facilities Plan, May 1996, pg. 3-87. The County allocation addresses years 1994 and 2000 (rather than years 1996- 2001) in order to comply with a Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board order. Therefore, the City has projected service area population figures for years 1996 and 2001 based on the County forecast. (Table SS-3) ':: 'Tim~ ' i D~mand'.:: Capacity Ave:rage Dai y . i : :: '; ·; (Population in City-County (Population) Demand ~ 100 GPCD :': ' ' ' Service:Area) .' . (M~D) 1996 Service Area Population 52,762 58,000 5.28 1997-2001 New Population 2,128 3,110 0.21 Total 2001 Sewered Population = 54,890 3,110 5.49 2001-2012 New Population (4) 11,206 (8,096) 1.12 Total 2012 Sewered Population = 72,077 (14,077) 7.21 Total 1996-2012 increase = 19, 315 (4,986) 1.93 Notes: For the purposes of this projection, it is assumed that all persons within the service area will connect to the sewer system by year 2001. Draft Capital Facilities Program 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements The Wastewater Plan was developed for an ultimate service area population of 80,610. Therefore, planned improvements will be adequate to serve the projected 72,077 sewered population, provided there are no major industrial hookups. The City is participating in a feasibility study to sewer Gorst and the industrial properties in the vicinity of the Port of Bremerton and Anderson Creek. Sewering all or a portion of these areas utilizing Bremerton's treatment facility are included as options. The results of this study may affect the need and timing for treatment plant expansion. e. Plans of Other Providers The Kitsap County Public Works Department Wastewater Division is in the process of preparing a County-Wide Wastewater Facility Plan. The draft plan integrates the individual wastewater plans within the county, and includes recommendations for expanding county facilities to serve projected needs. f. Proposed Facilities The City's Wastewater Plan recommends four types of improvements at the treatment plant to accommodate projected sewage flows at ultimate plan service area development and to solve some current and anticipated operational problems: · Infrastructure improvements -- repairs or replacements of existing sewer system facilities to restore structural integrity; Regulatory requirements -- improvements needed as a result of new or modified codes, guidelines, or laws initiated from federal, state, and local government; · Growth and system extensions -- improvements resulting from new development or system extensions; Other system improvements -- recommendations that contribute to the improved operation or function of the system but are not a result of infrastructure needs, regulations, or system growth. The Utility will acquire properties in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment facility for future plant expansion and buffer for odor management. Th~e~,cit~.ilW!![~l~/,~qnd~bt!~g.a; CtU~YTf(~c?euse o. fWasteWater tr.ea,~ment pla nt ~!~ [P~S~b~ ..t~e~i.S,t~dY~is ..tO d, etermine the:feaSibility 0f .r, eusing effi~!J?,,Pt-',:.f?,~-'[~U~§t~!:::us~ 91~'.!~d.~app!icatign if feasible ialte~nat!ves fo ~'ire U~S e a ~e J '7¢ Draft Capital Facilities Program 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer - The combined sewer overflow reduction program will continue over the next six years..The program includes completion of Callow Avenue Basin Priority I & 2 during 1997 and 1998. Reduction of overflows in the Anderson Cove Basin will begin with completion of an engineering report in 1997. This will be followed by final design and construction in phases from 1998 though 2001. Smaller projects will be undertaken throughout the system to reduce combined sewer overflows as they are identified. These projects may include pipe rerouting, combined sewer storage, and overflow structure modifications. 4. Six-Year Financial Plan It is estimated that the existing sanitary sewer system has a total capacity of 8 million gallons per day (mgd), with approximiately 3 mgd available capacity, which is sufficient to meet the total need of 5.49 mgd through the next six years, provided there are no major new industrial demands. (This assumes removal of stormwater from the system over the next several years under the City's CSO Reduction Plan.) a. Six-year Funding and Projects T~e's!X~y,.e..aF:.fi~ancia! P!a~. for, sanita~, sewer faci ities is inCluded:in:Section I of the year (199 200 ) thi's:;CFP2'~lt ................... is a summary of City's Six 6- Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan. Improvements are shown to be primarily Utility financed through 2001, 2002 assuming no grants will be available. Of the Non-Utility financed projects, most of the growth-related improvements are anticipated to be financed by special utility local improvement districts (ULIDs) or by developers directly. It is anticipated that roughly 20 percent of the expenditures beyond 2000 will be funded by non-utility sources of revenue. b. Capacity Balance The following chart demonstrates how the projects to be developed over the next six years provide the required amount of capacity at the adopted level of service standard to meet the needs of the existing population and projected growth. (Table SS-5) Draft Capital Facilities Program SS-6 / 7 7 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer c. Future Demand The May 1996 draft Kitsap County Capital Facilities Plan estimates that a total of 66,096 persons within the sewer service area will require sanitary sewer service by year 2012, an increase of 19,168 persons from 1992. The County plan estimates that this increase includes 1,111 persons that were not connected to the sewer system in 1992. (Table SS-2) ~:~ T'able SS~2 ~ :.: Kitsap County; Capital Facilities planSewer;Facilities _ 20.Year Allocation ~ PoPulation. :~ : ; 1992: 1994 i :~ 2000 2012 1992,2012: 2012 ':i . % change :increase Total Population 46,321 46,928 54,370 66,096 29.92% 19,168 Sewered 45,210 NE NE 66,096 U nsewered 1,111 NE NE 0 Source: Table SS-2, Draft Kitsap County Capital Facilities Plan, May 1996, pg. 3-87. The County allocation addresses years 1994 and 2000 (rather than years 1996- 2001) in order to comply with a Puget Sound Growth Hearings Board order. Therefore, the City has projected service area population figures for years 1996 and 2001 based on the County forecast. (Table SS-3) -:"~;: ::i' 'Timeperi~d';:;i' ' ' Demand Capacity . ' Average Daily · !~.;':." ":' ' ' ' ." (Population·in City-County (Population) ~ Demand ~ 1:00 GPCD · ~.:::i':: :~ :~ ':' ' ' .: ! ' ' Service: Area) ..' : · : ' ' (MGD) !si~yea~Need-.'' i:: ::: ;' ·. i ' '· ' · 1996 Service Area Population 52,762 58,000 5.28 1997-2001 New Population 2,128 3,110 0.21 Total 2001 Sewered Population = 54,890 3.110 5.49 ::~'~wentY:~earNee(f:':i!ii~;!::: :::::: . :':.: ' .' :: : · : ' 2001-2012 New Population (4) 11,206 (8.096) 1.12 Total 2012 Sewered Population = 72,077 (14,077) 7.21 Total 1996-2012 Increase = 19,315 (4,986) 1.93 Notes: For the purposes of this projection, it is assumed that all persons within the service area will connect to the sewer system by year 2001., Draft Capital Facilities Program 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer .... d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements The Wastewater Plan was developed for an ultimate service area population of 80,610. Therefore, planned improvements will be adequate to serve the projected 72,077 sewered population, provided there are no major industrial hookups. The City is participating in a feasibility study to sewer Gorst and the industrial properties in the vicinity of the Port of Bremerton and Anderson Creek. Sewering all or a portion of these areas utilizing Bremerton's treatment facility are included as options. The results of this study may affect the need and timing for treatment plant expansion. e. Plans of Other Providers The Kitsap County Public Works Department Wastewater Division is in the process of preparing a County-Wide Wastewater Facility Plan. The draft plan integrates the individual wastewater plans within the county, and includes recommendations for expanding county facilities to serve projected needs. f. Proposed Facilities The City's Wastewater Plan recommends four types of improvements at the treatment plant to accommodate projected sewage flows at ultimate plan service area development and to solve some current and anticipated operational problems: · Infrastructure improvements -- repairs or replacements of existing sewer system facilities to restore structural integrity; Regulatory requirements -- improvements needed as a result of new or modified codes, guidelines, or laws initiated from federal, state, and local government; Growth and system extensions -- improvements resulting from new development or system extensions; Other system improvements -- recommendations that contribute to the improved operation or function of the system but are not a result of infrastructure needs, regulations, or system growth. The Utility will acquire properties in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment facility for future plant expansion and buffer for odor management. ~he-~,i![~b~i;~ndg'cti~sg :a,.stUdy: for .r, euse o.[;~wastewater ~r.e~.t.m~nt p!ant P~s~"°f ..t .h-e~tUdY~,is. itO dete, r. mi'ne the feasibilitY:Of ~eusing e...ffi. ~e~t.',~[~d~i~td ~!,:q~ ~ i~.r.....!c~i~'!a. Pp!i~a~ig~ .~; If fe.aSible i~!t~em~t~ve~~ fo~i~euse .are Sanitary Sewer '- - The combined sewer overflow reduction program will continue over the next' six years.. ~The Program includes completion of Callow Avenue Basin Priority I & 2 dudng 1997'and 1998. Reduction of overflows in the Anderson Cove Basin will begin with completion of an engineering report in 1997. This will be followed by final .design and construction in phases from 1998 though 2001. Smaller projects will be undertaken throughout the system to reduce combined sewer overflows as they are identified. These projects may include pipe rerouting, combined sewer:stOrage :'and overflow structure modifications. 4. Six-Year Financial Plan It is estimated that the existing sanitary sewer system has a total capacity of 8 million gallons per day (mgd), with approximiately 3 mgd available capacity, which is sufficient to meet the total need of 5.49 mgd through the next six years, provided there are no major new industrial demands. (This assumes removal of stormwater from the system over the next several years under the City's CSO Reduction Plan.) ao Six-year Fundinq and Projects Tbe:six~y~e..i¢'¢:ifi8ancial: p!~n~ for. sani~t~ry:.:se~er facilities is inclUded iB~S~ctioq. I of thi~i~:v~;~lt~ -The-f~w~-ue~ is a summary of the City's Six Year (1996-2001) Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan. Improvements are shown to be primarily Utility financed through 2001, 2.002, assuming no grants will be available. Of the Non-Utility financed projects, most of the growth-related improvements are anticipated to be financed by special utility local improvement districts (ULIDs) or by developers directly. It is anticipated that roughly 20 percent of the expenditures beyond 2000 will be funded by non-utility sources of revenue. b. Capacity Balance The following chart demonstrates how the projects to be developed over the next six years provide the required amount of capacity at the adopted level of service standard to meet the needs of the existing population and projected growth. (Table SS-5) /2¢ Draft Capital Facilities Program 7/24/97 Sanitary Sewer Capacity BalanceSheetJ! Sanitary Sewer Year I Projects : Maximum Month-:Demand Facility Currently Net Reserve Required ~ LOS (MGD) Available (MGD) ~ or Deficiency 1996 actual 5.28 10.10 4.82 1997-2001 0.21 4.82 4.61 Total as of 2001 5.49 4.61 4.61 Pro~ects 1995 to 2000 to Increase capacity Warren Avenue Stormwater Separation (1995) Callow Avenue Stormwater Separation (2000) Total as of 2000 = * Contracted Flows to PSNS are 3.1 MGD, which are not anticipated dudng six year term of finance plan. ** These two projects will eliminate some stormwater inflow to the wastewater system, thereby increasing capacity. *** Year 2000 total capacity is not quantifiable at this time. Source: Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, 4~95. SANSEW97.CFP Draft Capital Facilities Program 7/24/97 E. Schools B!~_~e~rton SChggl:~!~t.d~.~!0pC-is:!gcatedo. n}~9:.~itsap Peninsula between PoK Orchard Bay, ~ye~`~a~;~`i~`[a~6;~~e~D~s~`~:is~adja~t;t~``~he~Puget Sound:NaVa! S. hipYa(d;:and i~e.~dr~'n~:i~_~!te~,~;~re~t~e2d~t~o~.~i.!~a~Tpgp'ulatip~at the base. (See Figure CF-5) T~'.~ Bremerton ,"u~',~¢. School District ¢~c, cc provides public education in most parts of the City. The exception is a small area in the vicinity of the Bremerton Watershed, which is served by South Kitsap School District #402. The Jackson Park Naval Reservation is jointly served by the Bremerton School District and Central Kitsap Public School District #401. Only the Bremerton School District is included in this ir, vent,,c/Capital Facilities:Program. since such a small fraction of city residents is served by the South Kitsap School District, and no school facilities operated by that district are located within the city limits. 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Schools b°!s. O~n e middl e~C,h,?_q!¢!ib'~'~j8 n_ibr Sch.ool'~' .t~e. Distr~C~]a~s~,~.i~S~S a lists the: Breme~on S~hOoL Di{tdSt s Draft Capital Facilities Program SC-1 /¢..~ 8/12J97 E. Schools ~ : Table Sc,1 Inventory of ExiSting Facilities --Bremerton School District School Location Existing Student Capacity Elementary SchOOlS (Grades K.5) Armin Jahr 800 Dibb 481 Crownhill 1537 Bertha Ave. 528 Kitsap Lake 1111 Carr Blvd. 550 Naval Avenue 900 Olympic 484 Olympic View 2442 Perry 486 View Ridge 3220 Wheaton Way 528 West Hills 520 National Ave So. 528 Total Elementary permanent Sc. hcc~ Facilities = 3;585 Total:Elementary~lnterim~(Portable):Facilifles = 250 Total~-E[~hientary permatfent a'nd:lnterim Facilitres = 3;835 Mountain View Middle School 2400 Perry Ave. 810 Bremerton Jr. High 1300 E. 30th 1,115 :~'?,~ ~-;?'.:~.,~ ~:: '~ ~:;.~,~ ~ ~ ~,' ~ ,,, ~ ?~Totai~Middle/J~ High-Permanent Faclhtles = 1;925 .~?~ ;~ : :. ;::~: ;;:' :~ ~;': ~':; ::Tbtal~ Middl~/Jr:~ High Interim (POrtable) Facilities = 115 otal MiddlelJr;.Hlgh Permanent~and InterlmFaclhties = 2;040 II Bremerton High School Il 1500 13th 1,275 Totat seniocH[gh School Permanent Facilities = 2,040 ':': :'. : ~::TOtal S'enior High Interim (Portable) FaCilities-= 115 ?.?' :::':.: ;: ; Total Senior High*,SChOOl Permanent and Interim Facilities = 1,390 Source: Bremerton School District No. 100C, 4/97. b. Existinq Capacity ~he~:apacity/df Bremerton Sch0ol DiStqct faci ities is inc Uded in Table SCd; ab0ve~ Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 E. Schools - 2. Forecast of Future Needs -- Bremerton School District a. Existinq Demand -- Enrollment b. Level of Service (LOS) The Bremerton School District has established the standard size for schools as 550 for elementary, 1,000 for middle school/jr, high, and 1,250 for senior high. The overall student to teacher ratio is set at ~3 2~ for elementary students and ee 32 for secondary schools. However. the district is concerned that the use of average classroom size as a standard may be misleading, since classroom size varies by program and contract provisions. Thedata for m i'ddJ~/Ju~niQ C::,h ig h.~ a ~se~{o~ ~ig h:,:s ChO 91 s ~p¥ e rs~a~e t. h e a ctual: ca p a city '~of]thO ~e s 9~ o 0 !s ~~,~h~e.y.ar~:n~ ~dJ~t~ :.~p~the ;~{ !~[¢,~;~_0~,::: e~c[~ncy./factor.tba~ represents ~.}~(99,~90~ ~n: US~ ~'d~dng':~sgm~ pedodS:O~ ~n~iO~n~>:,Tb~se favors typically ~educe the t~e/~f.,~a[,~p~it~es~l{s:ted belP~,~y;t.0.t0 ~ 5pe<c~nt:~ (Table SC-2) School Size (Students) 550 1,000 1,250 Classroom Size 24 32 32 ~2/23/96 Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11197 E. Schools - c. Future Demand -- Enrollment Pro|ections The need for new schools is based on projected school enrollment. The Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) provides enrollment projections based on the "Cohort Survival Method".~ The school district considers the SCI system useful, but inadequate to represent the unique growth conditions of the Bremerton district. For example, 1992 enrollment forecasts based on SCI projections predicted a school population of 8,370 in 1994 -- 2,185 higher than actual 1994 enrollment. The largest single factor in Bremerton enrollment has historically been the fluctuation in naval population, which can be difficult to predict very far in advance. ·able SC~3~com~ares!current'and future enrollmenLto the enrollment capacity of the Br, emerton ~ The Cohort Survival Method uses histodc patterns of student progression by grade level to measure the portion of students moving from one grade level up to the next higher cohort or grade. This ratio or survival rate is used in conjunction with current birth rates as a base for state-wide enrollment projections. Draft Capital Facilities Program /_¢¢ 8/11/97 E. Schools The~.exi_sting:capacity(co!umns..3.a. nd '4) iStaken f.r?m Table SC-l, and includes existing pe~rmanent and'portable, facilities; Th'e.netreserve or deficiency is the difference between enrollment and capacity. The net rese~eor:deficiencY:in'permanentfacilities (ColUmn ~5) is calculated by subtracting enrollment fr;gm..