HomeMy WebLinkAbout2508
RESOLUTION NO. 2508
A RESOLUTION of the Bremerton City Council
Adopting the Revised
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan in 1986,
and followed in 1988 with a revised Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 established statewide goals,
guidelines, and procedural requirements to guide the development, coordination,
implementation and financing of long-range comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the City completed a citywide land use inventory, a build-out analysis,
Urban Growth Area recommendations to Kitsap County, population projections, and adoption
of the Critical Lands Ordinance, guided by both the GMA and by the adopted Kitsap
Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), consisting of a cross-section of
Bremerton residents, was established in the spring of 1993 and directly assisted in the review
of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan and the drafting of revisions; and
WHEREAS, all preliminary Plan drafts were openly discussed during a series of
advertised public CAC meetings before being forwarded to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 43.21C and WAC 197-11, a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared, based on the EIS that was done for
the City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, and filed on January 20, 1995; and
WHEREAS, copies of the draft Plan and SEIS were made available to citizens and
organizations, and were distributed to local jurisdictions, libraries, and state agencies for the
mandatory sixty-day review period; and
WHEREAS, following the required comment period, the Final Supplemental EIS was
issued on February 21, 1995, and became final on February 28; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted public study sessions
and public hearings before fine-tuning the draft Plan and recommending it to the City Council
Comprehensive Plan Adoption Resolution: Page 1
by Resolution No. 1995-1; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council held public study sessions, a joint study
session with the Planning Commission, and a series of public hearings prior to making final
revisions to the Plan; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL that the revised
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby adopted.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this 5th day of April, 1995.
~~-~ E'~~
Bremerton City C~~ilE
Comprehensive Plan Adoption Resolution: Page 2
City of Bremerton
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This Plan is the culmination of a three-year
major revision process to bring the City's
1986 Comprehensive Plan into'compliance
with the state Growth Management Act.
Adopted:
April 5, 1995
City of Bremerton
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
286 Fourth Street
Bremerton WA 98337
Donald L. Pratt, Director
Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager
Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
Phone: (360) 478-5275
Assistance in the preparation of this Comprehensive Plan was provided by the City's Engineering, Parks &
Recreation, Police, Fire, and Public Works & Utilities Departments, and by the City Attorney and
Treasurer. Other participants included Puget Power, Cascade Natural Gas, Kitsap County, State Dept. of
Community Trade and Economic Development, and others.
· The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Comprehensive Plan provided a public forum for
community involvement as well as direct assistance to City staff in developing all draft documents and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
· This project was financed in part by Growth Management grants from the State of Washington and a
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for preparation of the Housing Element. Additional
technical assistance was provided by the consulting firms of Parametrix, Inc. (transportation), and Beckwith
Consulting Group (parks & recreation).
District #1:
District #2:
District #3:
District #4:
District #5:
Position #1:
Position #2:
Position #3:
Position #4:
Position #5:
City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
MAYOR
Lynn S. Horton
CITY COUNCIL
AI Colvin
Marice "Morrie" Dawkins
John Law
Lon Overson
Richard Neville
District #6:
District #7:
District #8:
District #9:
David Farr
Sherril Huff-Menees, Pres.
Carlos Montgomery-
Bob Winters
PLANNING COMMISSION
Vacant
Richard Goetze, Chair
John Hancock
Debra L. Jackson
Vacant
Position #6:
Position #7:
Position #8:
Position #9:
Barbara Gray Boyd
Wayne Olsen, Vice-chair
Laurence Stone
Bill D. Robinson
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITIEE (CAC)
Douglas Berry
Barbara Gray Boyd
Richard Goetze
Del Knauss
Jack Lefcoski
Carlos Montgomery-
Russ Nickerson
Wayne Olsen
Sandi Perkins
Roy Runyon
Harry Wilson
PRIMARY STAFF
Donald L. Pratt, Director of Community Development
Ron W. Hough, Planning Manager
Kay W. Wilson, Senior Planner
SUPPORT STAFF
Randy Witt, City Engineer
Pat Harris, Parks Director
JoAnne Wroblewski, Asst. Parks Dir.
Al Duke, Assistant Fire Chief
Rich Hanna, City Treasurer
Kathleen Cahall, Water Resources Manager
Paul DuFresne, Police Chief
Joe Hatfield, as Acting Police Chief
Tim Richard, Senior Engineer
Ian Sievers, City Attorney
...
RESOLUTION NO. c250 g
A RESOLUTION of the Bremerton City Council
Adopting the Revised
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan in 1986,
and followed in 1988 with a revised Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 established statewide goals,
guidelines, and procedural requirements to guide the development, coordination,
implementation and financing of long-range comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the City completed a citywide land use inventory, a build-out analysis,
Urban Growth Area recommendations to Kitsap County, population projections, and adoption
of the Critical Lands Ordinance, guided by both the GMA and by the adopted Kitsap
Countywide Planning Policies; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG) , consisting of a cross-section of
Bremerton residents, was established in the spring of 1993 and directly assisted in the review
of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan and the drafting of revisions; and
WHEREAS, all preliminary Plan drafts were openly discussed during a series of
advertised public CAC meetings before being forwarded to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 43.21C and WAC 197-11, a Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared, based on the EIS that was done for
the City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, and filed on January 20, 1995; and
WHEREAS, copies of the draft Plan and SEIS were made available to citizens and
organizations, and were distributed to local jurisdictions, libraries, and state agencies for the
mandatory sixty-day review period; and
WHEREAS, following the required comment period, the Final Supplemental EIS was
issued on February 21, 1995, and became Jinal on February 28; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton Planning Commission conducted public study sessions
and public hearings before fine-tuning the draft Plan and recommending it to the City Council
Comprehensive Plan Adoption Resolution: Page 1
by Resolution No. 1995-1; and
WHEREAS, the Bremerton City Council hel~ public study sessions, a joint study
session with the Planning Commission, and a series of public hearings prior to making final
revisions to the Plan; now therefore
BE IT IRESOLVED BY THE BREMERTON ~ITY COUNCIL that the revised
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto, Is hereby adopted.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton this ~day of April, 1995.
HERRIL HUFF-
Bremerton City C
Comprehensive Plan Adoption Resolution: Page 2
City of Bremerton
Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENTS
of the Plan
A. Introduction
B. The Vision for Bremerton
C. Planning Goals
D. Citizen Involvement Program
E. Land Use
F. Transportation
G. Housing
H. Capital Facilities
Part 1: Capital Facilities Plan
Part 2: Capital Facilities Program
I. Utilities
J. Environmental Management
K. Implementation, Consistency & Concurrency
* Glossary..
...
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
INTRODUCTION
TO THE PLAN
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
A
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT A
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN
How shall we grow? This question is being asked by cities and counties throughout
the State as they prepare long-range "comprehensive plans" to lead them into the
future. Growth takes many forms --- more people, more homes, more schools, new
job opportunities, new flows of information, higher levels of aspiration, higher levels of
learning, higher standards of living, changes in mobility, changes in community wealth
and social characteristics, and so on. Growth occurs in many directions and many
different scales.
This twenty-year comprehensive plan for the City of Bremerton deals primarily with the
accommodation of new physical growth; that is, the increased use of land for urban
development and activities. The term "comprehensive" means that the plan is not
limited to land use concerns, but also addresses a wide variety of growth issues,
including those identified in statewide planning goals, Countywide Planning Policies,
and in our own 'Vision for Bremerton".
. ..
" ..
. . .
. , . . .. .
.. , ' ." , .
. .. .. ... " . ",. . ... .
1..JHE<>NEEQFORPtANNIf\JG ~~A ~ittleAisto . .....<.
... . ...... ........ . ........ ................ . .... ry
Prior to the Growth Management Act of 1990, local governments in Washington were
working with one of the weakest mandates for comprehensive planning of any state.
If cities and counties wished to do long-range planning, they needed to address only
the issues of land use and transportation. With the exception of the Shoreline
Management Act, there was no state requirement that anyone actually prepare a long-
range plan. Nor was there much policy guidance from Olympia on issues of
statewide significance.
The result of weak planning was a growing list of problems at the local level. There
was growing competition between city and county jurisdictions for growth, new
development, and tax revenues. Annexations, the traditional method of city growth,
ground to a halt in some areas as jurisdictions and neighbors took sides to struggle in
support or opposition. Development standards often conflicted at political boundaries.
There was no consensus on basic goals and visions. There was little or no
coordination of regional essential facilities such as water supplies, sewage treatment
facilities, jails, solid and hazardous waste disposal sites, etc. And, there was no
effective conduit for ongoing communication between jurisdictions.
Introduction - Page 1
Although Washington's planning Jaws allowed cities and counties to develop plans, it
didn't require that zoning or capital improvement decisions be based on those plans.
Thus, the plans were often very weak and ineffective. They were not good guides for
zoning and community development decision-making. What Washington needed was
a mandate from the State for the development of local comprehensive plans that were
based on common goals and guidelines arid that were consistent with one another.
And, those plans needed to have teeth so that they could be effective working
documents and not end up on a dusty shelf. The Growth Management Act of 1990-91
was the most significant such legislation to occur in Washington since the State
City jCounty Planning Act of 1939.
..2.~. .....~.R0Y\irH.......MANAq.E.MENII....ACT.....R~Q.Q.~.B.e.M.t;.fSirs................
With passage of the Growth Management Act, Washington found itself at the forefront
of comprehensive planning. It had borrowed ingredients from successful growth
management programs in such states as Oregon, Georgia and Florida, and created a
new program uniquely suited to meeting the needs of Washington.
The initial Act called for most comprehensive plans to be completed and adopted by
July, 1993; a deadline that was later extended to July, 1994. Kitsap County and its
four cities were among those required to plan under the guidelines of the Act. The
following is a very brief summary of some of the major requirements and benefits of
the Growth Management Act:
A. Citizen Participation:
The Act required "early and continuous" citizen participation throughout the planning
process. Bremerton established the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG) to work
directly with staff and to provide ongoing opportunities for direct public involvement in
drafting all Plan revisions before sending them on to the Planning Commission for
public hearings and action.
B. Protection of Natural Resources and Critical Areas:
The Act required jurisdictions to identify and protect steep slopes, wetlands, aquifer
recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, and other critical areas as well as forest,
agriculture and mineral resource lands.
C. Urban Growth Areas:
Following suggestions from its cities, Kitsap iCOUrity was required to identify existing
urban areas, determine 20-year urban growth needs, and establish Urban Growth
Areas (UGAs). The UGAs would be designed to accept two-thirds of our new growth,
as directed by our Countywide Planning Policies, thus relieving development
pressures in rural areas.
Introduction - Page 2
D. Goals and Development Standards:
The state has established thirteen broad statewide planning goals to provide overall
direction. Each jurisdiction is to build on those goals and also develop consistent
standards for new development and especially public facilities infrastructure.
E. Coordinated Policies:
Cities and counties were to work together to establish Countywide Planning Policies
that would guide the individual planning programs and help ensure consistency.
Multi-county Planning Policies followed later to address and link major regional issues.
F. Required Elements:
New city plans must have at least these five elements:
(1) Land Use
(2) Transportation
(3) Housing
(4) Public Facilities Plan
(5) Utilities.
Counties must also prepare a "rural" element.
G. Concurrency:
Plans must be realistic and workable. If plans call for new development, the
responsible jurisdiction must be able to provide the needed public services and
utilities within a reasonable amount of time.
H. Levels of Service:
In order to deal with traffic and congestion resulting from new development, new
requirements for transportation planning include the measure of existing Levels of
Service (LOS) and a plan for continued development that will not exceed an adopted
LOS standard that is acceptable to the community.
I. Agency Compliance:
Not only are local plans required to be consistent with each other, but State agencies
are also required to comply with local plans and development regulations.
J. Regulations:
Immediately following adoption of the new or revised comprehensive plans, each
jurisdiction must review and revise, as necessary, its development codes and
regulations so that they will implement the plan.
Introduction - Page 3
... ... . ........ .... ..... ...... .. ..........,.
...3~....... .........~REMgB,..QN.~.S.......1..as6.......R.liAt4...........................................
Bremerton has long history of land use planning. Early plans addressed the issues of
their day, many of which are the issues of today. In addition to basic land use, they
included economics, parking, parks and recreation, public schools, transportation,
annexation, utilities, urban renewal, and development standards.
In 1986, the City adopted a new Comprehensive Plan. It contained goals and policies
for the following elements:
A. Overview
. Introduction
. Assumptions
. The Vision for Bremerton
B. Land Use
C. Natural Resources
D. Transportation
E. Public Services
F. Housing
G. Economic Development
This Plan's Land Use Element contained specific policies related to environmental and
shoreline protection, the Central Business District, a single-family conservation area in
West Bremerton, the South Callow area, and the Brownsville Highway Corridor.
Through the years, additional special area studies were necessary. Some were
adopted as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including the Waterfront Access
Plan, West Hills Area Plan, and the Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan. Smaller
Plan amendments were also approved and will be incorporated into the Plan revisions.
The 1986 Comprehensive Plan was the product of a long and intense community
involvement process. The goals and policies were very well refined and, although
some amendments were necessary, most of the Plan remained intact. When the
Growth Management Act was passed in 1990, the Bremerton Plan was only four years
old. Rather than abandon it and embark on a new planning process, the City decided
to build on the 1986 Plan, integrate the GMA requirements, and ensure consistency
with other plans. The result would be a revised Plan for the next 20 years.
The 1986 Comprehensive Plan included a generalized Land Use Plan Map. It was a
.policy plan" map that helped to guide zoning and other land use decisions but was
not intended to be site specific. Properties along the borders of districts had built-in
flexibility (or vagueness) and a development or zoning action could fall in either
direction, depending on the type of proposal, its compatibility with surrounding uses,
or other factors.
Introduction - Page 4
The Growth Management Act has elevated the Comprehensive Plan and its maps to a
much higher status. The Plan now leads the way for zoning, public improvements,
and other very specific decisions. Plans must now be consistent with other plans,
internally consistent with their own elements, and zoning and other implementation
"tools" must be consistent with the Plan. Therefore, our new Plan maps must be site
specific rather than the "blob" style maps of yesterday.
4.....<\R............E.i.H~:TI~k~S><>OI~.....:+O.< ~D.....lJSE./)REG>tJ~tldNS>)...<........ .
.. .....: '.<.;:':...;...... ~........~I~ ....,..n r>...~:~... ."';', .. . .,' .' ....;..... ,'...... ,..";-:. . . . ._....... ... ..':' ..<....;.. _._. .....
Land use regulations are the tools that implement the Comprehensive Plan and,
therefore, must be consistent with the Plan. If the Plan shows high-density residential
development in a particular location, the Zoning Map should show a similar zoning
designation. If the Plan calls for certain street development standards within low-
density neighborhoods, then we need to adopt those standards and apply them when
new development occurs.
During and following preparation of the revised Comprehensive Plan, development
regulations will be prepared and revised as necessary. The primary regulations to be
dealt with include:
A. Critical Lands Ordinance:
Prepared as a GMA requirement, this ordinance was adopted in 1993 for the
protection of sensitive natural areas.
B. Zoning Ordinance:
The City's current Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1988, following a four-year
process. It has been fine-tuned over the past five years and is working very well. Any
changes made necessary by the revised Comprehensive Plan will be initiated
immediately following Plan adoption.
C. Subdivision Ordinance:
Although a "Short Plat" ordinance has been in effect for many years, Bremerton does
not have a subdivision ordinance. Subdivisions are processed in direct accordance
with State law. Following Plan adoption, the City will consider the development of a
new Subdivision Ordinance. Another option being considered is the transition of the
Zoning Ordinance to a "development code" document which would include a
subdivision section.
D. Shoreline Management Program:
The City adopted a series of major changes to its Shoreline Management progam in
1992. Although it is very current, specific proposals in the revised Plan could trigger
additional amendments.
Introduction - Page 5
E. Urban Renewal:
The City has a Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan which was adopted in 1989.
The Comprehensive Plan will take another look at the CBD and waterfront and
determine whether or not the Urban Renewal Plan should remain intact, be revised, or
be replaced with a different program.
In addition to these regulatory measure:s, the planning process will produce an "Urban
Growth Management Agreement" (UGMA) between the City and County to guide
land use and development decisions within the UGA. A "Concurrency Management
System" will be developed to meet the "pay-as-you-go" requirements. And, a variety
of other agreements and guidelines will likely be developed to assist in the planning
and the implementation of this Plan.
""",. .
5. PERIODIC REVIEW AN[) AMENDMENT
Following adoption of the Revised Comprehensive Plan and related development
regulations, the City shall continually monitor their effectiveness and document
needed amendments. A major review IOf the Plan will be conducted at five-year
intervals and annual amendments will be considered in accordance with the process
established in Element "K" (Implementation, Consistency, and Concurrency Element).
. ~~ .