~:Permanent:~capac!ty ~(c.01.u. mn~.3~..minu~icolu.~ ,n. 2),~ ?he net reserve or deficiency in all faci. l~ie~;~(c01Umn: 6)is ~.!cul.~t~d.i by:.subtr, ac._t, ing enr_0..!l~e~.nt., f[o~m both. permanent and interim ~..a_c!ty~,(a~d co!.um,q~L3 ~.nd~i:~';: ~eg.i.~ub~ract ~9!~.~n,;;.,~)i:..~!f~apacity is less than enrollment, the di~s~:~ias?'~ ~rese~e~that~',ca. lqia. c,~P~9,da~te,,f~..t..~e ~,r~o!!m, ent. If capacit~ iS less than eqr,{3!!~ment;!,the distdc, t-haS~a,"'~eficiency~:which. :can,bei,add~ressed by adding capaCity(see T~_b,!~SC~)' o~ by~:angi.~g t~e standard: ~for; level o[s,ervic~ as part of the annual 'amendment t~t~.,h..'i~cbmP'te.hensi~/ei'~Plan~ (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Net reserve or deficiencies Net reserve or Permanent permanent deficiencies all Time Period Enrollment Capacity Interim Capacity facilities facilities Elementary Schools (K-5) 1996 Actual 2,938 3,585 250 647 897 1996-2002: Growth 722 -722 -722 Total as of 2002 3,660 3,585 250 -75 175 Capacity Projects - None Scheduled ** Middle/Jr. High Schools (6-9) 1996 Actual 1,836 1,925 115 89 248 1996-2002: Growth 220 -220 -220 Total as of 2002 2,056 1,925 115 -131 28 Capacity Projects - None Scheduled ** Senior High Schools (10-12) 1996 Actual 1,689 1,275 115 -414 -229 1996-2002: Growth 30 -30 -30 Total as of 2002 1,719 1,275 115 -444 -329 Capacity Projects - None Scheduled ** "The capacity deficiency does not equat or exceed the capacity of an additional school. No new school for this grade level is included in the District's 6-year Capital Facilities Plan. A replacement or modernization is required. d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements yc?-;' 29C9 ................ '" ......":" r;~',cccmc~,t), - ......... ~ ...... c',¢mc~,'.---;7 ........ by yccr E. Schools .- e. Plans of Other Providers The Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element projects facility needs for all school districts in the County, including the Bremerton School District· This element is a valuable resource for comparing class size, school size, construction costs, etc. between districts ;', · · · ~/;~ ,~:':;' C.Xr--'~,. C., C.C, 7,3,.;';.;C,.~..r'; ¢~' ~ 0,7..J, --:'"~'-- ~'~^'~ :-- *~'~ ~ .... "*~ ~:*'--:--' 't''~'~ "~a'~ ....... ~ ' ...... ~ i;; 3. Proposed Facilities Elbm~e'ritaw:~ S~hbbl :Ca~ci~vReq uire ments Thm'agli;.ttie yba~ 2002;':.thb~ Bi-bm'ert0n: SchOOl: District wi I not need anY 'additional Permanent sp~e ;t-o~:bie~{a~ st~i~t~5!i!i~(jme!bxisting space does reqUire 'rePl~cem'ent or mo'd~rnizatio~; Middle S~:h0OllJbnior Hiqh< SCh001capacity Requirements Thr0ugti;;the year,2002~:,tl~e Bre'mertoh:: School::DiStdCt w need add tional permanent space for !;~ididle;is~bol!juniOr;ihig~,sChO0[ Students:.?since this capacity defic b'hcY,d0eS no~equa ,~r ~'~d'({~;C~i{~:¢~;~:ci'~t'i~t~0~i~id~ji~? S~h~'°i~ 0r j~'hi°r::hig~ ~cl~i~: tl~'! b'iS~ri~"'d6~S ~ot i.~[~:~ ~..~ ~.~j,~)jfi-~ ~ ~-6 ~, :,i~:~ ~t~ ,~~ Pit'~.l~ac .!ities pla O~tb'r 0 dg ~ ::~t~ ~ 002~03 s ~o 0 year;:.¢.some;e~[sting spaceTdoe:s; reqfiite replacement: 0r: modernization~ Senisr:Hi'gh S~h0101 capabity!RbquiCements BY:th'e;,'year-2002¢.;the Bm~i~0n: SChbOl Distrii:t 'Will need permanent spaCe for ·444 senior, hi h sch001tstudents~: Since':thislc. a~aCity deficiehcy.d0es:n0t equa orexceedthe~'capacity~of an ad:d~:o'~i;seh~¢~:~ig~h ;'s'~o'~;~t~;~bis'~d'~{ ~oes not:id~iude a new Senio~hig~ ~Ch~ol in:~its Capital faCil~Fe~;::~plafi~thf0'u'g h~the;;2002Z03:;sch001; 'yea~ Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 E. Schools NOn-CapacitY Ri~auirements This analysis 0f'capacitydoes not address the need to modernize or replace existing facilities, but the District has deter~nined the need for such capital projects, and they are included in the capital improvements projects and financing plan listed below. (Table SC-4) 4. Six-Year Financial Plan The'Six-Year Financial Plan for Schools is included in Section J. SCHOOL97.CFP Draft Capital Facilities Program SC-7 /'~' 8/11/97 ONNO~.L_qDNd '~NNII:Id 031110 ODIH:3 E F. Stormwater Stormwater.facilities are 'provided by the Bremerton Department of Public Works & Utilities. The Stormwater Utility was formed by ordinance in 1994 as a funding source for the stormwater program mandated by .the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The mission of the Program is to control flooding, enhance water quality, and protect sensitive habitat areas and opt:,,-m;zo th~ rcch¢,¢§~ of local aquifers. A draft Stormwater Management Plan was prepared during l:9~~a~,~n~d;~.l_"S._~p'~.t.~¢:~toi:~ a_dOpted in 1997: the City limits.'~There are 14 drainage basins located ~i.i~.t.h~_e;~9!¢~p~d,~p.o_¢~i'gns;0_.f..Bre~erton..These drainage-basins cloSely;Conform to the i~t.h~s~er,~,b~i~.sii~den.t, iEe~in the City's Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. Additional dr~r~agff :b~i'n~.~:W!th.i~ tbe;Ut!!it~.o.~Ded Lands are also within the servicearea, 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities With the exception of a few more recent developments, the existing drainage system within the City can be characterized as a conveyance system of surface drainage swales and a series of pipes which collect and route drainage away from homes and businesses as shown Exhibit 4-1. The City has a storm drainage system with partial sewage separation. The City's n~v;',y adopted Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Reduction Plan will separate stormwater from the existing sewage collection system and limit CSOs to no more than one per year. A number of natural drainage facilities exist in the Bremerton drainage system. These natural systems include swales, channels, creeks, ravines, and natural drainage ways that discharge directly to marine waters. ~h~iCi~d~:.~e. sponsible ?0.r.~a!nta!~ipg ~hr~e-.~i~ten~t!o~n.~fa.C.i!!t!esi ~bes-e?a~i:litie~re~:lb~t~'hea~Ebxie~Eagans BlVd?&:ArSenafWay;','oyste~,:Ba~Avenue ~ E;~~ ~:~8i~ ~ '~0ntic01a; Driv~:(H~i[Y ;Te~r~ce.~-~ iti~:~ ;.~: ~e:.c it's Bremerton currently has 14 developed drainage basins. The basins include those areas outside of the City limits that drain into the City and contribute runoff to some of the City's localized drainage problems. The City's stormwater f~c',',',t',c~ ,ho',d;,;§ c~p~c~ty basin:area is 8,564 acre feet. ~he~aJ~rity:of ~pd~ve!C~ped Utility Owned Land isnot included in t~:isinV, en. tory. (Table SW-1) Draft Capital Facilities Program SW-I 8/11/97 Stormwater Table SW.I' Inventory of Capital Facilities: Storm Water Basins Basin Name LocatiOn - Drainage Acres 1. Anderson Avenue N. shores of W. Brem. - Port Wn. Narrows 400 2. Callow Avenue Central W. Brem. - Sinclair Inlet 650 3. Cherry Avenue E. Brem. NE of Warren Ave. Bddge - Port Wn. Narrows 250 4. East Park E. Brem. S of Sylvan Way - Port Wn. Narrows 330 5. Kitsap Lake W. Brem surrounding Kitsap Lake - Chico Bay 1,550 6. Oyster Bay NW part ofW. Brem - Oyster Bay & Ostrich Bay 1,575 7. Pacific Avenue SE part of W. Brem incl. Ferry Terminal - Sinclair Inlet 150 8. Phinney Bay N central part of W. Brem - Phinney Bay 225 9. Pine Road W part of E. Brem. - Port Wn. Narrows 680 10. Sinclair Park SW portion ofW. Brem- 1,400 11. Stevens Canyon E. Brem. in vicinity of Wheaton/Sylvan - Port Wn. Narrows 350 12. Tracyton Beach Along W. edge of city limits in E. Brem - Port Wn. Narrows 60 13. Trenton Avenue E part of E. Brem - Port Wn. Narrows & Port Orchard Bay 670 14. Warren Avenue Downtown Bremerton - Port Wn. Narrows 275 Total = 8,565 Source: City of Bremerton Draft Stormwater Management Plan. 2. Forecast of Future Needs a. Existing Demand conveyance ;ACompleteanalysishas:not been performed Onthe ! .i ,,.~ ' C ty s .ex~stm9 storm dr~9-~¢Z~ys, te~ ~p ~tg.[~,[,n, e the capacity, of the :c0,~0,99107; ::~his: ana, ly~is~i,!l be ~0nducted b. Level of Service (LOS) Draft Capital Facilities Program SW-2 8/11/97 Stormwater - ap.~'ma.tC.h.[ng 'predeveloped I O-year. and 100:yeafl24 ,hour duration runoff rates. Construction site_s-~r.,e.; a~so requi~red t0: prov~ide~.e.~rgsion and-Sedimentation controls for up to the 2-year storm Conveyance -Storm' systems constructed as part of the City's CSO Reduction Plan will be de~igq..e.d::to handle: a 2.5:Year storm; The- City'will'be conducting drainage basin assessments as:P~:~P.f,~the stormiwater.prpgram;-. TheSe aSSessments will include the identification of storm d~in...a, ge;con, v~yance: system capacities, Basedon the:oUtCome of these assessments, a rffc~,~n-~e&!evel~..f.?se.~iCe:wil?bb dete~rm~in~ed for existing systems. The 'drainage problems id?~n~ti~.!n!~th~s.t~.[mlwateE, capital program are basedlon conditions observed in the field and repri~sentconveyance: problems: that,'occur annually: c. Future Demand COhve~ance :':Thedh3p:act~Ofadditio~91;imperviOus surfaces:from deve opment onthe d0~?~an~e~s~stem:!Wil~l~e~'mitfg~ted~l~,~tl~e:limitati0ns to the: runoff rate to 0:2CFSlacre based bn(~2~yea[ st0rm¢ d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements e. Plans of Other Providers ~!CitF~and Kitsap CbUntF,~hare 'responsibility fOr a number of drainage bas ns:; .The water C°ordin atidh be~"en; ti~e City and;Kitsap ;C~ounty,l.Will:Tequired;i[egarding the downstream conveyance systems ~ithin these b-aSid~ 3. Proposed Facilities Improvements The Draft Stormwater Plan identifies eleven existing flooding problems and recommends solutions to alleviate these problems. Many of these drainage problems will be reduced or eliminated by CSO sewer separation projects. A few will be addressed during annual maintenance. (Table SW-2) Draft Capital Facilities Program SW-3 /?? 8/11/97 Stormwater - Table SW'2 Major FloOd Control Capital Improvement Projects and Costs Project # Basin Projec,t Cost (1994 $) CIP #1 Sinclair Park Upgrade piping and detention at Kean and Rogers St. 851,000 CIP #2 Stevens Canyon Piping improvements at Robin and Dibb Streets 170,000 CIP #3 Pacific Avenue Piping improvements along Park Avenue, 5th St to Burwetl 250,000 Total = 1 ,:271,000 Source: Draft Storrnwater Management Plan TheDraft,,sto~wate~ ~!.a8 i~entifies;a 8umber~pf small,capital projects that need to be p~e.¢iigr! ~F.,anr~.ga!!~,.b.,,¢s,!s.;~ The Draft Plan recommends that the City needs to implement a series of storm drainage improvements over a multi-year planning period, and develop an effective City-wide inspection and maintenance Program. (Table SW-2) inCluded in Section 3. Draft Capital Facilities Program SW-4 / ¢~7~ 8/11/97 Stormwater '-- _ 0 Figure CF-8 Bremerton Stormwater Drainage Basins Draft Capital Facilities Program 8/11/97 G. Transportation This section is a summary of information contained in the Transportation Element of the ComprehensiVe Plan. 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities Bremerton's transportation system generally consists of streets, highways, sidewalks, ferries, and public transit. The Transportation Element includes the following information on existing facilities: Streets and Highways · Principal Arterials (See Transportation Element Table 1) · Minor Arterials (See Transportation Element Table 1) · Collector Arterials (See Transportation Element Table 1) · Residential Streets (Not inventoried) Mass Transit · Kitsap Transit (See Transportation Element pg. 20) · Washington State Ferries: Bremerton-Seattle (See Transportation Element pg. 20) · Hoduck Transportation Co,: Bremerton-Port Orchard (See Transportation Element pg. 20) Source: Transportation Element"F" 2. Forecast of Future Needs -- Level of Service (LOS) Standard Levels of Service (LOS) is an estimate of the quality and performance of transportation facility operations in a community. The Transportation Element measures LOS by calculating the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) of the midblock of a roadway, using a range from A (free flow) to F (stop-and-go traffic). (a) Current Level of Service The following existing roadway sections exceed or are close to exceeding a Level of Service D (Volume/Capacity Ratio .90) threshold during the PM peak hour: Draft Capital Facilities Program TR - 1 8/12/97 Transportation --- Table TR-2 Existing Level of Service-- Transportation Street Section V/C Ratio LOS Bur,veil Warren to Naval 0.77 O SR 304 Prebie to Farragut 0.91 E KitsaD Way Callow to SR3 0.87 D Manette Bddge 0.89 D Warren 11th to Bridge 0.8 D Warren (Wheaton) Bridge to Callahan 0.99 E Source: Table 1 - Existing Corddor Level of Service, Transportation E/ement = (b) Recommended Level of Service (LOS) The Transportation Element establishes the following level of service standards: · WheatonNVarren Corridor -- LOS F with V/C threshold of 1.06 · Kitsap Way Corridor - LOS E or better (V/C less than or equal to 1.00 · Manette Bridge -- LOS E or better (V/C less than or equal to 1.00) · All Other Arterial Streets -- LOS D or better (v/c less than or equal to 0.9) Six-year Financial Plan ~,Six:~year;'fi~ahcia~plan/for transportation facilities is: included irt,Section Jof thinS ~a~.p;i~t~.bFa.,c.!! i. ti'e's~ ~f'__o..g ra~: Draft Capital Facilities Program TR -2 8112/97 C~TY OF 8R~di~TON COMPRE~E~qSrV~ T~ANSPORTATION PLaN ® 0 1750 3000 SCALE IN FEET \ \ I. / Pzrzmetrlx, Inc. L£GENO FR*C~WA Y PR~NC~AL ARTeRiaLS CGLL~C'roR$ Figure CF-9 Bremerton Arterial System Draft Capital Facilities Program TR - 3 8/12/97 H. Water The City of Bremerton Water Utility provides potable water for Bremerton and the surrounding area. A complete inventory, analysis of need, and capital facilities program is provided in the ~ 1992 City of Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan (also known as the Bremerton Water Plan) a~.O. pted by the W. ashington State Department of Health in 1993 and the B~emerton C!~ C0U. n. cil~in'~l.~,.9~4.:.i?he next~upd~t.e'0fthe:Bremerton Water Plan is required by 1999', 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities (a) Service Area The Utility services approximately 58,000 residents in Bremerton (38,000) and portions of Kitsap County (20,000), including the Gorst area and the western portion of the Manette Peninsula. The service area includes the Olympic View Industrial Park and the Bremerton National Airport. The Utility also is under contract to provide water to the Tracyton and Rocky Point Water Districts. In addition, the Utility contracts to supply water to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) and to the City of Port Orchard. The current service area includes approximately 5,300 acres Within the Bremerton City limits, - ................. and approximately 6,800 acres within unincorporated Kitsap County. (See Figure CF-8 "Bremerton Water Plan Service Map".) ........ th~ ........................................................... The Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan contains an Interlocal Agreement for Establishing Water Utility Service Area Boundaries, but this agreement has not yet been submitted by Bremerton. (b) Facilities/Water Rights The City of Bremerton Water Utility supply system consists of Union River Reservoir behind the Casad Dam, ~ 1~ wells, 204 miles of water pipe, fourteen pressure reducing stations, 16 water storage reservoirs, and 14 pump and booster stations. (Ta~Ie".~[/VA'?I) Approximately 60 percent of the supply comes from the 2,764 acre Union River watershed, which is 94- 9~8 percent owned and controlled by the City. Wells in four several lOCal aquifers supply groundwater to the system. Current average daily dernan'~i is" approximately 9 ~ million gallons per day (MGD). There are six pressure zones in the system: East (E) 240, E 398 E 490, West (VV) 256, W 440, and W 517. These zones are designated by the overflow elevations in Utility reservoirs. Bremerton's water supplies consist of 10,689 primary acre-feet (1,408 supplementary acre-feet) of groundwater and a firm yield from the Union River of 3.8 MGD. Instantaneous rights include 40 cubic feet per second (cfs) .(i~7,952 ~P~)~ on the Union River watershed and 6350 gallons per minute (gpm) Draft Capital Facilities Plan 8/11/97 Water - groundwater. All water in use by the City has been properly appropriated through certificates of water rights or claims. Historically used surface water claims are maintained for potential emergency and future use pending required treatment. (c) (d) Bremerton's Union River surface source is of such excellent quality that the City is currently approved by the State Department of Health to remain unfiltered. ~ Sources are disinfected with chlorine. The water system control and alarm is provided through a telemetry system. Updates to the telemetry system are p!a~@~di~o.