6-A:INTRO.E-A
Introduction - Page 6
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
THE VISION
FOR BREMERTON
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
B
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT B
THE VISION FOR BREMERTON
.. ..
..,. . ..'
. . . .. .
. .' .
. po ....
1. INTROOUCTION.. .
Each element of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan will be based on an overall
"vision" of the community's future, as incorporated into the Plan document. That
vision will then be translated into the long-range goals, policies, and specific
recommendations of each Plan element in order to bring the vision to reality.
One of the first tasks of the Bremerton Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was to
review the Overview Element of the City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, which included a
section entitled "The Vision for Bremerton". This resulted in the revised vision
statements that follow. The statements will later be scheduled for a Planning
Commission public hearing to solicit additional public input.
Following the Planning Commission's review and refinement, the vision statements will
be forwarded to the City Council. Since the vision will guide the Plan's goals, policies
and proposals, it is important to firmly establish the planning program's direction early
in the process. Once approved, the vision will be incorporated into an early chapter
(element) of the Comprehensive Plan, along with the introductory narrative, major
goals, and assumptions.
The Vision for Bremerton is presented in the following order:
. Bremerton -- 20 Years From Now
. Population Growth
. Neighborhoods
. Human Development/Education
. Urban Governmental Services
. Economic Diversification
. Tourism
. Transportation & Mobility
The Vision - Page 1
<2~. .BRI:MERTQNi2~()YEARSFRQM~dw> .
The comprehensive planning process involves an assessment of our community's
strengths and weaknesses, problems, Clnd. opportunities for improvement. Through
our visions, goals, and courses of action, we can greatly influence our future by
directing change. The following vision statements will show us the direction we intend
to go and where we will be twenty years from now.
A. During the next twenty years, Bremerton will experience the greatest population
and development increases since World War II. The new growth will be
planned, properly serviced, and accepted with care to ensure that it will be
beneficial and not disruptive to the community.
B. Bremerton will be economically stronger that it is today, with a greater
diversification of commercial and industrial activity, a wider range of job types
and salary levels, and a higher level of economic independence.
C. Harrison Hospital will continue t() playa major roll in the provision of medical
services and its surrounding district will continue to grow and strengthen its roll
as a regional health services center.
D. The educational foundation of the community will expand to offer four-year
college degrees as well as a var~ety of vocational training.
E. New arts, entertainment and civic facilities will strengthen Bremerton's
prominence as the center for social.and cultural activities in Kitsap County.
F. Recreational opportunities will increase to serve new residents. Existing
facilities will expand, joint-use facilities will become more common, and new
parks and recreational facilities will be provided.
G. Interjurisdictional cooperation will improve, and the provision of needed
governmental services and facilities will be better coordinated and provided in
a more economical and efficient manner.
H. Neighborhoods will continue to E~volve, improve, and become more attractive,
comfortable, and desirable. They will provide a greater variety of housing
options, affordable to a larger share of the market, and will become stronger
and more stable as the proportion of owner-occupants gradually increases.
I. As growth and traffic increase, travel and work habits will change. New
mobility options will become available, including expanded ferry and bus
service, increased car- and van-pooling, and a greater emphasis on placing
housing and jobs in close proximity to each other. Tele-commuting will
become more commonplace as an effective way to reduce travel.
J. Bremerton will allocate the resources necessary to achieve the objective of a
drug-free and gang-free community.
The Vision - Page 2
............ .. .... ..... ...... ........ ......... ...... .......... ....
............. ... .......... . .......... ......... ......... . ........................
...... ..... . ........... ................ .......... . ........... .. ........ .... ..... . ............
........ ............ ............ . ....... . ........ ... ........ .. ....... .. .. ..
.. .. ... ........ ........ ........... . ........... . ........... . ......... ............ .........
......... ................. ......... . ........ ............. ... ........ ........ . ........
.3lPc>POI!.AT'IONGROWTHn................>i..
New Countywide Planning Policies favoring growth in urban areas are expected to
result in significant growth during this period. Population allocations suggest that
Bremerton's population could increase by as much as 20,000, or nearly fifty percent
over current levels. This will be a significant change from Bremerton's fairly steady
population trend over the past decades and will result in significant increases in
residential density and commercial intensity. We will face new problems and
increased service demands, as well as opportunities for improvement as we adjust to
accommodate our share of the region's growth.
A. New ways to increase mobility and relieve traffic congestion will be found to
deal with the nearly 40,000 new residents that will move into Bremerton and
the remainder of the Central Kitsap Urban Growth Area.
B. The provision of urban governmental services, long-range service plans, and
service areas will become better coordinated among the various providers as
demands for and costs of services increase.
C. Competition between jurisdictions for new growth and development will
diminish as coordinated plans, growth management agreements, revenue/cost
sharing programs, and other innovative techniques are implemented.
D. New growth and development will bring many opportunities for community
improvement. New projects will bring with them utility extensions, improved
streets, attractive landscaping and open space, recreational facilities, and
attractive efficient design that will improve the quality of our neighborhoods and
enhance the image of Bremerton.
n .
.. ..
4. NEIGHBORHOODS
The quality and stability of neighborhoods are indicators of a community's overall
health. We generally associate "quality" with a number of factors that include the level
of property maintenance, neighborhood pride, peace and quiet, and the nature and
style of the architecture, landscaping, and overall design. Bremerton has a great
variety of housing choices. Some neighborhoods are in need of protection while
others need rehabilitation or, in some cases, redevelopment.
A. Bremerton will continue to provide homes for Naval personnel and workers
from all sectors of the local economy, retirees, Seattle commuters, and others.
B. We will continue to strive for a variety and a good balance of housing
opportunities for all economic and social segments of the community.
C. We will see a greater emphasis on home ownership as a means of achieving a
higher degree of neighborhood maintenance and pride, and to offer the
D. In order to achieve a higher level of home ownership, a greater emphasis will
be placed on the provision of small, private, affordable single-family homes,
both in new subdivisions and as "in-fill" within existing neighborhoods.
Condominiums and other forms of ownership will increase in popularity.
E. Historic preservation will playa greater role in Bremerton's future as certain
unique areas and structures are recognized for their historical value.
F. Neighborhood quality, safety, stability, and affordability will be given increased
consideration in all community improvement programs.
G. Bremerton will support its neighborhoods through greater availability of
community services and improved maintenance of streets and other public
facilities.
5. HUMANDEVELOPMENT /EDUCATIO~ ..
Bremerton has continued to serve as a s.ocia', cultural and educational center of
Kitsap County and will strengthen its roleis in these areas through expanded
programs, facilities and other opportunities.
A. Bremerton will improve its position as a center for quality education as Olympic
College expands its curriculum to offer four-year degrees.
B. We will experience an increasing need for vocational training and re-training to
accommodate economic diversific:::ation and military facility downsizing.
C. Lifelong learning opportunities will continue to be provided through the public
libraries, public access television, and other community educational programs
offered by the City, County, and c>thers.
D. New approaches will be used to better ensure the provision of needed services
to seniors, children, youth, physically and mentally disadvantaged, and to meet
other social service needs througlhout the community. Such services might
involve recreation, hobbies, organizational activities, youth facilities/activities,
nature study, etc., in addition to the more typical social services.
'.. . .. '.. ..
. .. ..... . .. . . .... ... ..
. ... .. .., .... ..,....
. . ..... . n_.... n' .
. . , " ..... .. .. ,
.. . .. "', . . ., .. .... .......
6~URBAN~OVE;RNMEf.JTAtSER\lICES>
The Growth Management Act gave Bremerton primary responsibility for the provision
of urban services and utilities. Bremerton iswithin a larger Urban Growth Area, the
unincorporated portions of which are in tlhe jurisdiction of Kitsap County which is also
a major provider of urban services.
A. Plans for the provision of urban services within the Bremerton Urban Growth
Area will be coordinated with all servi'ce providers to ensure quality,
dependability, and coordinated development standards.
The Vision -- Page 4
B. Bremerton will continue to provide a full range of urban services at reasonable
costs within its identified service areas.
C. Public involvement in local government will continue to be encouraged. There
will be expanded opportunities for participation at both the neighborhood and
community levels. Public access television, computer bulletin boards, and
other advances in electronic technology will play greater roles in linking the
local citizenry with the business of their elected officials.
...., , , , " ......"
. ..... ... , " . "''''
..." . . , , ... .. "'" ..
.....".. .,", ,',. " .... ........ . ,","".'.,' ........,.'
7 . ECONOM1CDIVERSIFICA TIOrsl.<>>>
Throughout its history, Bremerton and much of Kitsap County have been closely
linked to national defense. Bremerton grew up around the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS) and local employment relied heavily on the health of the shipyard.