['~_~!9~9~9~9!;.incl~ding conversion to radio telemetry. Operation staff are st,~.~[9 certified, and the system is operated in compliance with all federal and state regulations. (Table WA-l) Fire Flows The Utility is generally capable of meeting Kitsap County Ordinance fireflows, which are considered to be minimums for new construction. However the Bremerton Water Plan recommends that fireflows be designed to meet the significantly higher Insuran~ce Se~ices (ISO) S~andards. unde~ipeak:hOUrlyflOw ~~i~ minimum of ,.,, ~c,~n,,~ ~r ~q~ar~ :nc,, (~:,) (c.×:,~tir,~:~i~)~0'' P~i' (~ew mains) residual system pressure w..i~hOUtfire flows in water mains ~upp',y:,n; hydrants should be maintained to meet State Department of Health standards. Capacity The current capacity of the water system on anannu, a!ave[~ge is ~ct,.:cc~, ~.~, to 23.7 ,",",cD rs;,li2~'millron: gallons perday: (MGD):' The da!fy capacity of the system with groundwater sources only is 9-.-.+ 8:7 while the capacity with groundwater and surface sources at current hydraulic capability is 23.7 2~:~5 MGD. The capacity varies because the Union River is used to supply the average day demands of the system. The da~y SurfaCe supply can be varied between zero and 15.5 MGD as long as annual average ~ firm yield of ~ 3:8 MGD and water quality limits are not exceeded. Note that not all sources can be 'used to maximum capacity at the same time, due to limited hydraulic capacity of the transmission mains or water right conditions. ,~cr c×c,,":~',c, ~, ~cccmScr 1004 Draft Capital Facilities Plan Water · Table WA,1 Inventory of Capital Facilit!es: Water Supply Facilities f Address I Capacity Surface Water Hydraulic Capacity (ef~.MGD) Union River I Watershed 15.5 Surface Water Subtotal = 15.50 GrOundwater Capacity (gpm) 1. #2-R - Anderson Creek Well 2380 Anderson Hill Rd SW 800 2. #3 - Anderson Creek Well 2380 Anderson Hill Rd SW 400 3. #7- Anderson Creek Well 2731 State Highway 16 450 4. #8 - Anderson Creek Well 2651 State Highway 16 650 5. #9 - Bridle Ridge Well 318 NW Firway Lane 230 6. #13 -Vena Well 50 NE Vena Avenue 600 7. #14 - East Zone 240 Well 5853 Central Valley Road NE 270 8. #15 - Pistol Range Well 6581 W. Old Belfair Highway 150 9. #17 - Pistol Range Well 6581 W. Old Belfair Highway 760 10. #18 - Twin Lakes Well 8301 W. Old Belfair Highway 370 11. #19 - Golf Course Well 7061 W. Old Belfair Highway 300 12. #20- Twin Lakes Well 8301 W. Old Belfair Highway 1,100 13. #21 - Silverdale Mobile Home Estates Well 903 NE Saturn Lane (500) (pending application) Fotura production = 14. Gorst Well (pending application) Old Belfair Highway (400) Future production = Current Groundwater Sub-Total (gpm) = 6,080.00 Current Groundwater Sub-Total (MGD) = 8.7 Tsta', Watcr S'JF, ply {,',',CD) :PUmp stati°ns: ~ : : i pumping,: CaPaCity (gpm) 15. PS #1 - Gorst Creek {emergency supply only) Betfair Valley Road - Gorst Creek 16. PS #2 -Anderson Creek 2380 Anderson Hill Road 2,250 17. PS #3 (not in use) 7061 Belfair Valley Road 400 18. PS #.4 1335 Jones St. (West Brem.) 800 19. PS #11 844 Callahan Drive 1,400 20. PS #12 3029 Olympus Drive 950 21. PS #13 2929 Olympus Drive 500 22. PS #14 2101 Schley Blvd 825 23. PS #16 50 NE Vena Ave 1,250 Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA - 3 8/11197 Water Table WA-1 Inventory of Capita[ Facilities: Water Supply Facilities Address Capacity 24. PS #17 ........ ~ ............... r, Old Belfair 1,500 Hwy Pump Station Sub-Total = 9,875.00 BooSter pump, Stations Pumping Capacity(gpm) 25. Booster Station #2 (backup only) 3201 Sixth Street 300 26. Booster Station #3 3000 17th Street 300 27. Booster Station #4 3301 First Street 100 28. Booster Station #5 589 Lebo Blvd 1,000 Booster Pump Stations Sub-Total = 1,700.00 Pump Stations Total = 11,575.00 ! :Rese'~'i~i:;~ R~wiwater: ! ":. :i: StOrage Capacity (MG) 29. Union River Reservoir Union River Watershed 1,350 31. Res. #22 McKenna Falls 0.1 32. Anderson Creek #1 - Abandoned Anderson Creek Watershed N/A 33. Anderson Creek #2 - Abandoned Anderson Creek Watershed N/A Reservoirs (Raw Water) Total = 1,350.10 Re~e~°irs :;i DistribUtion :' st°rage (MG) 34. Reservoir g4 4801 Roosevelt Bird 11.0 35, Reservoir #5 3200 First Street (Forest Ridge Park) 3.0 36. Reservoir #6 5144 Francis Street @ Eden Road 0.15 37. Reservoir #8 7300 Wemer Road 2.54 38. Reservoir #10 5785 Imperial Way SW, Pt. Orchard- 0.21 Port of Brem. Industrial Park 39. Reservoir #11 844 Callahan Drive 1.58 40. Reservoir #12 3029 Olympus Drive 2.0 41. Reservoir #13 2929 Olympus Drive 0.80 42. Reservoir #14 1628 Hayward Avenue @ E. 17th 2.0 43. Reservoir #15 1925 Cheryl Street @ Forest Ddve 1.0 44. Reservoir #16 260 Sugarpine - Tracyton Watershed 1.0 45. Reservoir #17 400 Ridge Lane NE @ Sandra Lane 1.0 46. Reservoir #18 1925 NE Cheryl Street @ Forest Dr. 1.0 47. Reservoir #19 2628 Ash Street @ Cherry Ave 2.0 Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA - 4 8/11/97 Water ' - :i 'i : TableWA;l Inventory of: Capital FacilitieS: Water Supply Facilities Address Capacity 48. Reservoir #20 400 Ridge Lane NE @ Sandra Lane 1.0 49. Reservoir ¢Y21 2132 Lakehurst Ddve - NAD Park 3.0 Distribution Reservoir Total = 33.28 :;i:~ansmissi'on Main PfPi:ng. Capacity (Feet) 12" ~,36~ Water Mains Various 201,148 .......................... 4 Transmission Main Piping = 201,148.00 . : Capacity(Feet) 12" Water Mains Various 1;21;1;729 ~0~t~ate~Mai'ns Varrous 43,945 8;~,Wate~;Mains VarioUs 387,816 6'~Wate~.M~[n~ various 411,758 ~ ~ate[ Mares Vadous 155,653 3 ~Wate~ Ma ns Vadous 14,533 2t~wate¢ Mains VadoUs 91,3~ Distribution Piping System Sub-Total = 1,211,729.00 Total Piping System = 1,412.877.00 Forecast of Future Needs (a) Existing Demand The average daily water system demand ~,-~ 19.93 wa~ 7.73 varies'depending on ~,t.~r~n~',d.,i~!9~;t!~,ia~.er~ge,s::abo,.,u~:;~.i! million gallons per day (MGD)~ Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA - 5 8/11/97 Water Year Average Day Demand (MGD} 199O 9.35 1991 8.71 1992 8.48 1993 7.73 1994 8.29 1995 7.89 1996 7.43 Approximately 3e 33 percent of the 1ooo average daily demand ~ comes from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the largest single water user. Approximately 78 percent of the water demand is "in-City" demand, and 22 percent is outside the city limits. Average day demand is affected by the year's rain patterns and other factors -- for example, 1993 was a wet summer, resulting in less outside water use. However, the highest peak day ever recorded was during unusually Iow temperatures in December 1990 when pipes broke and customers ran water to prevent pipes from freezing. In 1992, Seattle's drought response media campaign affected Bremerton customers' water use, even though our reservoir was not experiencing a drought (b) Level of Service (LOS) Standard The estimated 1990 LOS is 106 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The City's "Mod~.;~tc Conservation Program" is expected to reduce domestic unit consumption by 3% by 1995, to 103 gpcd and by 6% by year 2000, to 100 gpcd. Domestic unit demands are then expected to remain constant through the year 2014. · Current LOS = 106 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). · Recommended LOS = 100 GPCD. (c) Future Demand The Bremerton Water Plan identifies needs for a 20 year planning period from 1990 to 2010. During that time it is expected that supply capacity to meet typical maximum day demands (MDD) will increase frc,,m .... m:,:',:,o¢, ¢,;I',c~,; ............ ~,;-, 19.9o to 26.99 mgd by year 2010. (Table WA-2) The Water Plan demand projections were based on outdated population forecasts derived from a variety of sources, including past trends, the Kitsap County Department of Community Development, and the former Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). Although the projections were not based on the Kitsap Regional Planning Council (KRPC) population forecast and subarea allocations, the KRPC allocations fall within the Iow to high range used to forecast water system demand. Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA-6 c~)y 8/11/97 Water '- : Table WA,2 i . EXisting and potentialWater Supply Water Source Daily Supply (mgd) Annual Supply (ac-ft) Existing Sources 9.1 - 23.7 13,460 * 16,565 Potential Sources 11.0- 12.2 7,470 Total Sources 20.1 - 35.9 20,930 - 24,035 Source: Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan Table 8-7 it is projected that if pending water rights certificates are secured, then no additional sources will be needed to meet the total demand through the next six years. However. future water sources will need to be secured to meet anticipated demands beyond year 2000. (Table WA-3) Table WA-3 Future Need:: Water- ::; :-:':,?i ::.:.year:':-:: '" :" Demand (Population. in:City:County Service ~" .... · . J Area)- ' ' '1 Avg; Day Demand MGD -I-994 ~1;995:~ 60;185 9.74 1995-2000 (new) ERR 4.01 Total as of 2000 ?? 10.55 I 2000-2014 I ERR Total as of 2014 I 89,704 5.04 12.17 Sources: Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan. updated by Bremerton Water Utility ,~1995 demand from K!tsaP County Department of. Development Assumptions: 2000: Pop. X 103 gallons/capita + 3.2 MG for PSNS 2014: Pop. X 100 gallons/capita + 3.2 MG for PSNS 3. ProPosed Facility Improvements The Bremerton Water Plan recommends that an additional 0,7 mgd of groundwater supply should be developed by 1995 and a total of 1.4 mgd should be developed by year 2000. (Table WA-2) ~heCityh~.si~O:a.d~ditiO~a!'.~wel!s dri!l~.~a.~..ai.t, igg..water o~',~,ate~::dght~.i~iP P!~cat!~ns.?x. cep,t b,.n,d~r: The Water Plan concludes that existing distribution system is capable of meeting typical system demands. Improvements in transmission and distribution mains are necessary Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA-7 ¢::,~ ~ ~ 8/11/97 Water to improve flows and pressures in certain areas and to replace undersized or sub- standard facilities. (a) Water Quality Meeting strict Federal and State water quality standards is a primary objective of the City. Drinking water is regularly tested at the sources and in the distribution system. To continue to use the unfiltered Union River source, the City should continue to pursue either acquisition or controlling agreements over remaining private lands within the watershed, and should vigorously implement the Watershed Control Plan. Responsible operation of the entire water system is critical to maintaining compliance with the non-filtration status of the surface water treatment regulations. Even with these precautions, a drastic change in source quality or changes in regulations could require the City to provide filtration. Groundwater wells water quality will be ensured through a Wellhead Protection Program, t~ ~ implemented in 1996. (b) Storage w~- ..... pt' - ............................... StOrage needs :inClUde the E398 zone?.a'gd;:( the Industrial Park and Airport area, no additional storage is needed to meet current demand. Adding such storage is the responsibility of the Port of Bremerton. By year 2010 a total of 22.5 million gallons (MG) of system wide storage is expected to be required. The system currently has 34.3 MG of storage available, primarily in the lower elevation zones in the developed parts of the city. Prior to year 2010, additional storage will be required to serve two new West Bremerton zones south of Kitsap Lake (~6~.0.) and south of Gorst (~5~,0). Additional storage should also be provided north of the East Bremerton city limits (c) Distribution System West Bremerton industrial/commercial areas have good fireflow capacity. Toward Jackson Park, fireflow capacity meets Kitsap County guidelines but is less than ISO recommendations for multi-family residential housing. Several improvements are needed to improve fireflow capacity in the East 398 Zone, west of the Brownsville Highway. Changing the shape of this long narrow zone service area by trading the northern part of the zone of the North Perry Avenue Water District in exchange for an equivalent part of their service area east of the central East Bremerton service area may be an economical way to improve service to both areas. Pump station capacity will need to be added to serve new west zones south of Kitsap Lake and south of Gorst. The Utility should continue to routinely replace small sub-standard water mains. Initial replacement projects should concentrate on mitigating Iow-pressure problems in the Sherman Heights area. The existing telemetry and control system will require upgrading and Draft Capital Facilities Plan Water maintenance so the Utility can more efficiently control the water system. (d) Plans of Other Providers There are no other providers of potable water within the City. However, there are several nearby water districts, public utility districts and municipalities that may have interests in local surface and groundwater resources. These include: Silverdale Water District No. 16; North Perry Avenue Water District; Erland Point Water District; Sunnyslope Water District; City of Port Orchard Water District; and McCormick Woods development "' ................. ~cu;-,dc;-; .................. unclaimed area exists between the City Water Utility and the Erland Point Water District service areas. Unclaimed areas also exist south, east and west of the Utility's watershed. The Kitsap County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP), a regional water supply, transmission, and storage plan, ~ Was developed by the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) to comply with state law. The plan assesses water supply needs in Kitsap County and presents a program to provide water supply and service to users. The plan, expected to be r, doptcd approved.' by the State Department of Health ~r, ',cc5, provides a process and strategy for existing water utilities to define their role in a program consistent with adopted land use policies and projected growth strategy. 4. SiX-Year Financial Plan Under the proposed LOS it is projected that no additional water sources will be needed to meet the total demand through the next six years, providing water rights are secured on two wells which have already been drilled. ~.b'~i~y¢,"p.~y.,s!:.fOF capit~l;~,.facilit[e~ ,!;brough charges .for se ~ice, buta!so through T!mbe[ Sales an~bt~*~"ribn;te~ense;re~e pts;:,The, six,Year:financial p an f0r water faci itie's, isinclbded in Sect~on:,3,;of;,th~sCap~tal Facdlt~es Prog am. WATER97.CFP Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA - 9 8/11/97 Water 0 ~ ~.~ WAT~ C~ST. BREMERTON WATER PLAN SERVICE AREA MAP Figure CF-10 Water Plan Service Area Map Draft Capital Facilities Plan WA - 10 8/11/97 ' (New Section) 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Municipal The inventory of existing municipal facilities includes general purpose buildings and parking structures. (Table MB-I) a. Municipal Buildings The inventory of existing municipal buildings includes general city administrative and court offices. Buildings which house specific governmental functions that are connected with other capital facility planning areas (e.g. Fire and Emergency Medical Services and Law Enforcement) are included in those sections of the Capital Facilities Element. This inventory does not include Public Works & Utilities Administration or Parks & Recreation Department buildings, which are not addressed elsewhere in the CFP. b. Parking Structures The inventory of parking structures includes the underground City Hall parking beneath City Hall Park and the City Parking Garage. General Government (Sq. Ft.) 1. City Hall (1) 239 4th Street 31,915 2. Permit Center 286 4th Street 10,000 Total General Government = 41,915 Parking Structures (Parking Stalls) 1. Underground Parking (City Hall) 225 4th Street 2. Municipal Parking Garage 451 Washington Ave. 295 Total Parking Stalls = Notes: (1) City Hall sq.ft. = 39,000 s.f. minus 7,085 s.f. used for Law Enforcement. ** To be determined. Source: Public Works & Utilities Department, 7/97. Draft Capital Facilities Program MU-1 8/12/97 Municipal Buildings - 2. Forecast of Future Needs - Municipal a. Municipal Buildings (1) Existing Demand The need for municipal buildings can be roughly estimated by comparing the building area (square feet) to the population served. The City has 41,915 square feet of general purpose municipal buildings serving approximately 38,500 persons. (Table MB-2) (2) Level of Service (LOS) The current LOS for municipal buildings is based on the existing building inventory (sq.ff.) divided by the City's 1996 population (38,500). To continue the existing LOS, the City would need 3,457 additional square feet by year 2001. (Table MB-2) The proposed LOS is 64 sq. ft. per 1,000 population (8%) lower than the City's current LOS. The proposed LOS is based on an assumption that the City would be able to serve a larger population using a lower LOS if space could be used more efficiently.