The military is in the process of change. "Economic diversification" is no longer just a
good idea, it's vital to our economic stability. .
A. Bremerton will continue to playa major role in national defense, will continue
to support PSNS as its major employer, and will retain many of the important
elements of its naval industrial complex.
B. Bremerton will continue to grow as a business and service center, but will also
gradually diversify to provide a greater range of career-oriented commercial
and industrial jobs and a stable economy.
C. The economic base of Bremerton will become more interdependent with other
metropolitan centers throughout the Puget Sound region.
D. Bremerton will experience growth and diversity within the Central Business
District. It will continue to transition from a retail commercial center to a new
mix of residential, retail, office, and tourist facilities.
E. The growth of new businesses and jobs will be accompanied by growth in
small home occupations and telecommuting which will benefit the local
economy without adversely affecting their surrounding neighborhoods.
8. TOURISM
The Pacific Northwest is an increasingly popular tourist destination and the Puget
Sound ferry system is a prime tourist attraction. Bremerton's strategic regional
location offers major opportunities to capitalize on the great potential offered by the
tourism industry.
A. Tourism will playa greater role in the local economy and will capitalize on such
advantages as convenient ferry access to Seattle, the "Gateway to the
Olympics", and an increasing interest in the arts, museums and other cultural
The Vision - Page 5
activities, especially within walking distance of the ferry terminal.
B. Bremerton will strengthen its position as a cultural center while placing greater
value on its historical and architectural heritage.
C. Local tourist accommodations, such as restaurants, hotels, meeting and
convention facilities will be expanded to meet the increasing needs.
'';,' . ,',' . ,',',';",', ....>.. "':.,., '"
9...... TRANSPORTATION & MOBiliTY>
Substantial population growth will challenge our ability to move around as freely as we
have in the past. A limited mass transit system of buses and ferries currently serves
Bremerton and Kitsap County. However, the private automobile remains the primary
mode of transportation for most local travelers.
A. As traffic and congestion increasl9 with new development, steps will be taken
to discourage use of the family car in favor of other options. Among the
options likely to be addressed within our twenty-year planning period are
expanded bus and ferry services; greater emphasis on carpooling, bicycling,
and walking; and innovative development designed to allow workers to live
near their places of employment.
B. We will see more frequent and dependable ferry service between Seattle and
Bremerton, supplemented with short-range "mosquito fleet" ferry service. This
combination will promote higher density residential and mixed use
development near ferry terminals and help make multimodal terminals feasible.
C. Light rail transit may be in our distant future. We will begin to prepare for such
a system by orienting our land uses, residential areas, transportation and
development corridors, and other physical features in ways that will facilitate a
future rail-type mass transit system.
...
6-A:VISION.E-B
The Vision .- Page 6
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
PLANNING GOALS
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
c
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT C
PLANNING GOALS
p' .. ...." . "
.. ..,.. ,,,
.... . .. ... .
." ..... .
. ..... .. ....
. .... uu' n" .. ..... ..
...INTROOOCTlON
Comprehensive Plan goals help define the vision for Bremerton's future. These goals point
the direction the City will head as it changes, redevelops, and grows. Goals sketch the future
envisioned by the Plan. They may not ever be totally realized, but they represent the ideal
community the City will strive to achieve.
. Goals are broad value statements and recommendations.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) includes "planning goals" to guide the development and
adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan
must be consistent with GMA planning goals. Local goals refine the City's vision of its ideal
future, within the framework of the State goals.
State and City planning goals are listed below. Goals #1 - 13 are State goals.
Supplementary City goals are listed under related State goals. Additional supplementary City
goals begin with Goal #14.
GOAL #1
URBAN GROWTH
Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
A. Accommodate new development with care that Bremerton will be a "most
liveable city" made up of strong, healthy neighborhoods, workplaces and
activity centers.
B. Group higher intensity development convenient to community activities and
busy streets to strengthen the identity of Bremerton's neighborhoods.
C. Approve only those annexation requests that are for lands within the
designated Urban Growth Area, that can be effectively served by all needed
public facilities and services, and that will result in long-term benefits to the
community.
Planning Goals - Page 1
community.
D. Maximize the City's existing in-fill development potential to ensure the most
efficient use of existing utility infrastructure and facilities.
GOAL #2
REDUCE SPRAWL
Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-
density development.
A. Cluster development on vacant sites so as to retain greater areas of open
space in Bremerton.
GOAL #3
TRANSPORTATION
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
A. Provide for safe, efficient movement of people and goods within and through
town.
B. Provide a system of interconnected interchanges for different kinds of public
transportation so people are not forced to use private cars at all.
C. Cluster housing, shopping and workplaces together, particularly around
transportation interchanges, to reinforce Bremerton's public transportation
system.
D. Keep major roads outside of Bremerton's neighborhoods.
E. Reduce reliance on the private automobile in the central business District,
where the focus will be on multimodal transportation options.
GOAL #4
HOUSING
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing
types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
A. Provide a range of housing opportunities in healthy living environments for all
members of our Bremerton community.
B. Establish liveable neighborhoods with a mix of household types in every
Bremerton neighborhood.
Planning Goals - Page 2
C. Help make the American dream of home ownership possible for a majority of
Bremerton residents.
GOAL #5
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within
the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public
facilities.
A. Develop a strong, healthy, diversified economy that supports and protects
Bremerton's quality of life.
B. Accent the roles of small businesses, tourism, health services, education, and
social and cultural activities in diversifying Bremerton's economy.
GOAL #6
PROPERlY RIGHTS
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from
arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
A. Respect private property rights while protecting the long term good of our
Bremerton community.
GOAL #7
PERMITS
Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in
a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
A. Maintain streamlined City permit systems while giving adequate notice of
development applications to those who will be affected.
B. Provide equitable, consistent and effective land use management programs.
Planning Goals - Page 3
GOAL #8
NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES
Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive
timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of
productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses.
A. Balance protection of natural resource-based industries with stewardship of
Bremerton's natural resource base.
GOAL #9
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
A. Provide a variety of recreational opportunities convenient to Bremerton homes
and workplaces.
B. Combine the requirements for Critical Areas protection with the need for
passive open space, to provide areas that will enhance the visual and aesthetic
beauty of the Bremerton area.
C. Promote joint use of parks, schools, and other public facilities to maximize
their benefits to the Bremerton community.
GOAL #10
ENVIRONMENT
Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air
and water quality, and the availability of water.
A. Protect the natural environment so as to preserve and enhance Bremerton's
quality of life into the foreseeable future.
B. Restore the natural environment where it has been damaged, and take care
that new development does not undermine the sustainability of the
environment.
C. Assure an adequate supply of affordable energy for residents, business and
industry in the Bremerton area.
Planning Goals - Page 4
GOAL #11 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND
COORDINATION
Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure
coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
A. Provide opportunities for Bremerton residents and business people to
participate in City decisions that affect them.
B. Encourage Bremerton residents and business people to form neighborhood
groups to work for their common interest.
GOAL #12
PUBLIC FACiliTIES AND SERVICES
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development
shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below
locally established minimum standards.
A. Provide a range of urban services at reasonable costs.
B. Require new development to pay a fair share of the costs of public services
and facilities.
C. Coordinate the provision of public services and facilities with Kitsap County
and special districts within the Bremerton Urban Growth Area to ensure quality,
dependability, and coordinated development standards.
GOAL #13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that have
historical or archaeological significance.
A. Protect, preserve and restore areas identified as having historical, cultural, or
educational value.
B. Work with local historical preservation organizations and consider the
development of a preservation plan and ordinance for Bremerton.
Planning Goals - Page 5
GOAL #14
COMMUNITY IMAGE
Enhance Bremerton's image as a pleasant, beautiful city in which to live, work
and visit.
A. Foster identifiable, liveable neighborhoods that provide a variety of residential
opportunities complimented by recreational, shopping and social support
services.
B. Redevelop downtown Bremerton as a pedestrian-oriented "urban waterfront
village" with housing, retail shops and services, and offices, supported by
recreational, entertainment and intermodal transit facilities.
...
6-A:GOALS.E-C
Planning Goals - Page 6
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
PROGRAM
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: September 1993
Re-adopted: April 5, 1995
D
.
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT D
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
. ,..'
. ..
"" . ...." .,
" " ......,
>INTRODUCfiON
City of Bremerton and Washington State public meetings procedures mandate that all
planning decisions be made publicly and with notice.
Throughout the Comprehensive Plan revision process, it was the intent of the City of
Bremerton to maximize citizen involvement opportunities. This was done through
extensive public notice and information programs, and by assuring that the
comprehensive planning process remained open and accessible and related materials
were presented in a manner that was easily understood by the citizens of Bremerton.
The bases of Bremerton's Comprehensive Planning Citizen Involvement Program are:
. Adherence to City and State open meetings and public disclosure regulations;
. Use of organized neighborhood groups to distribute, review and comment on
planning proposals;
. Appointment of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG) to work directly with staff
in the preparation of drafts for Planning Commission consideration;
. Preparation of clear and understandable materials to explain issues and
options; and
. Designation of a staff person to act as an advocate for citizen participation
issues and actions.
Since the Citizen Involvement Program is one of the most important components of
our planning program, it was written and adopted by the City Council in September,
1992, to help guide the planning process.
. . ..
. '.
. .. . .
2. ."REQUIREMENTSQFTHEACl\> '"
The Growth Management Act requires that the City establish procedures providing for
early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of
comprehensive land use plans and development regulations. Those procedures must
achieve the following:
Citizen Involvement - Page 1
A. Broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives;
B. Opportunity for written comments; ,
C. Public meetings after effective notice;
D. Provision for open discussion; ,
E. Communication and Information programs; and
F. Consideration of and response to public comments.
. . ..... .... . .... ... ... ," . " .
..;... ..... :.:....;...:..,':;.;...<:.. ............ :..' ...... ..;.:.:.....::,'.,'. .:.. .... ...... .,<:.,:-.::> ," :-:..;.;....;. ..,.';: <<:::: ',.';':
(3)<<.' <PROGRAMeOt.ICIES'ANDPROCEPLJRES. "
In order to ensure early and continuous public involvement, the following program
shall be followed:
A. Extent of Citizen Involvement:
POLICY: Whenever possible, citizens shall be given the opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process, including:
(1) Review of Data collection and staff analyses.
(2) Plan preparation and refinement, including options.
(3) Adoption.
(4) Implementation.
(5) Ongoing Evaluation.
(6) Periodic Revision.
B. Communication:
(4)
(5)
POLICY: The City of Bremerton will: use the following methods to assure a
high level of public awareness of the comprehensive planning program and to
assure effective communication betv.:een all involved in the process:
(1)
Frequent releases of information to the press, including local
newspapers, radio stations and public access television.
(2)
Frequent written staff and citizens groups' progress reports to the
Planning Commission and CitY Council, and verbal reports during
regularly televised Council meetings.
(3)
Printed summaries of information, activities and proposals, made
available to schools, local organizations, and individual citizens.
Public workshops and small group discussions in diverse
neighborhoods.
Public meeting agenda published in The Sun a minimum of ten days
prior to the meeting and posted in key public locations (to be determined).
Citizen Involvement - Page 2
(6) Utilization of public access television for announcements, panel
discussions, and special planning programs, as appropriate or feasible.
(7) Whenever possible, utilize existing publications or processes, such as
regular utility bill. mailings and newspapers or newsletters produced by
Bremerton High School, Olympic College, PSNS, Realtors,
Homebuilders, Chamber of Commerce, etc.
(8) Identification of a single staff person to be responsible for the citizen
liaison activities for long-range planning issues.
c. Technical Information:
POLICY: The City will ensure that inventory data and other background
information used in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan is made
available to other jurisdictions and to the general public during and after the
planning process. This information will be available through the Department of
Community Development's Citizen Liaison person.
(1) Planning data will be available during the City's normal working hours at .
the Planning Division office, 286 Fourth Street in Bremerton.
(2) Special reports, tabulations of inventory information, and other
organized information will be made available through City Hall and the
public libraries.
(3) Technical information and maps will be prbvided, when available, to the
Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods (BACON), other citizens
organizations, and other parties interested in active participation in the
process.
(4) Members of the Planning, Engineering, Utilities, or other involved
Departments will provide technical assistance through personal
requests and at neighborhood meetings, workshops, public hearings,
and other opportunities.
(5) The City will support and participate in public education/involvement
programs offered by Kitsap County, Kitsap Regional Planning Council,
special districts, or other area organizations.
D. Input and Feedback Mechanisms:
POLICY: The Citizen Liaison person will be responsible for maintaining two-
way communication with the public through the following means:
Citizen Involvement - Page 3
(4)
(5)
(6)
(1)
Planning data, drafts, and planning proposals will be publicized early in
the process with adequate time for public review and comment.
(2)
The City will encourage written -and verbal comments that can be
incorporated into the record ~nd directly considered and responded to.
I
(3)
The process will include early public neighborhood and community-
wide meetings and workshops during which ideas and concerns may
be freely exchanged. The City will identify groups that are able to
sponsor such meetings.
Neighborhood organizations are encouraged to participate in the work
tasks and to develop specific' neighborhood plans or proposals that
might be considered for incorporation into the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
The Planning Commission will function as the primary advisory body to
the City Council on matters involving the Comprehensive Plan.
The City will ensure adequate representation on regional committees
that may be created and operated by Kitsap County or the Kitsap
Regional Planning Council (KRPC). Membership for such regional
committees will be first drawn from the Planning Commission or City
Council
E. Financial SUDport:
POLICY: Adequate human, financial and informational resources will be
allocated to this Citizen Involvement Program and such resources will be
contained in the budget of the Department of Community Development.
(1) The City will utilize funds provided by the State to support the activities
of the Citizens Liaison person.
(2) The City will provide meeting places, as available, in City Hall, DCD,
Utilities, Parks, Fire or other suitable facilities.
(3) The City will provide printing, mailing, advertising, and other support
services as may be necessary, within its financial means, to carry out
this program.
F. Periodic Review and Revision:
POLICY: Further involvement opportunities will be made available following
adoption of the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan:.
Citizen Involvement.,... Page 4
6-A:CIT-INV.E-D
(1) A formal process will be established for the annual consideration of
Plan Amendments.
(2) A joint City-County process will be established for the public review and
involvement in future Urban Growth Area and City and County Plan
Amendments.
(3) An annual allocation of hours for a Citizen Uaison person will be made
by the Department of Community Development.
...