~ (Table MB-3) · Existing LOS: 1,089 sq. ft. per 1,000 population (1.088701 per capita) · Proposed LOS: 1,025 sq.ft, per 1,000 population (1.025 per capita) ~ Level of Service for Administrative Facilities: "As communities grow, they generally must add staff and acquire equipment to handle the additional workload. As a result, they will probably need additional space to house new staff and equipment. Many city administration offices are crowded compared to their private sector counterparts. For instance, Urban Land Institute 1988 date shows a national-wide average of 347 square feet per employee. A 1988 Building Owner and managers survey on office space reports that employees in a production office enjoyed an average of 305 sq. ft. while those in a headquarters office on the average occupied 374 sq. ft. Note that these averages include accessory space such as restrooms, hallways and conference rooms (Macheski, 1991). A mini survey of comparable-sized cities conducted by Bainbridge Island found space per employee ratios ranging from 75 to 210 sq. ft. per employee. A committee conducting an analysis of Bainbridge Island's administrative office concluding that office space equalling 1149 sq. ft. per 1000 population and 365 sq ft per employee should be provided. These recommendations covered space for city hall, police and public works functions. Because city halls often serve as community centers in addition to housing office functions, the need for public meeting facilities may increase the amount of space needed per employee. (Level of Service Standards: Measures for Maintaining the Quality of Life, Municipal Research Services Center of Washington, September 1994, Report No. 31, pg. 89) Draft Capital Facilities Program MU-2 ,c~/¢ 8/12/97 Municipal Buildings -- Table MB,2 Future Needs Analysis: Municipal Buildings Current LOs = 1,089 square feet per 1,000 population (1 ) (2) : (3) (4) (5) Time. pedod City population Sq.ff: required @ Sq.ft. available Net reserve or 1.088701 per capita deficiency 1996 Actual 38,500 41,915 41,915 0 1996-2001: Growth 3,393 3,457 0 -3,457 Total as of 2001 41,893 45,372 41,91 5 -3,457 (3) Future Demand The projected population growth within the service area is for 3,393 new residents by 2001. (Table MB-3) (4) Need for Capital Facility Improvements The proposed LOS would require an additional 4,503 square feet of space by the year 2001. (Table MB-3) ::::::::::::::::::::::- :i.:LOS'c'apacityAnalYSiS:.MuniCipatAdministrative Offices .. ;~!!": ~'' ":; ;'; ~::': :: ~.!' ::i.;'.Pr0Posed Los = 1,025 square feet per 1,000 population ' ::"i:' :!:(:;i)i. ;:~. :'::.:::.;::i.' ::.:::;::'(2)ii:; ' ; (3) : (4) ' ' ~: ' : (5) : .Time'pedod:: .:::: 'City population Sq.E.;required @: Sq.ft. available .: Net:reserve- o r :: ; ;: :. ::. ::': 'i.::'..' 1.025 per capita. · ] : deflCfency 1997 Actual 38,500 39,463 41,915 2,453 1997-2002: Growth 3,393 3,478 (1,025) -4,503 Total as of 2001 41,893 42,940 42,940 0 Capacity projects: New City Hall Proposed Municipal Facilities a. Municipal Buildings (1) Plans of Other Providers No other agencies provide space that can be used for general municipal purposes. Draft Capital Facilities Program MU-3 8/12/97 Municipal Buildings - (2) Proposed Facilities The City conducted a preliminary facilities study in 1985 to consider the City's short-term and long-term facility needs. This study found that the City's existing facilities were generally inadequate to meet the City's current operating requirements, and that population growth would further increase facilities needs. The most critical needs identified at that time included: a substandard jail and crowded Municipal Court; dispersal of City administrative activities to various facilities; the quality of City Hall; and inadequate facilities for operational sections of Public Works. Several changes have been made since 1985, including closure of the jail, addition of the Permit Center, and construction of the new Oyster Bay Public Works & Utilities Operations Center. A follow-up Facilities Management Alternative Plans study was prepared in 1994 to help plan for near- to mid-term facilities needs for various City departments. Work on this study has been on hold, pending finalization of downtown waterfront redevelopment plans. Although the City does not expect to need additional capacity by 2001, the City recognizes that it needs to continue facilities planning to further consolidate activities and replace aging structures. Therefore, the City proposes to continue its on-going facilities study to focus on consolidation of City administrative functions, with the possible inclusion of courts and law enforcement functions, at one centralized site. If this can be done, the City expects that the effective level of service can be increased within the proposed LOS. Toward this end, the City is programming funds for replacement of City Hall, the Permit Center, and some or all of the facilities used by the Police Department (see Law Enforcement section) with once consolidated facility in 2002. b. Parking Structures (1) Existing Demand (To be completed) (2) Level of Service (LOS (To be completed) (3) Future Demand (To be completed) Draft Capital Facilities Program M U-4 8/12/97 Municipal Buildings (4) Need for Capital Facility Improvements The Sinclair Landing Association has determined a need for a large parking structure in conjunction with the proposed Sinclair Landing development in downtown Bremerton. The City has determined that completion of the Sinclair Landing Project is critical to the future of the City. For the project to be successful, adequate public parking will be necessary. Therefore, the City proposes to purchase from the developer the multi-story Sinclair Landing Parking Structure, which will serve the owners, employees and customers of the Sinclair Landing Project including the multi-modal transportation center. 3. Six-Year Financial Plan The six-year financial plan for municipal buildings is included in Section J of this CFP. MUNI97.CFP Draft Capital Facilities Program MU-5 8/12J97 Municipal Buildings 1! Figure CF-11 Location of Municipal Buildings Draft Capital Facilities Program MU-6 8/12/97 J. Six-Year Finance Program 1. Introduction A six-year finance program for capital facilities is one of the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The six-year finance program for all capital facilities addressed in this Capital Facilities Program (CFP) is consolidated into this section. Under the City's annual comprehensive plan review process, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and CFP are developed together by City staff. Both are based on the various plans for transportation, sewer, water, etc., which in turn are based on the City's Land Use Element. 2. Projected Revenue and Expenses The tables in this six-year finance program are excerpted from the summary tables of the CIP. Additional details are contained in the body of the CIP. The contents of the tables are as follows: Summaries Page · Total CIP 9 · Water 10 · Wastewater 12 · Storm Water 14 · Transportation 15 · Engineering 16 · Parks 17 · Golf 19 · General Fund 20 · Other Funds 21 Sources of Fundinq · Parks and General Government Projects 24 Plans for Other Agencies · Bremerton School District 25 Draft Capital Facilities Program FP -1 8/14/97 ~MFJ~TON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGR, 1git - 2~2 PROGRAM SUMMARY - TOTAL ClP PRIOR 1997 lgg8 1 ggg 2000 ~X~i 2002 SOURCES OF FUNDS General Gov~mme~al 8~Z0 lg0.8 ~.2 4~.8 ~.5 ~.7 ~.7 ~ - CDBG 0.0 1~.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 G~ - ~ 0.0 314.9 3,8~.0 419.0 ~.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 0.0 1~.0 70.0 1~.0 ~.0 ~.0 ~.0 G, O, ~- V~ 314.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,~.0 0.0 0.0 P~ ~ ~ 0.0 ~.0 O.O 0.0 0.0 ~.0 0.0 ~~~7 0.0 ~.0 113.0 11~.0 119.0 1~.0 4~.0 TIB(UATA) 1,~Z5 Z~ 3,~.5 1~.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 ~.0 176.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDQT ~4.5 ~.0 ~.0 1 ~.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 N~W 0.O 0.0 O.O O.0 0.0 B.0 0.0 S~ V~ 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 JlNFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IFACILITIES PROJECTS J EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES IGP, AND TOTAL IDIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES 5.~5.s 1!2,~.5 115,575.5 121,881.5 1 ~,9~.0 1 4,954.0 I 6,363.0 2,930.5 I 3,516.6 J S,1~.21 4,~.S ]~0,~.0 I ~.5 !,~,~.0 '~.S I ~,~7.~ ~ ~,~d.3 I ~,~'~ I ~,~.3 ! ~,~'~ I ~0.01 ,,~.S 117,~3 .[ ~,~.0 J 27,~.1' [ 18,~.3 I 6,~.1 J lS,~.O 375~ ~.6 ~.0 2,~.6 1' ~.0 ' 41.0 ~ CIT"' '~F BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM SUMMARY . WATER -- PRIOR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2~1 2002! SOURCES OF FUNDS General ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grar~ - CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gmnt~ - Oth~ 0.0 0.0 2,835.0 315.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wat~ 198.0 1,899.5 3,070.5 5,188.0 3,790.0 2,555.0 1 Wastewate~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St~mwat~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds - Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds: Non-Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Bon~. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arte~l 8tr~ 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Real Estate Exct~ Tax 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Par~ Capital Facility 112 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pendet~,__. Park 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gold Mtn G~ Course 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip, Rental Rese~ 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roosevelt Capital Asse* 622 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TIS(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAU$ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County/Slate/Fed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Navy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 St~ee~ Vacation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 TOTAL SOURCES 198.0 1,899.5 5,905.5 5,503.0 3,790.0 2,555.0 1,460.0 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN98WA01 WATER SYSTEM FLUORIDATION 54.5 300.5 UTILWA18 SR ~t3 TRANSMISSION MAIN SYSTEM IMPROVEME 25.0 50.0 2,500.0 2,000.0 UTILWA27 PUMP STA '14 REPLACEMENT & 12" TRANS. MAIN I I I I 60'01 ~40'0 I UTILWA23 E396 ZONE TRANSMISSION MAIN & STORAGE 75.0 103.0 930.0 UTILWA" WARREN AVENUE BRIDGE MAIN 1200'01 I I I I IN97WA01 12" DIST. WATER MAIN- SHOREWOOD DR TO RES 10.0 210.0 UTILWA51 WEST 540 ZONE DEVELOPMENT I 210'01 20'01 1'000'01 2,133'01 UTILWA47 WEST 650 ZONE DEVELOPMENT I 23o.o I I 1,ooo.o I I I UTILWA48 RESERVOIR SEISMIC IMPROVEMENTS I 40.0 I 200.0 J I 240.0 I 240.0 I 110.0 UTILWA84 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM I 250.0 I 250.0 I 250.0 I 250.0 I 250.0 I 250.0 UTILWA2 SILVERDALE MOBILE ESTATES WELL · 75 0 UTILWA45 DOMSEAWELL DEVELOPMENT 90.0 UTILWA72 PINE RD. MCWILLIAMS TO WELL 21 27.0 1 ~:).0 UTILWA21 36" MAIN EXTENSION I i I I I 295'0 I I'0(X:L0 I SUB-TOTAl 35.0 1,599.5 5,130.5 4,858.0 3,665.0 2,230.0 1,360.0 FA97~/VA01 UTILWA82 FA98WA01 FA98WA02 FA97WA03 CASAD DAM EARLY WARNING DETERIORATED METERS UPGRADE PROGRAM OYSTER BAY 'LAY DOWN' YARD CASAD DAM INTAKE TOWER SEISMIC UPGRADE RESERVOIR 1~4 COVER SUB-TOTAL FACILITIES PROJECTS 26.0 I 175.0 I 315.0 I 855.0 I 125.0 I 325.0 I 100'01 C' ' OF BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO(3=AM 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM S U M MARY . WATER - PRIOR I 1~71 ~.( lg~l ~ol mil EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES SUB-TOTAL I 137'01 125.0 I 125.0 I 125.0 J 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I [GRAND TOTAL [DIFFERENCE SOURCES LESS USES 19a.01 ~,8~.5 l s,570.51 5,53~.01 3,790.01 2,555.01 1,4~0,01 o.ol o.ol ~5.o1 (~5.o)1 o.ol o.ol o.ol // C[ )F BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PR(:X2 ',t 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM ~ SUMMARY - WASTEWATER PRIOR 1997! 1~:~8~ 1999 2000 2001 2002! SOURgI~ Q~= FUNDS Generai Governmental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants - CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grant~ - Other 0.0 0.0 104.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Watm' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wastewatm' 6,8&4.5 2,889.5 3,269.0 1,705.0 1,634.0 1,743.0 4,943,0 Stormwate~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds - vo(ed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bomis: NomVoted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Bor~ls. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arterial Stre~ 101 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Real Estate Excisa Tax 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parks Capital Facility 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pendergast Pad( 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gold Mtn Golf Course 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip. Rental Reserve 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roosevelt Capital Asse( 622 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TIB(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County/State/Fed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Naw 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Street Vacaflc~ 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 3,100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 6,884.5 5,989,5 3,373.0 1,705.0 1,634.0 1,743.0 4,943.0 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN97WVV ANDERSON COVE BASIN CSO SEPARATION PROJ 30.0 35.0 115.0 755.0 764.0 758.0 IN98W%'V CSO DETENTION STRUCTURES 250.0 250.0 250.0 UTILWW CALLOW AVENUE DRAINAGE BASIN CSO PROJ 3,522.0 4,0'35.0 2,059.0 400.0 3,7~0.0 IN97WW WERNER ROAD SEWER EXTENSION 104.0 UTILWW SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 1(;O.0 2:20.0 220.0 Z20.0 220.0 220.0 220.0 IN98VVW INVERTED SIPHON ISOLATION VALVES 15.0 100.0 UTILWW OYSTER BAY BASIN INTERCEPTOR 23.0 50.0 503.0 IN98VVVV PORT WASHINGTON NARROWS INVERTED SIPHON 230.0 i 'SUB-TOTAL [ 3,675.0 4,290.0 2,763.0 1,325.0 1,234.0 1,428.0 4,743.0 FACILITIES PROJECTS UTILWVV PUMP STATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 339.5 16-4.5 160.0 160.0 160.0 275.0 FA97VVW WVV'I'P PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS 1,080.0 UTtLWW WWTP FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 25.0 80,0 UTILWW NEW ROOF ON CONTROL BUILDING 15.0 UTILVVW WVV'TP ODOR CONTROL & HE.ADWORKS MODIFIC 2,565.0 200.0 SUB-TOTAL 2,904.5 1,444.5 200.0 240.0 160.0 275.0 160.0 EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES UTILWW TELEPHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE 10.0 ~UTILWW VIBRATION ANALYSIS PACKAGE 15.0 EQ98W EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY :20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 UTILWW DIGESTER RENOVATION 60.0 UTILVVVV SCADA SYSTEM AND CONTROLS 250.0 150.0 150.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 UTILVVVV VEHICLE PURCHASE 55.0 20.0 UTILWW AUTOMATIC POWER SWITCH GEAR 50.0 EQ98W WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS MANAGEMENT 170.0 UTILWW METHANE BOILER J 50.0 UT1LWW I BUBBLE TYPE DIFFUSERS IN THE AERATION BASIN 20.0 200.0 I SUB-TOTAL I 305.0 255,0 410.0 140.0 240.0 40.0 40.0 IGRAND TOTAL IOIFFERENCE SOURCES LESS USES ' OF BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO '~,M 19S7 - 2002 PROGRAM 6,884.5 I 5,989.5 I 3,373.0 1,705.0 ) 1,634.0 I 1,743.0 4,943.0 I o.oi o.ot o.o I o.ol o.ol o.ol o.ol C DF BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PR(:Y M ~ 1997 - 2002 PROGRA, M -- SUMMARY - STORM WATER PRIOR 19<J7 199~1 1999 2000 21:X31 2002 SOURCES OF FUNDS ~ C, mvemmental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grar~ - CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grar~ - Oth~ 0.0 0.0 430.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wa~tewate~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stormwatm' 0.0 128.0 70.0 150.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 G.O. Bo~"~s - Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. B<~:~: No~-Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Bonds. 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ArteriaJ Sffee~ 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Re~d Estate Excise Tax 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Park~ Capitai Facility 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pendergast Park 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gold Mtn G<~ Course 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip. Rental Reserve 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R(x~veit Capital As,et 6'22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 TI B(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 ISTEA. 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County/State/Fed (EDA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Navy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8tree~ Vacation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Older 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 0.0 128.0 500.0 150.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS I o.ol .128.oI ..sco.oI ,~.o I 6o.o I ~.°l ~-°l t o.ol o.ol o.ol o.ol o.ol o.ol o.ol I STORM01 JKEAN STREET/ROGERS STREET STORM DRAINAGE [GRAND TOTAL IDIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES Ct'* _ ..F BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO(;[ 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM SUMMARY - TRANSPORTATION PRIOR 1997 19~I lg~ ~ 2001 2002 ISOURCES OF FUNDS ~ Go--merit31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grant,, - CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G~-ant~ - Oth~ 0.0 0.0 260.0 104.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wat~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wast~t~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stcw'mwat~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bor~ - Vo~ed 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds: Non-Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rav~ Bonds. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Artedai Stre~ 101 157.6 401.7 3,q6.0 329.5 263.0 160.0 150.0 Real Estate E.xctsa Tax 109 0.0 0.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Par~ Capital Facility 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pendergast Park 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ Mtn Gofl' Cour~ 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip. Re~tal Re~,~e 510 0.0 0.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R~it Capi~l A~se( 622 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T1B 1,252.5 2,965.2 3,556.5 1,250.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 64.0 176.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 624.5 338.0 200.0 159.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 45.4 2,839.1 2,196.5 1,077.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County/State/Fed 166.5 135.0 220.0 235,5 133.0 10.0 0.0 Navy 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Street VacatJ~ 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oth~ 8.5 143.7 239.0 18.5 40.0 275.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 2,263.5 6,822.7 7,132.0 3,350.9 436.0 445.0 150.0 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TRANS4 ISYLVAN WAY OVERLAY - OLYMPUS TO WHEATON I 20.0 TRANS8 IKITSAP WAY RECONSTRUCT- WESLON TO AUTOI 55.0 8~)'" T~NS5 IWARREN AVENUE SOUTHBOUND OFF~P TO CAL~HAN T~N~ JSR~ CORRIDOR - ~JOR INVESTMENT STUDY IN~S011AUTO CENTER ~, BRUEN AVE TO SR3 SB ON ~MP ~.0 ~.0 SUBTOTAL m 2,283.5m 6,8~., 7~132.0 5,478.5 1,9~.0 1,186.0 1~.0 IGRANDTOTAL '2,283.51 8,822.7J 7,132.0I 5,478.5 J 1,g30.0I 1,~86.0 I 150'0l OIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES I (20.0,,)[ "' 0.0I 0.0I (2,!27.6)1 (1,494.0>l (741.0)1 0.0 I CITY c- ~REMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRA}' lg~7 - 200~Z PROGRAM SUM MARY - ENGINEERING PRIOR 1997 1998 lggg 2000 2001 2002 ~OURCES OF FUNDS Gene~l Governmental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants. CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants - Other 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wate~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wastewater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SIom'~atsr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds - Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O, Bonds: Non-Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Bonds. 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arterial Stree{ 101 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Real Estate Excise Tax 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parks Capita( Facility 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pendergast Park 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gold Mtn Golf Course 407 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip. Rental Reserve 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roosev~ Capital Asea{ 622 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TIB(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County/State/Fed 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Navy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stree{ Vacation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EQ98AS01 RADAR SUB-TOTAL SPEED NOTIFICATION TRAILER EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES IGRAND TOTAL [DIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES I 0.01 15.91 0.01 0.01 o.oj 0.01 0.01 o.ol o.o[ o.o[ o.ol o.ol o.ol o.ol CITY c~ BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM lgg7 - 2002 PROGRAM -' SUMMARY - PARKS ~ PRIOR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 'SOURCES OF FUNDS Gel3e~l Govemmenlal 0.0 34.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants - CDBG 0.0 80.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Grant,, , Other 0.0 300.0 250.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 Wate~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Was~ewatef 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stomwvater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds - Vo~ed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,600.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds: No~q-V~ed 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Bo~'x:ls. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 550.0 Artedat Street 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Real Estate Excise Tax 109 0.0 327.0 154.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parks Capital Facility 112 0.0 88.0 96.0 148.0 275.5 99.0 102.0 Pendergast Park 308 0.0 30,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Go~ Mtn Golf Course 407 0.0 154.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip. Rea{al Rese~e 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roosevelt Cap~l As.se{ 622 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 300.0 0.0 150.0 TIB(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C.,mmlytState/Fed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Navy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Street Vacation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 870.0 33.0 17.0 50.0 TOTAL SOURCES 0.0 1,213.5 2,510.0 3,728.0 6,518.5 126.0 80'2.0 FACILITIES PROJECTS JFA97OF0 PICNIC TABLES & PARK BENCHES REPLACEMENT ~ARK17 RRIGATION PROJECTS BALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS UNIDENTIFIED & EMERGENCY PROJECTS GLEN JARSTAD AQUATIC CTR - ADA ADAPTATION MANETTE PARK- RESTROOM REHABILITATION PLAYGROUND EQUIP. REPAIR & REPLACEMENT LIONS PARK - TENNIS COURT REHAB WARREN AVENUE PLAYFIELD - RESTROOM & LIGHTING PENDERGAST PARK- UNIDENTIFIED & EMERG. PROJ. PURCHASE & DEVELOP HADDON SCHOOL SITE EVERGREEN PARK KJTSAP LAKE PARK- PARK BOAT/TRAILER SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER HVAC SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER - EXTERIOR PAINT & CARPET REPL. VARIOUS NECESSARY ADA IMPROVEMENTS LIONS PARK- DOCK REPAIR SHERIDAN RECREATION CTR - ELECT. UPGD PAT CARRY VISTA - SHORELINE REHABILITATION PENDERGAST REGIONAL PARK - LIGHTS PENDERGAST ERG. PARK FIELDS 4,5, & 8 CONST. 9TH STREET MINI-PARK - SHORELINE REHABILITATION GLEN JARSTAD AQUATIC CTR - ROOF REPAIR J JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER - PUBLIC ACCESS ENHANCE NAD PARK- DEMOLISH HOUSE, CREATE PICNIC AREA AVENUE PLAYFIELD J WARREN MANETTE - DEVELOP. - PLAYFIELD REHABILITATION BLUEBERRY PARK- DEVELOPMENT JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER - LOCKER ROOM IMP. GLEN JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER - FALSE CEILING GLEN JARSTAD AQUATIC CENTER - FAC. UPGD. ~A97OF2 NAD PARK- RESTROOM RENOVATION N.A.D. MARINE PARK - DEVELOPMENT PARKS & RECREATION COMMUNITY CENTER SENIOR CENTER - OFFICE & RECEPTION AREA EXPAN. CITY OF BREMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM '-' SUMMARY - PARKS -- PRIOR 1997 1998 1999; 2000 2001 2002 FAg7GF1 SENIOR CiT~ENS CENTER - ROOF 20.0 FA97OF2 LIONS FIELD - SHELTER 30.0 FA97OF2 REHAB TENNIS COURTS 10.0 FAg7OF2 LIONS FIELD - PARKING LOT RENOVATION 30.0 FA97OF1 KJTSAP LAKE PARK- PHASE III DESIGN 50.0 FA97OFI LENT LANE - MASTER PLAN - DEVELOPMENT 150.0 FA98OF0 PENDERGAST PARK PHASE III - RV CAMPGROUND 550.0 SUB-TOTAL 0.0 1,157.5 2,507.0 3,693.0 6,488.5 116.0 843.0 EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES EQ98PK0 PURCHASE TWO 15 PASSENGER VANS 30.0 EQ97GF0 GLEN JARSTAD AQ. CTR - CHEM DISINFECT. SYS 5.0 !EQgBPK0 PARKS MISCELLANEOUS 5.0 8.0 5.O EQ97OF0 GLEN JARSTAD AQ. CTR - WATER SLIDE 6.0 EQ97OF0 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT- INFIELD MACHINE 10.0 EQ97OF0 SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER - UPGRADES 3.0 12.0 4.0 EQg7GF~ PARKS & RECREATION COPY MACHINE 15.0 EQ97GF0~ GLEN JARSTAD AQ. CTR - DEHUM. SYS. REPAIPJUPGD. 30.0 EQg7GF0~ GLEN JARSTAD AQ. CTR - BOILER TUBE REPAIR I 10.0~ EQ98PKDI ADMINISTRATION - CHAIR AND TABLE REPLACEMENT 10.0 SUB-TOTAL 0.0 56.0 3.0 35.0 30.0 10.0 19.0 IGRAND TOTAL 0.0 1,213.5 2,510.0 3,728.0 6,518.5 126.0 862.0 IOIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I CITY OF BREMERTON CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM ~ SUMMARY - GOLF -- PRIOR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ' 2002 SOURCES QJ= J=UNDS Gertefal Governmental 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants - CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants - Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water 0.0 b.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wastewater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ston'nwater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bom:Is - Voted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bonds: NomVoted 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revef~ue Bonds. 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arterial Street 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Real Estate Excise Tax 10g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parks Capital Facil~ 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Per~dergast Park 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 c_-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-~d Mtn Golf Course 407 0.0 509.0 113.0 116.0 119.0 123.0 427.0 Equip. Rental Reserve 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R__r~c,~e__velt Capital Asse~ 622 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TIB(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County/State/Fed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Navy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Stree[ Vacation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 0.0 509.0 2,113.0 116.0 119.0 123.0 427.0 FACILITIES PROJECTS FA98PK0 JGOLD MTN GOLF COURSE - PARKJNG LOT EXP. I FA97OFI IGOLD MTN GOLF COURSE-NEW CLUB HOUSE . FA97OF1 ~GOLD MTN GOLF COURSE- TEMP. CART STORAGE FABBOF0 IgOLDsuB-TOTAL' MTN GOLF COURSE-AMPH. THEATER I 20.0 300 0 JEQ97oF0JGOLD SUB-TOTAL JGRAND TOTAL EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES MTN GOLF COURSE-ANNUAL REPL OF CAP. EQ. J 109.0 113.0 116.0J 119.01 12.01 127.0I J 0.0J 109.0 113.0 116.0J 119.0J 123.0j 127.0 JDIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES J O.OJ 509.0J 2,113.0[ 116.0J ~19.0J l=a.oJ 427.01 I o.ol o.ol o.ol o.oI o.ol o.ot o.ol CITY ("- %R. EMERTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRA~ 1997 - 2002 PROGRAM -__ SUMMARY - GENERAL FUND PRIOR 1997' 1998i 1999 2000 2001 2002 SOURCES OF FUNDS ~ ~ 6'2.0 148.0 358.2 426.8 327.6 403.7 205.7 Gtar~ - CDBG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grants - Oth~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wat~ 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 23.5 1.3 1.3 Wastewater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 St~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bond~ - Vo~ed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bond~: Non-Vo~ed 234.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Revenue Bom:~. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Attedal SIr~ 101 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Real Estate ~ Tax 109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parks Cap~ F~ility 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 Pendetg~t Pad( 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G<~ M~I Golf ~ 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Equip. RmtaJ Re~erve 510 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roo,e,,~.Cap~ ~ 622 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TIB(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coun~/IStata/Fed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HaW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Strae~ Vacation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 296.5 148.0 359.5 430.1 365.1 405.0 207.0 FACILITIES PROJECTS FA97GF1 IFAClLITIES PLAN FA97GF0 AIR CONDITIONING FOR FIRE STATIONS 2 & 3 FA97GF1 PAINT F RE STATIONS 2 & 3 SUB-TOTAL I =s'°l 125'21 1~'51 ~'51 125'°1 =-°1 EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES POLICE1 PATROL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE 75.0I 125.0I 125.0I 125.0 I 125.0 I 155.0 GENSAT ICOMPUTERS I 215.5 1 1:~.o I I I I I PSFIRE31DEVELOP & IMPLEMENT EMERGENCY OPER. CTR. I I I 10.0 I I I I EQ98GF0~REPLACEMENT OF FIRE HOSE I I I 10.0 I I 10.0 I I 10.0 PSFIRE1 [COMMERCIAL WASHER/DRYER J I I 11.5 1 I I I POLICE 4{MOBILE DATA TERMINALS I I t 3~'81 :~'sl 40'61 42'71 EQ98GF01COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES I I I 40.0 1 40.0 1 ~.o I ~o.o I ~o.o PSFIRE1 ~EMERGENCY GENERATORS- FIRE STA 2 & 3 I I I I 17.0 I I I PSFIRF_.21RADIO EQUIPMENTUPOATE I I I I 51.o I I I EQg7GFO~SURVEY EQUIP. PURCHASES- ENGINEERING DIV.[ I I I I 28,01 I PSFIRE21LIFE-PAKCARDIAC MONITOR/DEFIBRILATOR I' I ' I I I I 12.o I EQ97GF01FURNISHINGS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBER I I I I I I 6.8 I EQ98GF01REPLACEMENTOFSCBABREATHINGAPPARATUSI I'I I I 'l SUB-TOTAL I 215.5 I 204.0 I 233.3 I 271.6 I ~3.6 I 266.5 I 1~.0 IGRANOTOTAL I 215'512~'01 359.5J~.1I 3r~5.1I '~5.0]207,0J IDIFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES J 81.0 I(6~.0)1 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 ! 0.0 I 0.0 CiTY '" BREMERTON CAPITA/. IMPROVEMENT FR(:X2R)' ' l~T - 2OO2 PROGRAM SUMMARY. OTHER FUND~ PRIOR 1997 1~ 1999 2000 2001 2002 SOURCES OF FUND~ ~ Governmen~ 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 ~ - CDBG 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ - ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wa~tewat~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. ~ - Vo~cl 314.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G.O. Bon~: No~-Vo~ed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,500.0 0.0 0.0 Rescue Bo~d~. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,0(X3.0 0.0 0.0 , 10,000.0 Arterial Street 101 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rea~ Estate ~ Tax 109 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 1,050,0 50.0 50.0 Parl~ Cai~tai Faciaty 112 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pe~le~g~t Pa~k 308 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gold Mtn Golf Coume ~07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Equip. Rental Re.rye 510 0.0 35Z3 926,0 48~.5 660.7 658.1 239.0 Roeaevelt Capital ~ 822 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TIB(UATA) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAUS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WSDOT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ISTEA. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CountylStata/Fed O.O O.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Navy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Street V__ _~ca~_ _ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Othe~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL SOURCES 314.8 470.6 976.0 10,538.5 4,210.7 708.1 10,2,89.0 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN97OF0 ICONTINGENCY FOR UNID. INFRASTRUCT. PROJEJTS IN97OF0 ~TRAFFIC CALMING & SAFETY DEVICES IN98GF0 IADA CURB CUT PROGRAM INgBPK02~ILLAHEE TRUST LANDS-PURCHASE SUB-TOTAL 0.0 12.0 10,000.0 , 14~.3 50.0 10,050.0 5070 50.0 50.0 FACILmES PROJECTS I PSFIRE1 IFIRE DRILL TOWER FA~OFOIN~/CITY I'~LL FA98OFOISINCLAIR LANDING PARKING STRUCTURE ! SUBTOTAL 0.0 314.6 0.0 0.0 3,500.0 0.0 10,000.0 EQUIPMENT & VEHICLES SUB-TOTAL I 0.0I 352.3 [ 9'2~.0 I 488.5 [ 560.7 I 658.1 I 239.0 - IGRAND TOTAL I 0.0 I' 785.2 I 976.0 I 10.535.5 i 4,210.7 I 708.1 I 10.2~.0 I IOlFFERENCES SOURCES LESS USES I 314.sl (314.6)! 