Citizen Involvement - Page 5
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
LAND USE ELEMENT
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
E
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT E
lAND USE
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION............................................ 1
2. PRESENTATION FORMAT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1
3. GOALS, POLICIES and THE VISION FOR BREMERTON . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
A. PLANNING GOALS and CITY POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 2
B. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
C. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS ................... 6
D. THE VISION FOR BREMERTON .......................... 7
E. POPULATION GROWTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
F. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS .......................... 11
'G. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS .................... 13
4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
A. ECONOMY OF THE STATE AND REGION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B. THE LOCAL ECONOMY ................................ 15
C. BREMERTON ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. URBAN GROWTH AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A. DEFINITIONS ........................................ 17
B. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. BREMERTON'S UGA PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
D. URBAN GROWTH AREA MANAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
6. LAND USE RATIOS & DENSITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A. NATIONWIDE LAND USE SURVEY ........................ 21
1. Residential Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Commercial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Industrial Uses ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4. Parks & Recreational Uses ......................... 23
5. Institutional Uses ................................ 24
6. Transportation & Utilities Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. OVERALL BREAKDOWNS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. CONCLUSIONS .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. EAST BREMERTON PLAN .................................... 27
A. EAST BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION ................ 27
B. LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C. RESIDENTIAL LANDS ....;............................ 28
D. COMMERCIAL LANDS ................................. 30
E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
F. PARKS & SCHOOLS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
G. OTHER LAND USE ISSUES ............................. 31
H. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. CENTRAL BREMERTON PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A. CENTRAL BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B. LAND USE INVENTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C. RESIDENTIAL LANDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
D. COMMERCIAL LANDS ................................. 36
E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
F. PARKS & SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
G. OTHER LAND USE ISSUES ............................. 38
H. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS ................................ 39
9. WEST BREMERTON PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A. WEST BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION ................ 40
B. LAND USE INVENTORY ................................ 41
C. RESIDENTIAL LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
D. COMMERCIAL LANDS ................................. 42
E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
F. PARKS & SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
G. OTHER LAND USE ISSUES ............................. 44
H. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10. WATERSHED/UTILITIES LANDS ................. ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A. UTILITY LANDS MANAGEMENT ..........................45
B. THE LAND USE PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A. INTRODUCTION...................................... 49
B. AREAS INCLUDED .................................... 49
E-1 MANETTE BUSINESS DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
E-2 HARRISON HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . 52
E-3 WHEATON WAY CORRIDOR ..................... 54
C-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
C-2 CHARLESTON BUSINESS DISTRICT ............... 60
C-3 PARK AVENUE CORRIDOR ...................... 64
C-4 CAMPUS/EVERGREEN NEIGHBORHOOD. . . . . . . . . . . 66
C-5 SOUTH SMITH COVE REDEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . 68
W-1 KITSAP LAKE BUSINESS DISTRICT ................ 71
W-2 WERNER ROAD INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR. . . . . . . . . . . 72
W-3 WEST HILLS AREA PLAN ....................... 73
W-4 SO. AUTO CENTER ENHANCEMENT AREA . . . . . . . . . . 74
W-5 PENDERGAST SPORTS COMPLEX ................ 75
S-1 ANDERSON CREEK CORPORATE CAMPUS. . . . . . . . . . 76
MAPS & TABLES
POPULATION TRENDS 1901-1993 (tabl\3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
RECENT GROWTH HISTORY (graph) .............................. 9
HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH (table) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Proposed URBAN GROWTH AREA (map) ........................... 20
COMPARISON OF MAJOR LAND USES (table) ....................... 25
EAST BREMERTON PLAN
· SECTOR MAP ...................................................... 27
· LAND USE BREAKDOWN (table) ........................................ 28
· RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES (map) ........................................ 29
CENTRAL BREMERTON PLAN
· SECTOR MAP ...................................................... 33
· LAND USE BREAKDOWN (table) ........................................ 34
· RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES (map) ........................................ 36
WEST BREMERTON PLAN
o SECTOR MAP ...................................................... 40
· LAND USE BREAKDOWN (table) ........................................ 41
WATERSHED/UTILITIES LANDS
· BIOSOLlD DISPOSAL AREAS (map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 46
· UNION RIVER WATERSHED & UTILITY LANDS (map) ........................ 48
SPECIFIC AREA PLANS
E-1 MANETTE BUSINESS DISTRICT ........................................ 50
E-2 HARRISON HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
E-3 WHEATON WAY CORRIDOR ........................................... 54
C-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
C-2 CHARLESTON BUSINESS DISTRICT ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
C-3 PARK AVENUE CORRIDOR ............................................ 64
C-4 CAMPUS EVERGREEN NEIGHBORHOOD ................................. 66
C-5 SOUTH SMITH COVE REDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 68
W-1 KITSAP LAKE BUSINESS DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71
W-2 WERNER ROAD INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR ................................. 72
W-3 WEST HILLS AREA PLAN ............................................. 73
W-4 S. AUTO CENTER ENHANCEMENT AREA. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 74
W-5 PENDERGAST SPORTS COMPLEX ...................................... 75
S-1 ANDERSON CREEK CORPORATE CAMPUS ............................... 76
LAND USE PLAN MAPS:
· EAST BREMERTON ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77
· CENTRAL BREMERTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 78
· WEST BREMERTON ................................................. 79
· WATERSHED & UTILITY lANDS ........................................ 80
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT E
LAND USE
...... ... .. . ., .
....... ... ...., ... .
........ . . .."" ......,
........ . .. ..., .", '
. ........ . ......
".."..... .. ., .... "
tlr ....fNTROtJtJCTION ...
The Land Use Element and its related maps are probably the most important and visible
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. They depict the City's growth and development
visions, goals, and policies for the next twenty years. Based on those goals and visions, this
section of the Plan designates the future uses of all lands within the City.
The Land Use Element describes Bremerton's position within its Urban Growth Area and
within the region. It sets the stage for land use planning with discussions about population
and growth projections, development constraints, social and economic considerations, and a
summary of the citywide Land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis.
Based on those foundations, the Land Use Element provides a physical plan for commercial
and industrial growth, residential densities that are most appropriate for various
neighborhoods, special districts to be encouraged or enhanced, locations for redevelopment
or urban renewal activities, and areas that should be preserved as sensitive or natural
resource areas.
Because all Plan elements are interrelated, there will be various degrees of over-lap. For
example, the locations of parks and schools are discussed in this element while the Capital
Facilities Element deals with the standards, levels of service and financing strategies for those
and other public facilities. Specific projects outlined in the Transportation Element will also
be addressed in the Capital Facilities Element and possibly other elements. One of the
challenges of comprehensive planning is preventing conflicts and maintaining "internal
consistency" among all elements.
. . ..
. . .. .
. . - ..
... ' .,
. ',' , .
2_PRESENTATIONH FORMAT
The first sections of this element address regional and citywide issues, including overall
goals, policies, visions, relationships to other plans, socio-economic considerations, etc.
More specific land use policies and proposals are addressed within each of the major
"sectors" of the community that were used in the Land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis.
This Element and the Plan Map combine all individual components into a 20-year land use
plan for Bremerton that is supported by and consistent with all other elements of this Plan.
Land Use - Page 1
. .
..... 'n ..... .
.. n. .,..... . .
... ...... ....
.n... ..... ......
. .., .....-... .......
>3.>~O~i..s~eO~IQIES~nd> .... . ....... / ....... ...... ....... ...>. ........
i..../H>)'tHeVISION> FdR...sRI2MEFlrON> ( ..... ..>...
This element revises and expands upon the Land Use Element of the 1986 Comprehensive
Plan. An extensive visioning process and policy review was followed by the Citizens
Advisory Committee's tedious work and constructive input. This resulted in the
recommendations that were offered for public review and later proposed for adoption.
The provisions of the Land Use Element, more than any other, guide transportation planning,
budgeting for capital facilities, the provision of needed housing, and other components of the
City's Plan. It's essential that those provisions be internally supportive of and consistent with
all other Plan elements, as well as with certain state, regional and county plans, goals,
objectives and policies.
A. PLANNING GOALS and CITY POLICIES
Several of the Growth Management Act's statewide planning goals pertain primarily to
land use planning. The following goals will be addressed most directly in this Element
but may also be addressed in other elements. Each is followed by supporting City
policies related to the Land Use Element.
State Goal #1: URBAN GROWTH
Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
Supporting Policies:
(1) Collaborate with Kitsap County and other affected jurisdictions to ensure that
the Urban Growth Area will be based on recognized urban development
patterns, good access, efficient provision of utilities and public facilities, and
projected growth needs.
(2) Coordinate the timing of new development with the upgrading or extension of
needed municipal services.
(3) Accommodate new development with care so that Bremerton will continue to
be a well-balanced "most liveable city".
(4) Group higher intensity development convenient to community activities and
busy streets to strengthen the identity of Bremerton's neighborhoods.
(5) Continue to provide municipal governmental services within the Urban Growth
Area, while ensuring that the plans of Bremerton, Kitsap County and other
affected jurisdictions are coordinated and consistent.
Land Use - Page 2
State Goal #2: REDUCE SPRAWL
Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-
density development
Supporting Policies:
(1) Ensure that sufficient land areas are available and appropriate zoning is in
place to allow the level of new development that is needed to accommodate
Bremerton's twenty-year population allocation.
(2) Adjust development guidelines and regulations to prevent development that is
inappropriately low and that might waste valuable urban lands.
(3) Assist Kitsap County in designing the Urban Growth Area large enough to
accommodate our expected growth, but not so large that it will allow inefficient
low-density urban sprawl development.
(4) Work with Kitsap County to develop the Urban Growth Management
Agreement (UGMA), as required by the Countywide Planning Policies, to better
govern all lands within the Urban Growth Area.
(5) Promote the concept of development clustering to conserve energy, save land,
lower public costs, reduce sprawl, and provide open space.
State Goal #3: TRANSPORTATION
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
Supporting Policies:
(1) Ensure that planned transportation facilities are designed to implement the
City's Land Use Plan, rather than simply resond to development patterns and
past trends.
(2) Ensure that the City's Transportation Element and related Land Use proposals
are consistent with the regional Vision 2020 Plan, with the Countywide
Transportation Plan, with the plans of transportation service providers, and with
regional and local priorities.
See the Transportation Element for additional goals and policies.
State Goal #4: HOUSING
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and
housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Land Use - Page 3
Supporting Policies:
(1) Designate on the Land Use Plan sufficient, accessible, buildable land areas
that can accommodate the housing needs of the community, and follow with
consistent zoning and other appropriate regulatory controls.
(2) Protect neighborhoods from incompatible development, noise, glare, odor,
dust, bypass traffic, and other damaging intrusions that might adversely affect
their comfort and livability.
(3) Provide continuing opportunities for a range of housing types and densities
that will accommodate the lifestyles and economic levels of present and future
residents.
(4) Promote preservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment activities that ensure a
variety of housing types and costs, and that also preserve the historic, social,
and aesthetic qualities of Bremerton neighborhoods.
See the Housing Element for additional goals and policies.
State Goal #5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all
within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and
public facilities.
Supportina Policies:
(1) Promote a strong, stable local economy that retains existing jobs, assists in
economic expansion, promotes economic diversification, maintains
environmental quality, and protects our quality of life.
(2) Provide sufficient land use and development opportunities to ensure that
Bremerton continues to provide a wide variety of job and business
opportunities and continues to be a major economic center of Kitsap County.
(3) Seek ways to attract and accommodate new kinds of businesses, home-based
businesses, and industrial diversification opportunities to offset the anticipated
decline in federal or military-related local jobs.
(4) Ensure that proper zoning and expeditious development regulations are in
place to accommodate new commercial, industrial, tourism, and other
business-related development.
(5) Review and streamline, as necessary, the City's governmental and permitting
processes to ensure quick responses to potential investors, developers,
homeowners, and others seeking to build, live or do business within the City.
(6) Ensure the availability of adequate public services and utilities to all sites.
Land Use - Page 4
(7) Protect quality well-located industrial lands from being lost to higher value
commercial or other non-industrial competing uses.
State Goal #8: NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES
Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive
timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of
productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses.
Supporting Policies:
(1) Bremerton will continue to discourage costly and land intensive sprawl in rural
areas by providing opportunities for new development concentrated at higher
urban densities within the City.
(2) Continue to manage the City watershed and related Utility owned lands in a
manner that protects the forest and water resources in accordance with the.
adopted Utility Land Management Plan.
(3) Continue to improve sewage treatment facilities, the stormwater system, and
other facilities, and enforce environmental regulations to help ensure clean
and healthy water and shoreline environments for fish and other sea life.
State Goal #9: OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
Supporting Policies:
(1) Continue to acquire and develop new park, recreation and open space areas
and facilities that will be needed to meet the needs of our growing population.
(2) Work with the school district and other organizations to develop joint-use
agreements for available facilities.
(3) Incorporate into new development proposals the provisions of the adopted
Waterfront Access Plan and other plans and regulations that call for shoreline
access improvements, pathways, or other forms of access or facilities linkage.
State Goal #10: ENVIRONMENT
Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including
air and water quality, and the availability of water.
Land Use - Page 5
Supporting Policies:
(1) Through the process of siting, design, orientation and Site Plan Review, ensure
that new development promotes the air quality goal and policies, the water
quality and quantity goal and policies, and other applicable environmental
quality provisions addressed in the Environmental Management Element of this
Plan.
(2) Continue to protect and manage the City's Union River Watershed and nearby
Utility-owned forest resource lands.
(3) Pursue environmental objectives through such indirect land use planning
concepts as clustered housing, reduced vehicle travel, mixed use
development, transportation corridors, and regulations to protect sensitive
areas, resource lands, and other Ilocal valuables.
State Goal #13: HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures, that
have historical or archaeological significance.
Supporting Policies:
(1) Identify historic sites and structures of architectural significance throughout the
City and assist in their protection and preservation.
(2) Promote the use of historic names, such as Manette or Charleston when those
names have significance or provide a stronger local identity.
B. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
The Land Use Element is guided, in part, by Countywide Planning Policies. These
were originally adopted by Kitsap County in August, 1992. The policies are too
numerous to list here, but they pertain to all aspects of comprehensive planning, from
establishment of the Urban Growth Area (U~A) to the details of fiscal impact analyses
and policies for coordination between all jurisdictions.
SupDorting Policy: Bremerton will continue to be guided by the adopted
Countywide Planning Policies and will ensure that subsequent amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations are consistent with the policies.
C. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS
The primary regional guide to Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan is the Vision 2020
plan developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council. The Transportation Element
discusses that plan and the City's role as a "metropolitan center".
Land Use - Page 6
The "regional vision" is also embodied in the Multicounty Planning Policies, which
Kitsap County shares with Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties. Most of the
following summary policy statements will look familiar because they are very basic
and are repeated, sometimes with greater emphasis, in other elements of the Plan.
(1) Concentrate development in urban areas to conserve resources.
(2) Promote urban growth in compact well-defined "centers" that are connected by
an efficient multimodal high-capacity transportation system.
(3) Create lively people-oriented areas with bicycle and pedestrian access.
(4) Allocate population and employment in a manner consistent with the adopted
regional vision.
(5) Strive for City-County cooperation in the annexation process to ensure orderly
growth of the City and coordination of utilities, roads and other services.
(6) Support a countywide or regional siting process for essential public facilities,
as well as local regulations that can accommodate them.
(7) Phase public facilities and services to achieve the adopted vision.
(8) Promote fair and equal access to housing for all persons.
(9) Frame and separate central places and urban growth areas by creatign
networks of permanent urban and rural open spaces that may include parks,
recreation areas, critical areas and resource lands.
Supporting Policy: Bremerton agrees with the overall intent and direction of the
regional Vision 2020 Plan and with the Multicounty Planning Policies and will continue
to support regional planning coordination and consistency of plans and programs.
D. THE ViSION FOR BREMERTON
Element "B" of this Plan provides the vision of Bremerton's future that guides the
policies and recommendations of this Comprehensive Plan. The following are some
basic visions that will affect the Land Use Element:
1. During the period 1994-2014, Bremerton expects to see its greatest population
and development increase since World War II.
2. Bremerton will become economically stronger, more diversified, and will offer a
greater range of career-oriented commercial and industrial jobs. Tourism will
become increasingly important and related facilities will be needed.
3. The Harrison Hospital District will continue to grow in importance.
4. Olympic College will expand to offer four-year degrees.
5. Bremerton's role as the center for social and cultural activities will grow.
6. Parks and recreational opportunities will be expanded to meet new demands.
Land Use - Page 7
7. Bremerton neighborhoods will improve, become more stable and provide
opportunities for all economic segments of our community.
8. New and expanded mobility options,. involving buses, car-pools, ferries,
bicycles, pedestrians, etc., will become increasingly available.
9. Higher densities and land use intensities will be planned around transportation
corridors for maximum efficiency and mobility.
E. POPULATION GROWTH
1. City growth history:
Bremerton has grown through a series of about 90 annexations following the
City's incorporation in 1901. These annexations have added more than 13,000
acres of land. Much of that area is n'ow the City's watershed and related Utility
owned lands and not considered part of the "urbanized" community. The
I
City's area has nearly quadrupled during the past thirty years since 1964.
2. Population growth:
Bremerton's population growth increased slowly until World War II when Naval
activities, shipyard work, and population peaked. As shown in the following
table, the City's population grew from 15,134 in 1940 to 27,678 in 1950. What
doesn't appear in the decennial Census figures is the City's 1945 population of
about 72,500. During a few short years during the peak of World War II, the
City met its temporary housing need~, then settled back into a more
conservative growth and population pattern following the war.
POPULATION TRENDS 1901-1993
City 01 Bremerton. WashIngton
Population (Thousands)
80.0
0.0
60.0
40.0 -~
20.0
1901 1910 1920 1930 1940 1945, 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
0.5 3.0 8.9 10.2 15.1 72.5 27.7 28.9 35.3 36.2 38.1
Land Use - Page 8
200.000 -
180.000 -
160,000 -
140,000 -
120.000 -
100,000 -
z
~ so.ooo -
j
::>
...
2 60.000 -
40,000 -
20.000 -
NOTE:
RECENT GROWTH HISTORY
KJtup County
Although the City has grown
through annexations and continued
to develop internally, much of that
new growth has been non-
residential or replacement
residential and has not contributed
significantly to population growth.
Plans, zoning and development
trends throughout the County have
allowed and encouraged new
growth in rural and unincorporated
areas. During the past twenty
years, the number of people living
in unincorporated areas of Kitsap
County has climbed from 54
percent (1975) to 69 percent (1993).
Incorl'Orated
1975
1980
lSSS
1990
1993
The table to the left shows the
continuing increase in
unincorporated area population,
compared to the relatively slow
growth in cities.
Bainbridge Island is shown as being
incorporated for all years, even though
the island was annexed by Winslow
during this period.
3. Population Allocation:
A twenty-year population growth projection for Kitsap County was determined
early in the planning process and adopted within the Countywide Planning
Policies in August 1992. The adopted 2010 projection was for 91,254 new
residents in Kitsap County. That growth was allocated to the three county
subareas, the island city of Bainbridge Island, and 20,000 to Bremerton. The
allocations were consistent with an early policy to direct 75 percent of new
growth into designated urban areas.