0.0'1 0.01 0.01 0.0I' 0.01 l~J? l~J~ l~..~ 20o0 2001 GENE~tAI~ FUND FUND 00! ~,DA Cu~ C~ P~m 2.0 T~ Calmi~ m~ ~(~ de~c. S~ C~i~ HVAC 14.5 Adminls~ - Pur~a~ ~ 15 ~s~er ~ 15.0 Facil~ P~n ~.0 1 ~.2 1 ~.5 ~.5 1 ~.0 ~.0 C~ 1 ~.0 Pab.~ V~le Rep~e~ 75.0 1 ~.0 1 ~.0 1 ~.0 125.0 1 ~.0 O~e~p & Implem~ Emerg. Op. C~. 10.0 Rep~c~ of fire ~ 10.0 10.0 10.0 C~m~c~ Was~ 11.5 C~p~ T~h~l~ U~md~ ~.7 ~.7 ~.5 ~.7 ~.7 Em~e~ G~t~ Fire Sra. 2 & 3 17.0 Su~ EcmuIp. - E~ln~ D~si~ 7.0 Air C~i~ Fire S~ 2 & 3 12.0 6.0 LIf~Pak 10 C~c ~Oefib 12.0 Fumbles f~ C~ Cham~ 6.8 Pal~ Fire Stal~ 2 & 3 7.5 R~lac~ of SCBA ~ea~l~ ap~mtus ~.0 ~VAI~BLE ~1.8 ~.0 ~.0 ~.0 2~.0 ~.0 NET THIS Y~R 0.0 F1.4 (~.2~ (37.0} (111.0) ~.3, NET CUMU~TIVE 0.0 ~1.41 [1~.6)' [197.61 PARKS CAPITAL ~=ACILITY FUND 112 lrricjation Projects 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Playground Equipment Repair & Replacement 15.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 8allfield Improvements 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Picnic Tables & Park Benches 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Unidentified & Emer(jenc~ Projects 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Misc. Equip. - Infield Machine 10.0 Lions Park o Tennis Court Rehab. 20.0 Parks Miscellaneous 5.0 8.0 5.0 Glen Jarstad Aq. Cb'. - Chem. System 5.0 Senior Citizens Center - Ul~lrades 3.0 12.0 4.0 Senior Center- F_xtericg Paintin(J & carpet replacement 5.0 5.0 Lions Park - Dock Repair 15.0 Pat Care), Vista - Shoreline Rehabilitation 25.0 Sheddan Recreation Center Elect. Up<~d. 15.0 Parks & RecresUon Cop), Machine 15.0 9th Slreet Mini-Park - Shoreline Rehabilitation 15.0 Jarstad Aquatic Center - Public Areas Enhancement 20.0 Glen Jarslad Aq. Cb'. - Roof Repair 30.0 ManeUe- Develop- Pla)'field Rehabilitation 150.0 Jarstad Aquatic Center - Locker Room Improvements 10.0 Glen Jambad Ac]. Cb'.- False Ceilincj Insp. & Rep. 10.0 Glen Jarstad Aquatic Center - Facility Upgrades 14.5 NAD Park Resb'oom Renovation 13.0 Glen Jarsted Aq. Cb'. - DebuT. System 30.0 Glen Jarstad Acm. Cir. - Boiler Tube ReDI. 10.0 Lions Field Shelter 13.0 Senior Citizens Cent~ - Office & Reception Area Expan. 13.0 Senior Citizen Cir. - Roof Repair 20.0 Parka Tennis Courts Resurfacing 10.0 Lions Park. Parking Lot Renovation 30.0 Administration - Chair & Table replacement I 0.0 AVAILABLE 88.0 74.0 165.2 265.5 194.6 256.0 1997 - 2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SOURC 1F FUNDING - PARKS AND GENERAL GOVEI:~IM~ PROJECTS · I ' 9971 , ' 9981 20o21 REAL ESTrRTE EXCISE TAX FUND 109 Infrastn. lcture Contin~enc~ 50.0 .50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Rdminlstratlon - Purchase two 15 passenger vans 15.0 Haddon School Site- Land Purchase 150.0 Haddon School Site - Development ,,225.0 Glen Jamtad A~I. CtS. - Water Slide 6.0 ' .': :;i:,':,:,~:':,$~:~:~:,~:~.~:~:::~:~: ~::~;i:i:i:~:~i~i:i:~:i~:i:i~:!:i:~!:~:;::i:i:i:i:i:~:iii~:~;:!:!:~:i:!~!:i:i::~::~::!::i:i:~::i:!:~::~:~:;~:~!:: ::;.<:~;:::;::;::*' * "~: ': :~ ::..".::::::~{~: ................ AVAILABLE 270.0 337.4 350.5 364.0 378.0 406.8 ROOSEVELT FIELI~ ASSETS FUND 922 Evergreen Park 435.0 NAD Park- Demolish h°use & create picnic area t00.0 Warren Avenue Pla)4ield 100.0 NAD Madne Park- D, evelopment 390.0 Lent Lane. Master Plan & Development 150.0 ~,VAILABLE 140.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 ~,O. BONOS: VOTED ..... Parks & Recreation Commun~ Center 5,600.0 G~ O. BONDS: NON-VOTED Pendergast Park - Lights for Athletic Fields 250.0 Pendergast Park Fields 4, 5 & 6 Construction 1,750.0 E~lueberry Park - Development 500.0 ~vergreen Park Project 2,000.0 REVENI~I.~ BONDS Pendergast Park Phase Ill - RV Campground 550.0. :I~N.COM BOND LE~VY Mobile Data Terminals 36.8 38.6 ' 40.6 42'.7 ,Radio Equipment Update 51.0 lAC .Evergreen Park 300.0 Pendergast Park - L~ht~ 250,0 NAD Marine Park 300.0 :)qNATIONSIMATCH/UNKNOWN Irflgatlon Projects 33.0 Lions Field Shelter 17.0 ~tsap Lake Park - Phase III Deaign ,,. 50.0 ~`~.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '"~'"~ .......... :'+;~:':+~':~:':' "' :: ~"'"'"" '"' ....... =========================================== .................................... :: .................................. :: .............. ::::::::::::::::::::: :,?.::::::::::.~ ............... ~,,:: !i~!!~!:i!~i~!O,O: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;::~!i!iii::iiii::iiiii::ii::ii~;O ~.~!~t ~;0 ~iiiiiiiii::i~ii::ii:.::iil;~!~;O;: CiTY OF BREMERTON 1997 - 2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SOURCES :UNDING. PARKS AND GENERAL GOVERNMEI~ OJECTS I 'm97! ~998! ~99~I ~ 2omi ~2!. BLOCK GRANT Glen Jarstad Aq. Cb'. ADA Adapt. 12.3 Traffic Calimln~l and safeb/devices 50.0 ADA Curb Cut Pro(jram 10.0 Various ADA Improvements 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Manetts Park- Restroom Rehabilitation 14.4 WarTen Pla~fleld - Rest~oom Rehab & pla)field lic. lhtin~ 23.9 Haddon School Site 29.4 O.O,E, GRANT Evergreen Park Project 870.0 OIL REBATE Radar Speed Notification Trailer 14.9 JTOTALREQUESTED I ~'S~'?I 2'764'21 4'206'81 S'~'~I S?~'71 ~'~'~1 Capital Projects and Financing Plan Table SC-13 presents Bremerton School's six-year plan for capital improvement projects, including sources of public money within the projected funding capacities that constitute the probable funding of District's capital improvement projects. In 1991, the voters of the Bremerton School District authorized a $17 million bond issue. That program is now complete. The District does not anticipate requesting additional voter authorization before 1998. The District uses a citizens review committee to identify future capital projects for recommendation to the District's Board of Directors. Table SC-13. Bremerton School District Capital Projects and Financing Plan ($000) Cost/Revenue 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Non-Capacity Proiect 1. Administration Building 1,350 1,350 2. Maintenance & 1,2B0 1,200 Transportation Building (Replacement) 3. Bremerton Junior High 15,000 15,000 (Replacement) 4. Olympic View Elementary (Replacement) 8,000 8,000 Total Cost 1,350 24,200 25,550 Local Funds* 1,350 1,350 Local Bond Funds 24,200 24,200 State Match Impact Fees 20. 20. 20. 20. 20 80. Total Revenues 1,370 20. 24,220 20. 20 20. 25,630 Balance 20. 20. 20. 20. 20 20. 80. *Local Funds include revenue from property leases and surplus property sales. Source: Bremerton School District The District anticipates only linfited eligibility for State matching funds. The actual receipt of state matching funds is difficult to predict because of state funding shortfalls. Impact fee revenue forecasts are consistent with past income from new residential development (the District has $2,888 in its Impact fee account at the beginning of 1997). cp fcitco.tim dx AGENDA BILL BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Dock in Oyster Bay Channel Appellant: Wright Location: 2000 Madrona Point Road DCD Files # APL97-0004 FOR AGENDA OF: Aug. 27, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Comm. Dev. ORIGINATOR: M.Mathes DATE SUBMITTED: 7/15/97 2. CLEARANCES: (Comment on back if necessary) 3. EXHIBITS: Director of Comm. Dev.: ~ 1 - Staff Report City Attorney: ,__~/~w.--~- 2 - Filing Form Fiscal/Budget Comm: -~UN/A QUASI-JUDICIAL Operations Comm: N/A QUASI-JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENT ~ INFORMATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR SUBMITTAL: 4. Sb~Y STATEMENT AND REQUIREMENT FOR COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council has been requested to conduct a public hearing to decide an appeal of a dock permit application determination of nonsignificance. The dock would be located behind a single family residence in the waterway channel between Oyster/Ostrich Bay. The City Council may agree with the decision or direct that a determination of significance or a mitigated determination of non-significance be issued. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Motion that City Council affirm the SEPA DNS decision. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL: EXPIRATION DATE: N/A Donald L. Pratt, AICP Judy Johnson, CBO 8. ASENDA BZnn NO.: BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL ' .~J~ 'NDA BILL (CONT.) - 9. CLEARANCE COMMENTS: 10. IMPACT OF NON-PASSAGE: A reversal SEPA decision option (to a DS) by City Council would delay the administrative decision on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit now being reviewed by the Dept. of Community Development as well as EIS preparation, which would be a substantial expense and schedule impact. 11. IMPACT ON STAFFING, BUDGETS, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT OR OTHER RESOURCES: 12. RESEARCH SOURCES: abgwrl, cc Bremerton Municipal Code, Chapter 21.02, 21.12 Bremerton Shoreline Master Program RCW 43.21C.075 197.11.680 WAC Project File DCD #SCU97-0003,SEP97-0009 Open Record Public Hearing Appeal - Richard Wright v. City of Bremerton and applicant, appealing to seek a finding of Determination of Significance, DCD File#APL97-0004 Staff Report Limited information from staffis provided at this time, for three (3) reasons - 1) The appeal action is against the City of Bremerton, lead agency for SEPA decision. Staff'expects to defend and rebut statements made by appellant at the public heating on August 27.2) The burden of proof is placed upon the applicant for a Substantial Shoreline Development Permit application, and that action requires the SEPA decision made by the City of Bremerton. 3) BMC 21.12.210 (a) (3) gives..." the city's responsible official.., substantial weight in any appeal proceeding.". It is advisable for no communications among City Council members, constituents and staffon appeal matters, which are subject to the city policy and state regulations for Appearance of Fairness doctrine. This may be difficult, given recent action taken by City Council on the general subject, since the subject property is located within the channel of Oyster/Ostrich Bays. The assigned staff contact is Matt Mathes. Appeal process questions should be directed to lan Sievers, City Attorney. Background Materials The materials following this page are a part of the public record, applicable to the August 27, 1997 public hearing. All materials are suitable to enter into the record on August 27, 1997. Richard Wright SEPA Appeal Filing Form - 4 pages SEPA Checklist - 22 Pages Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Form (JARPA) - 5 pages DNS Decision - April 23, 1997 - 1 page Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Denial - July 9, 1997 - 2 pages Memo -Ian Sievers to Don Pratt RE: Appeal Procedure - 1 page State Environmental Protection Act Rules selected paragraphs - 1 page BMC 21.12.200 - 2 pages Full copies of the SEPA Rules and Chapter 21 of Bremerton Municipal Code are available upon request to assist in your meeting preparations. Staff has included selected sections for ease of reference during discussion and decision making by City Council. As a clarification, City Council would be acting as "Decisionmaker" as defined by WAC 197-11-730 on August 27, 1997. (Your Mailing Address) (Telephone Number) / ITEM BEING APPEALED: -T'-~t-~ t~.~ F::'I ~/boc,/-_ Z~.f::PLI(_,~x-T'~ O Please provide a brief statement of the procedural action protested, together with material facts claimed to support your contentions. Use additional paper if necessary.. ~PP~O~-L. o ~ -Fkl~ Please provide a brief statement of the relief sought and the reasons why the Administrative Decision action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. Use additional pages if necessary. # DA. TE: ~"'- / (..,:2 - lc? ~ -7' ../~'- ,-~'-'~"J d .("~.,4.,,~,,/''.~ ~/"7 zZL. d &-~:? ,Z~--m' ~~. Appellant's Sign(a/ture (d Appeals will be scheduled to be heard before the Bremerton Planning Commission as soon as possible, allowing for adequate preparation and notice. You Mil receive written notification of the Commission heating date mailed to your address given above. The Planning Commission decision is the final legislative decision. ,.23 R~,d July 9, 1996 Appeal of the Reed DNS The Reed drawings show the 75 foot dock as being attached to the seaward end of a fixed pier. That fixed pier is shown as extending 38 feet into the channel; from a stone bulkhead. No figures are given for the possible encroachment of said stone bulkhead beyond OHWM. The proposed attachment of the floating dock to the existing pier is by means ora 36 inch wide ramp which is shown as being 16 feet to 18 feet in length on the Reed drawings. The DNS describes the proposal as being a floating dock which will extend 75 feet into the water. The prudent man would judge its point of origin as being at or near the OHWM. To increase the floating dock's perpendicular intrusion into the water by 67% or 50 feet as per the prints goes beyond the scope of acceptable variation from the DNS description of the proposal. These figures do not include the possible footage increases is said stone bulkhead is already seaward of the OHWM. On this information alone the DNS must be set aside and possibly revisited when the proponent's description of the proposal squares with the submitted bulkhead, dock, float paperwork. (submitted circa 3/27/97) The above states definitely that the proposal of Reed is in Foss opposition to the plans submitted for construction. Richard J Wright 16 May 1997 ,,73 ? APPEAL OF TIlE DETERMINATION OF NON SI~,;i-I1;'ICANCE Re: The REED PIZR / DOCK Application 16 May 1997 WAC 197-11-340 (3) (a) The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if [iii) "The DIMS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure;" "Original Private Use Pier": Reference Hydraulic Permit (28 August 1991) was for a 25 foot x 3 feet pier, to be built on the South Property line. The City ofBremerton (Allingham) advised that this project was SEPA exempt. This original pier is located in conflict with SMP Page 5-32 Side Yard Setbacks This original pier is located in violation of the setback required from Sewer Lines and Laterals. This original pier is sho;vn on the Reed Dock application drawings as being 38 feet in len~h - a disparity with original pier approved dimensions, and a width considerably in excess of the approved 3 feet.. It would appear to the casual observer that the City of Bremerton did not exhibit even rudimentary, surveillance, inspection or control over the Original Private Use Pier, and as a collateral consequence the Pier has been built in violation of City. requirements and standards; and as such should be deemed an ILLEGAL or NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. Latest proposal for a Joint Use Floating Dock: The NOTICEs, both Posted and Published refer to the structure as a 75 foot dock. This is misleading and a patent misstatement of relevant facts. The Reed drawings show the proposed structure as being 125 feet in leng-th. The NOTICEs, both Posted and Published misrepresented the location of the Reed project variously as being on Oyster Bay or Dyes Inlet or Ostrich Bay; apparently anywhere except on the narrow channel. This is another patent distortion of facts which could influence the casual reader. The Reed drawings do not show the height of the landward side of the Pier/Dock, and it is probable that this actual height is in excess of the 3 feet above OHWM as limited by SM]P page 5-31 paragraph 14 b HEIGHT. On Mr. Reed's Application For Substantial Development ........ presumably in order to qualify his project as a Joint Use pier/dock, he claims to have a recorded joint use and maintenance ageement and offering a license to use to several other local people. A prudent agent of the City government would verify these statements by Mr. Reed before they were considered as fact. The data entered by Mr. Reed on his Environmental Checklist are in significant variance with the descriptions on the Posted and Published NOTICEs, common knowledge, and with his submitted Plans. In general, the proposed Dock extension would be an improvement made to an illegal / nonconforming structure, and as such should be denied authority to build. Qther Environmental t~on$ilteration$: - Posted NOTICEs on the Jim Reed and Roger Nance properties were either defaced to the point of illegibility, or removed or knocked down and placed in a publicly invisible / inaccessible position. Tkis is similar to a Notice supposedly posted on the Holtz property, last year regarding the Abatement action brought against .Mr. Holtz./Ms Short. This latter notice was never reported as having been seen by any of the daily Madrona Point passing public; but the City had for some reason seen fit to take a photograph of the notice, in place. The photo shows that the notice was situated on the side fence of 1542 Madrona Point Drive, and approximately 10 feet inside private property. Not unexpectedly, this photograph in the City's files is the only example of such photographic "proof" of posting. Another notice in the neighborhood apparently escaped such vandalizing. This vandalizing of the posted notice deprived the casual citizen of knowledge of the pending action. A significant number of people in this areas believe that the Channel between Ostrich Bay and Oyster Bay is unique environment which deserves the protection of the City. (at least in consonance with and on a par with that accorded the owners of'Waterview" properties through the View Corridors); to be maintained in it's present natural and unobstructed form for the continuing benefit and enjoyment of all the people of the Puget Sound area. The entire Kitsap community delights in advertising its "Community Cohesiveness" and "Sense of Neighborhood' while soliciting city and county growth prospects - but the Bremerton Department of Community Development is now apparently willing to sacrifice such 'cohesiveness' and 'neighborhood' on the altar of "misguided Progress". People knowledgeable in Marine environments and safety believe that the proposed Reed pier/dock would present a ha?~ard to the increasingly large number of assorted watercraft which transit the Channel, and that the pier/dock exceeds the limits of prudence enumerated in the (ii t.DroJ Brcmcrto t 2.19 FOIJRTII STRIZET EK'ro~, WASHING'tON (~06) 478. 5252 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SErA RULES PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: "The State Environmenta,l Policy Act {SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental Impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must bo prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quallty of the enyironment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and tho agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid Impacts from the proposal, if It can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to 'describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are ,significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questton~ briefly, with the mout precise information known, or give the be~t de~cr[pt[on you can. You must answer each guention accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know' or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. Gateway to the Olytttp[c$ ~tn¢l tlo.te of the Pt,get Sou,rd Navel Ship?urd The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on dl£ferent parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The asency to which you submit this checklist ;nay ask you to explain your answers or pi'ovide additional information re~,uu,,ubly r~lated to detorllllllin~ If there may be significant adverso impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSAL: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complet~ the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project", "applicant" and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer," and "affected 8eosraphic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Name of applicant: Address and phone number of applicant a,~d c'ontact person: Date checklist prepared: 2 Agency requestin8 checklist:. o Proposed timin8 or schedule applicable): ( includin8 phasin8, if Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Do you know whether applications are pendin8 fop governmental approvals of other proposals directly affectin8 the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any 8overnment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Give brief, complete description of your proposal. [nclud[n~ the proposed u~es and the ~tze of th~ project and site. There are several questions later in this checkl [st that ask you to describe certain aspects of your }~ropoual. You do not need to on this pase. (Lead asencl~s may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description. ) Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, lncludin8 a street address, if any, and s~,ct~on, township, and ran6~, if known. If a propou~,L would occur over a ran~ of mr~, provide th~ range or boundarle~ of the site(s). }~rovide a le6al description, site plan, v~clnity map, and toposraph[c map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plahs required by the asency, you are not required to dupl~cate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1. EARTH a..JT~al description of the site (circle one): ollin8. hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, othe~ , What is the steepest slope on the site (apr[~oximate percent slope)? C o What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand. 8ravel, peat. muck)7 If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e o Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Could erosion occur as a result of clearin construction, or use? If so. generally describe. About what p.rcent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project conutructiol, (for e;~ample, asphalt or bulldinsu? Proposed mea~ures to reduce or control ~roFJlon. or other i~,~pacts to the earth, if any: Z. AI~ What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i,.e., dust. automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) durln8 construction and when the project is completed7 If any. ~enerally describe and 81ye approz[mate quantlttes If known. Are there any off-site sources of em~suions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so. 8enerally describe, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other Impacts to a[r, if any: 6 5) Does the proposal lie within a lO0-year floodplain7 If so, note location on the site plan. 6> Does the propor$al Involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters7 If so, de~3crJbe the type of waste and anticipated volume or d[acharse, b o Ground: Will ~sround water be withdrawn, or will water be dischar6ed to 6round water? Cive 8eneral description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe wa,lte material that will be discharEed into the 8'round From septic tanks or other sources, If any (for example: Domestic sewa6e; industrial, containin6 the followin8 chemicals...; asricultural; etc.). Describe the 6eneral s'ize of the system, the number o£ such system~, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. 8 Water Runoff (lncludin$ stormwater): Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (includin8 quantities. if known). Whore will this water flow? Will thlu water flow Into other waters? If so. describe. 2) Could waste materials enter 8round or surface wators? If so, generally describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface. 8round, and runoff water impacts, ir any: PLANTS Chock or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: other over,trion tree: other shrub8 grass pasture crop or 8rain wet soil plants: bulrush, skunk cabbage, other other typeu of vegetation alder, maple, aspen. fir. cedar, pino. cattail, buttercup. 9 b o What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? C o List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site. if any: ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: other: mammals: other: hawk. heron, eagle, songbirds, deer. bear. elk. beaver, fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b o List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 10 Is the site part of a migration route? so, explain. If d o Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: o ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas. oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs7 Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b o Would your pro3ect affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe: C o What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this' proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 1! ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b o Noise What' types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)'; 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)7 Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 12 Proposed m~nsures to reduce or control no i se lmpac.tp', if an),? 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE What is the current use of th~ sit~ and adjacent properties? - . Has the sit,, b~en used for asrlcultur~? so. describe. If Duucrlb~ uny ~tructurou on the ~lto. d o Viii any structures be demolished? what? SO, What is the current zonin6 classification of the site? What is the current comprehensive plan desisnation Rf the s 13 If applicable, what is the current shoreline master prosram desisnation of the site? h o Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k o Proposed measures to avoid or reduce dis- Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: HOUSING Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing, b o Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated. Indicated whether high. middle, or low-income housing. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing~acts, if any: 10. AESTHETICS a o What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s)· not including antennas; what is the principal exterior buildin8 mater iai (~)~roposed? What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? C o Proposed measures to reduce or control 15 i1. LIGHT AND GLARE a o What type of light or $1are will the proposal produce7 What time of day would it mainly occur7 Could l i6ht or 81are from the finished project ~e~ ~e~~a~ o~ ~.~e~e ~ ~e~ C · What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d o Proposed measures to reduce or control light and 81are impacts, if any: 12. RECREATION a o What desi.gnated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b o Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local -preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b o Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site, C · Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:~/~ 14. TRANSPORTATION Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Shown on site plans, i f any. b o Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?. C · tlow many p~rkinM ~.,pac~ would th~ compl,,tt, d project h~vo'Z l-low many would th~ project ~1 iminat~7 ~ Will the prol,o~al ruclUire any new ro~,do or ~tre~ts, or improvements to ~xi~tln8 or streets, not includin8 driveways? If so. 8eneral ly describe (.indicate whether public or private) . Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail. or air transportation? If so. 8enerally describe. How many vehicular trips per day would be 8enerated by the completed project? If known. Indicat~ whon peak volumes would occur. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: '1 5. PUULIC $I:I1V ICE$ Would the project result in an increaood need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care. schools, other)? If so, 8enerally describe. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 18 SUPPLEHENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very'general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? 2O Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: How would the proposal be likely to deplete enersy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: ~o b~ How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or. eligible or under study) for governmental protection: such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat. historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 21 How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, includin8 whether it would allow or encourase land or shoreline uses incompatible.with existin8 plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and la-nd use impacts are: How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: o Identify. if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 22 DETER~iINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: Construct a joint use recreational floating dock accessory to a single family residence which will extend 75 feet into Oyster Bay. Proponent: James Reed Location of Proposal: 2000 Madrona Point Drive Lead Agency: City of Bremerton The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the envirorunent. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review of a completed envirorimental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for at least 15 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by: May 8, 1997 Responsible Official: Matt Mathes Position/Title: Land Use Specialist Phone: (206) Address: 286 Fourth Street, Br~~ 983!0 Date: April 23, 199~ Signature: 478-5275 Appeals to the above determination must be made by May 18, 1997 to: Bremerton Planning Commission / City Council You should be prepared to make specific factual objections, in order to file a SEPA appeal. (Contact the Bremerton Planning Division for procedures for a SEPA appeal) " JOINT APPLICATION FOR PER 'TS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS UN-DER THE SHORELINE MA.NAGEMENT ACT STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENTS OF ECOLOGY, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS This is a joint application for the fotlowing permits required for working in or near waters, shorelines or wetlands: Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use or Variance Permii issued by Local Government, under the Shoreline Management Act, 90.58 RCW; Short Term Modification of Water Quality standards, issued by the Department of Ecology, under 90.48 RCW (excluding aquatic herbicide and pesticide application.s); Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife under 75.20 RCW; Section 401 Certification issued by the Department of Ecology under 33 USC § 1341 (excluding hydropower development); and Section 404 and Sectibn I0 Permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Enginee/~ under 33 USC §§ 401 and I344. PLEASE NOTE: Other permits may be required which are not covered by ti:is application form. SEt*A; L~ad .-~n~: '" ':" :':' Distributed to.R~.~iewing Agenci¢~ ~ ' k_J A,opticaat . ' .'l"[ Local Oovcrameat . .... : Additional Distribution: TO: ': .. ' ' :" : .' ]:: BY: :: i . . PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT Mailing Address Work Fax Number: Home Phone: 2. Authorized Agent Mailing Address Work Phone: ( ). Home Phone: ( Fax Number: ( ) o Designation of Authorized Agcnt, if applicable: I hereby designate to act as my agent in matters relat'ed to this application for permit(s). I understand that if a Federal permit is issued, I must sign the pcrmit. Signature of Applicant Date Form # JAR-P-1 Rev/Ned Date 2/94 Page 1 of 4. 4. Relatiomhip of appli~nt to ~-roperty: ~ Owner [] Purchaser [] l.~ssee $. Name, address, and phone number of property owner, ii' other than applicant: [] Other ( 5. Location where proposed activity ex-is~ or will occur. Name of local govt. ~-, ,' Street Address (if applicable):~,~DOC) ~'~dt_AC)Tr',Zk -,~ '~_C.) ~,'7~,~l'h(r'.'~i I~ ~5 I_,~ Shoreline Environment Designation: Zoning Designation: In or near city or town: c%n{y ~ State Zip Code Tax Parcel No.: 3~. "?'. {~ - UCO - US 0- ~ \ 1/4 1/4 Section Township Range rrent use of property with existing structures and/or improvement~: Describe the proposed activity, and the activity's purpose. Include method of construction, type of material, expected impacts to aquatic resources, and proposed actions to reduce the duration and severity of those impacts. If additional space is needed, use a separate sheet. 8. b. List all soil series located at project site, and indicate if any are on the county's list of hydric soils: Will rock, fill, bulkhead, pilings or other material be placed waterward of Ordinary. High Water Mark or .~ Line for fresh or tidal waters? Yes [] No i. If "yes," in fresh water indicate volume in cubic yards: ii. If"yes," in tidal waters, indicate volume in cubic yards waterward of the line of mean higher high · Will material be placed in wetlands? i. Type and composition of fill material (e.g.. sand. crc.): ii. Material source: ,NtI~ · Will proposed'activity-cause fl-ooding'or draining or' wetlands? Will excavation be required? No If yes. impacted area: []Yes ~No []Yes [~No If yes, impacted area: ~ If yes, volume: ~ (acres) .(acres) (cubic yards) i. Composition: - ii. Disposal site for excavated matcrial: -'-"-' iii. Method of dredging: -----' Page 2 of 4 ct. Will any structures be i. waterward of th~ Ordinary High Water Mark or Line for fresh or tidal waters? ,l~Yes [] No iL waterward of Mcan High Water Line in tidal waters? /k~Ye.s [] No 8..e. Estimated cost of the full proposal (fair market value): Preparation of drawings: One set of original or good qualin/ reproducible drawings must be attached to this application. NOTE: THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUIRES DRAWINGS ON 8-I/2 X 11 INCH SHEETS. See the instruction pamphlet for instructions and a checldist for completing the drawings. Applicants are encouraged to submit photographs of the project site, but these do not substitute for clrawings. Larger drawings may be required by other agencies. 