Later in the process, Kitsap County determined that the 20,000 allocation to
Bremerton may be excessive and may cause utilities, facilities and service
needs to be under-estimated in other areas. A proposal to revise the
Countywide Planning Policies was submitted to the Kitsap Regional Planning
Council in the spring of 1994, received a favorable recommendation, and was
later approved by the County.
The amendment recognized the fact that no city or county plans had yet been
adopted to trigger the intended changes in growth patterns. Since Bremerton
had virtually no population growth from 1990 to 1994, its growth curve was
Land Use - Page 9
shifted four years ahead but remclined at 20,000 for the period 1994-2014. The
policy amendment added four years of additional growth to the county total
and shifted a higher proportion 01' the population into rural areas, based on an
allocation policy of two-thirds urban and one-third rural.
HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH
PERCENT OF
YEAR POPULATION COUNTY
1940 15,134 34.1%
1950 27,678 36.6%
1960 26,681 31.7%
1970 35,307 34.7%
1980 36,208 24.6%
1990 38,142 20.1%
1994 35,920
1995 40,801
(2/2B/95 Adjusted)
4. Ability to Accept New Growth:
Bremerton completed an extensive Land Use Inventory that included a
residential build-out analysis based on existing lands, development patterns,
and existing plans and zoning. The inventory discovered a considerable
amount of vacant and underutilized residential land throughout the City. The
Build-out Analysis determined that the current scenario can accommodate
another 13,000 residential dwellings, capable of housing at least 30,000 new
residents. Most of the urbanized portions of Bremerton are already served by
the necessary utilities, roads and other municipal services.
Bremerton has the ability to accommodate the 20,000 new residents that were
allocated by the Countywide Planning Policies. Whether or not that level of
growth ever occurs in the City is largely dependent upon Kitsap County's
ability to implement the intent of the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
regarding the curtailment of urban spr;awl so that most new growth will
effectively be directed into designated urban growth areas.
The new Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Board of
Commissioners in December 1994. It appears that the Plan contains no
significant changes in the designations of rural areas that might trigger the
desired shift in growth toward cities arid urban growth areas. Without the
benefit of stronger rural development controls, Bremerton will continue to plan
for growth, but will anticipate a slower, rate of growth.
Land Use - Page 10
F. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
(1) Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Bremerton has adopted a Critical Lands
Ordinance that defines, addresses and regulates aquifer recharge areas, fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas, geologically
hazardous areas, wetlands, and stream corridors. This ordinance is intended
to ensure that the City's remaining critical areas are preserved and protected
and that new development in and adjacent to these areas will be carefully
managed to avoid further degradation. While viewed as development
constraints, these regululations will ultimately enhance new development and
reduce long-term problems. Their influence will be felt least in the already
developed portions of Bremerton. The greatest opportunities for impact will be
on larger sites in less-urbanized West Bremerton locations. Even there,
development can be planned and adjusted to shift densities away from
sensitive areas without losing development potential.
(2) Watershed Lands: Bremerton's primary source of water is a carefully
managed surface system along the Union River Watershed. Over time the City
has acquired approximately 3,500 acres of land to protect that water resource
and will continue to strengthen it. These lands are currently planned and
zoned for watershed use and not available for other types of development.
(3) . Utility owned lands: Adjacent to the City watershed in southwest Bremerton
are approximately 5,000 acres of mostly forested lands owned by the City's
Utility. With the exception of lands in the vicinity of Anderson Creek that have
been "surplussed" and designated for industrial use, these lands are not
available for urban development at this time and are currently managed as
forest resource land. Some of the non-watershed lands are used for
recreation (Gold Mountain Golf Course) and some are needed for the
composting and disposal of sludge from the City's sewage treatment plant.
This practice serves the dual purpose of disposing of the waste product while
enhancing tree growth and wood production.
(4) Shorelines: Bremerton has miles of lake and marine shoreline, including
Kitsap Lake, Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, and the Port Washington Narrows.
These are important natural, scenic, aesthetic and recreational resources.
Although most shoreline parcels have already been developed, the overall
impact of this program on development will be minimal. We do expect
additional infill and redevelopment along our shorelines. The provisions of the
Shoreline Master Program will help ensure that those activities will enhance,
rather than damage, our shoreline environment.
(5) Steep Slopes and Hillsides: Bremerton has very little flat land. It was built
on hilly terrain surrounded by waterways and, in some locations, steep marine
bluffs and hillsides. Again, since most of the urban area has already been
developed, these constraints are not expected to seriously affect new or infill
development. Most areas have street access and utilities and, since the hills
and slopes provide excellent and highly desirable view sites, they tend to be
considered valuable resources rather than development obstacles.
Land Use - Page 11
(6) Existing Development Patterns: Existing structures and development
patterns may be the greatest development constraint. Bremerton's housing
stock consists of many small older homes. Many of the lots are large enough
for an additional house, large enough to further divide, or suitable for
redevelopment. However, the presence of existing structures on the potential
redevelopment site, or deteriorating structures nearby tends to raise the cost of
development, affect financing, and/or reduce the desirability of the site to
potential buyers or tenants. Bremerton will continue to offer a variety of
housing programs that will gradually'improve the overall condition of structures
and properties throughout the City.
(7) Market and Competitive Factor~: Although Bremerton has sufficient
properly zoned land area to accommodate more than 30,000 additional
residents, a number of market factors stand in our path. Among the obvious
are regional or national economic conditions, availability of financing for new
construction and home-ownership, weak "curb appeal" of available sites,
availability of business-related financing, strength of the job market, etc. Some
constraints are more directly related to the Land Use Element, including:
(a) Willingness to convert:
Many of Bremerton's oversized lots and other vacant infill sites are
being enjoyed by their owners for yard areas, additional off-street
parking or RV storage, to protect views, etc. These yards are valuable
and not readily given up by many resident home-owners. However,
investors may be more financially-inclined and willing to maximize the
development potential of these properties. So, while the City
encourages home-ownership, . it also encourages property investment,
new ideas, infill, redevelopment and neighborhood improvement. The
conversion process is slow and favors vacant lots over underutilized
lots. Bremerton has many mdre of the latter.
(b) Competition and Development Pressures:
Bremerton has an extensivl~ public infrastructure, zoning, an efficient
permitting process, development incentives, all the conveniences and
services of a central city, and a land use inventory that shows where the
development opportunities are:. We are in position and ready to grow.
There are reasons why Brelllerton is not yet growing as intended. The
city is surrounded by rapidly growing urban development in
unincorporated areas that also have urban services. Kitsap County is
one of the fastest growing counties in Washington and development
pressures are great. However, development is often easier and less
expensive when done on the urban fringe or in rural areas where public
sewer and water systems aren't required and road and other standards
are considerably lower than in ~rban areas. Those areas are also more
likely to have larger vacant parcels available, less expensive land, and
occasionally urban services to further stimulate growth.
Land Use - Page 12
The Growth Management Act was intended, in part, to deal with urban
sprawl, to more clearly define jurisdictional roles, and to better manage
growth in a less competitive manner. Until plans that comply with GMA
objectives are in place and starting to take effect, we don't expect to
see much change in the past growth trends, nor in the competitive
nature of local jurisdictions in dealing with new development.
G. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The "profile" presented in the Housing Element of this Comprehensive Plan explains
the social and economic diversity that is characteristic of the Bremerton community.
The City's character was shaped largely by its military population, its historic ties to
the Navy and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, its role as a social and cultural center,
its educational and recreational opportunities, and as a home for many who commute
by ferry to work in Seattle or elsewhere along the 1-5 Corridor. An understanding of
our history, current characteristics, and trends are important in planning for our future.
The cultural fabric of Bremerton is gradually changing.
. The proportion of racial/ethnic group members increased by 5 percent from
1980 to 1990 and now accounts for about 16 percent of the City's population.
. Families are getting smaller the numbers of single parent and female headed
households are increasing.
. Bremerton's average household size is expected to continue to drop from an
already low figure of 2.31 pph in 1980 to about 2.2 pph in 2010, according to
Puget Sound Regional Council forecasts. This contrasts with Kitsap County's
average household size in 1990 of 2.65 persons per household.
. Bremerton's older housing stock is meeting much of the regional need as well
as giving the community its style and character. There is a strong need to
conserve and rehabilitate the affordable housing stock that is currently being
used by those who need it most.
. The Housing Element projects a need for about 11,700 new housing units by
2014 to house our 20,000 population target. The Land Use Element will show
where those units can be constructed and will be followed by zoning