9. Proposed Star~ing Date:P~'~0/~& ~dVP[2cXI~L.- Estimated duration of activity.: 10. If any portion of the activity has been completed, indicate month and year of completion: ~ t & Indicate the existing work on the drawings. List any future work for this site, not covered by this application: 11. For public notice purposes, provide names, addresses, and telephone numbers of adjoining property owners, lessees, etc., PLEASE NOTE: Shoreline management compliance may require additional notice -- consult your 1o~1 govern me n t. 12. List other appti.cations, approvals, or certifications from other Federal, state or local agencies for any structures, construction, discharges, or other activities described in thc application (i.e., preliminary plat approval, health district approval, building permit, SEPA review, FERC license. Forest Practices Application. etc.) Date of Issu (..1:5 {l::6t.--~ Tv, pc of Approval Identification No. Aovtication Date Avoroved 13. Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly related to the activity described herein? [] Yes ]~ No lfyes, explain: Page 3 of 4 14. Signature .of ApFff~Authortzed Agent (REQUIRED) Signature of Landowner (REQUIRED if other than applicant) This application must be signed by the applicant. at Item #3. 15. Copies of this application are being sent to: [] Local Government for: (check all that apply) [2~SDP [] Washington Department of Fisheries or Wildlife for HPA AppLication is hereby made i~... a permit or permits to authorize the active._.., described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake t.he proposed activities. I hereby grant to the~ _...--..agencies' to which this application is made, the right to enter the above-described location to inspect the prop~o~'~work. Date Dam If an authorized agent is to be designated, the applicant mast sign [] Conditional Use [] Variance [] Exemption [] Washington Department of Ecology for Short Term Modification to Water Quality Standards, and/or 401 Water Quality Certification for those Nation,v/de Permits listed in the instruction pamphlet j~ Corps Engineers for Section 404 or Section 10 permit(s) 18 U.$.C §1001 provide= that: Whoever, in any manner w/thin the juri..~liction o[ any department or agency of the United Statm ~O~nngly falsifies. conceals, or coven up by any tr/cl¢., scheme, or device a material fact or makea any faire, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or rcpre:'~cntation$ or make= or urea any false writing or document knowing ~me to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10.000 or impri~ned not more than $ ye. ara or both. DO NOT SEND FEDERAL PROCESSING FEE WITH APPLICATION A...: Nature of the ctisdng ahcrmlinc, (De:v='ibe type of shoreline, ~ch ~ ratine, ~mm. hkc, Ng~, ~h~ ~, swamp, ~ plain, fl~y, del~; ~ of ~c~ su~ as a~eti~ ~osion, high bank. ~w ~ or ~ke; ~t~al $u~ ~ ~nd, ~v~, mud, clay, r~ fip~p; and ~ent the event that any of the propoce, d buildings or xtructur= will exce~xd a height of thirty-f'me f,'"t above the average.grade level, indic, ate the aporox'imale location at' arm number of residential unil~, existing and potential, that will have an oNsllmcted ~ew:.. If the application involv, ez a-condit!on=l u..-e or variance. ~::t fomh in full that porliou o~ the master program which provides that the prr>po~ed ur,.e may be a conditional use, or. in the ca.q: of a variance, from which the variance is being Sought:" ' These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmativ~ Action employers. For special acconzmodation needs, please contact the appropriate agency from Appendix A. Page 4 or 4 --Certification of Consistency w_~ -the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program RE: Department of the Army Permit Application No. Applicant: Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (C~M) of 1972 as amended by 16 USC 1456(c)(3) requires the applicant for a Federal permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the Washington coastal zone to provide certification that the activity will comply with the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. The proposed activity described in your permit application is within the 15 coastal counties in Washington, and the following certification is required before your application can be processed to Public Notice. Upon receipt of the signed, dated certification, the Public Notice will be issued and will include the certification statement. The Public Notice will be forwarded to Washington Department of Ecology for its concurrence or objection. Please note, the Shoreline Permit determination process, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance, Water Quality, and Air Quality review must be completed prior to the Department of Ecology's determination of consistency. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the activity described in the Department of Army Permit Application dated _~' 2-'~~ ~? complies with the approved Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (CZ.M), and will be conducted in a manner consistent with that program. I have started the C2~M process by applying for my shoreline permit or letter of exemption from ..... -~ (city/county) on (date applied). Appl,icar~t/or Agent Print or Type Name and Title Please provide the following information about your Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. (If you have not yet applied, please explain in the "Remarks" section of this form.) Shorelines Permit Date applied Number assigned City/County Date approved* Date exempted* *Please provide a copy of the letter announcing the Shorelines decision. Remarks: NPS Form 1145-4 Jun 88 (Rev) RGBR/220 .~ (Replaces NPS Form 383) SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE Type of Action(s): x Permit No.: SCU97-0003 Administering Agency: City of Bremerton Date Application Received: 03-27-97 Approved: No Date: July 9, 1997 Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Variance Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby denied to: James Reed 2000 Madrona Point Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 to undertake the following development: Construct a 75 ft. Long private joint use recreational floating dock accessory to a single family residence within the tidal waters and waters of Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay Channel, upon the following property: S.W. 1/4 of Sec. 16, 3'. 24N., R. 1E., W.M. in Bremerton, Kitsap County, WA (2000 Madrona Point Drive) The project is within a shoreline of statewide significance (RCW 90.58.030). The project is located within an Urban Residential Environment: R-2, Ostrich Bay..West/Oy~ter Bay West. The following master program provisions were applicable to this development: SMP Chapter 5-29 Shoreline Use Policies and Regulations pertaining to "Water Access and Moorage Facilities". July 28, 1997 3:44 PM From: lar ':evers Page 1 of 1 MEMO To: F roln: Subject: Date: Don Pratt lan R. Sievers Appeal of tln'eshold determinations July 28. 1997 A second open record hearing is only allowed for appeal of a determination of signficance, but not a DNS or .MD_NS. RCW 36.70B.050. Apparently where there is a DNS appeal allo~ved by t}~e local jurisdiction, such as Bremerton. the open record appeal will ad&ess tl~e DNS firsL be]tore the appeal of the penni~ action. If it is upheld or can be modified to a MDNS. the hearing can proceed to the permit action thus avoiding delay in most cases..4_ DS is singled out ibr a preliminary open record appeal because complying u'ith the EIS to get to a permit decision would make a DS appeal moot in every case since the EIS has already been done. On a side note. we need to amend the SEPA ordinance. B_X[C 21.12.210 says you can file a DS appeal to the planning cmrunission, city council which is co~zfi~sing even without the regulatory reform issues. SEPA Rules WAC 197-11-722 Consolidated appeal. "Consoli- dated appeal" means the procedure requiring a person to file an agency appeal challenging both procedural and substantive compliance with SEPA at the same time, as provided under RCW 43.21C.075(3)(b) and the excep- tions therein. If an agency does not have an appeal pro- cedure for challenging either the agency's procedural or its substantive SEPA determinations, the appeal cannot be consolidated prior to any judicial review. The re- quirement for a consolidated appeal does not preclude agencies from bifurcating appeal proceedings and allow- ing different agency officials to hear different aspects of the appeal. (197-11-680). WAC 197-11-730 Decisionmaker. "Decisionmaker" means the agency official or officials who make the agency's decision on a proposal. The decisionmaker and responsible official are not necessarily synonymous, de- pending on the agency and its SEPA procedures (197- 11-906 and 197-I 1-910). WAC 197-11-732 Department. "Department" means the Washington state department of ecology. ~1[ WAC 197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). "Determination of nonsignificance" (DNS) means the written decision by the responsible official of the lead agency that a proposal is not likely to have a sio~nificant adverse environmental imp.act, and therefore an EIS is not required (197-11-310 and 197-11-340). The DNS form is in 197-11-970. WAC 197-11-766 Mitigated DNS. "Mitigate. DNS' means a DNS that includes mitigation measure and is issued as a result of the process specified in !97 11-350. WAC 197-11-768 Mitigation. "Mitigation" means: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking: certain action or parts of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree ¢ magnitude of the action and its implementation, by u: lng appropriate technology, or by taking affirmativ steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitatin.., or restoring the affected environment; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time b preservation and maintenance operations during the lif of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, en hancing, or providing substitute resources or environ ments; and/or (6) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriat corrective measures. WAC 197-11-782 Probable. 'Probable" means likelv or reasonably likely to occur, as in "a reasonable probability of more than a moderate e£fecr on the qual- ity of the environment" (see 197-11-794). Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibiiity of occurring, but are remote or specu'- lative. This is not meant as a strict statistical probability test. WAC 197-11-736 Determination of significance (DS). 'Determination of significance" (DS) means the written decision by the responsible official of the lead agency that a proposal i~s ]ikely to have a significant ad- oCr. se ep, yironmental impact, and therefore an EIS is re- quired (197-11-310 and 197-11-360). The DS form is in 197-11-980 and must be used substantially in that form. WAC 197-11-738 EIS. "EIS' means environmental impact statement. The term "detailed statement" in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) refers to a final EIS. The term 'EIS' as used in these rules refers to draft, final, or supplemental EISs (197-I 1-405). WAC 197-11-786 Reasonable alternative. 'Reason. able alternative' means an action that could feasibly at. rain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at ~ lower environmental cost or decreased level of environ. mental degradation. Reasonable alternatives may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has author- ity to control impacts, either directly, or indirectl.~ through requirement of mitigation measures. (See 197- 11-440(5) and 197-11-660.) Also see the definition o WAC 197-11-746 Environmental review. "Environ- mental review' means the consideration of environmen- tal factors as required by SEPA. The "environmental review process" is the procedure used by agencies and others under SEPA for giving appropriate consideration to the environment in agency decisionmaking. WAC 197-11-748 Environmentally sensitive area. 'Environmentally sensitive area' means an area desig- nated and mapped by a county/city under 197-11-908. Certain categorical exemptions do not apply within en- vironmentally sensitive areas (197-11-305, 197-11-908, ~and Part Nine of these rules). ''~ 21.12.190 PURPOSE OF ARTICLE VII - ADOPTION OF WAC PROVISIONS BY REFERENCE. Tkis article contains rules (and potic/es) for SEPA's substantive authority, such as d~isions to mitigate or reject proposals as a result of SEPA. This part also contains procedures for appealing SEPA determinations to agencies or the courts. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 19%11 of the Washington Administrative Code by reference: WAC 19%11-650 Purpose of this part. 655 Implementation. 660 Substantive authority and mitigation. 680 Appeals. (Ord. 3934 Art. 7 §A, 1984). 21.12.200 SUBSTANTIVE AUTtlORITY. (a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the exirdng SEPA authorization of the city. (b) The city may anach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as: (1) Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse environsnental impacts identified in environmental documents prepared pursuant to this chapter;, and (2) Such conditions are in writing; and (3) The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; and (4) The city has considered whether other local, state or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and (5) Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsection (d) below and cited in the hcense or other decision document. (c) The city may deny a perm/t or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long as: (I) A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable sign/fica.at adverse env/ronmentai impacts that are identified in a final EIS or final supplemental EIS prepared pursuant to this Ordinance; and (2) A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measures capable of being accomplished that are sufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and (3) The den/al is based on one or more policies identified in subsection (d) below, and idenfifi~ in writing in the d~ision document. (d) The city desigrmtes and adopts by reference the following policies as the basis for the city's exercise of authority pursuant to this section: (1) The city shall use all practicable means, consistent with other cssantial considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, prograras and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: (A) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trust= of the environment for 21-85 succeeding generations; (B) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healtlfful, productive and aesthetically and culturally pleas/ng surroundings; (C) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (D) Preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national l~er/tage; 0E) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment wkich supports diversity and variety of indiv/dnal choice; (F) Achieve a balance betw~n population and resource use which will permit high standards of livLng and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (O) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. (2) The city r ~ecognizes ttmt each person has a fundamental and inalienable fight to a healthful env/ronment and that each person has a respons~ility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. (e) Except for permits and variances issued pursuant to Chapter 21.04 of the Bremerton Mu.n/cipal Code, action not requiring a decision of the planning commission/city council is conclitioned or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, the decision shall be appealable to the planning commission. Such appeal may be perfected by the proponent or any aggrieved party by giving notice to the responsible official with.in ten days of the decision being appealed. Review by the plann/ng commission shall be on a de novo basis. (Ord. 3934 Art. 7 §B, 1984). (A) A final DNS; OB) A DS: The appeal must, be made to the planning commission/city council with/n ten days of the date the DS is issued. (2) For any appeal under tiffs subsection, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: (A) Findings and conclusions; OB) Testimony under oath; and (C) A taped or written transcript. (3) The procedural deterrrfination by the city's responsible official shall carry substanhal weight in any appeal proceeding. (b) The city st-roll give official not/ce under WAC 197-11480(5) whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial appeal. (Ord. 3934 Art. 7 §C, 1984). 21.12.210 APPEAJ_8. (a) The city emt~blishes the following administrative appeal procedures under RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680: (1) Any agency or person may appeal the city's procedural compliance with Ckapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of the following: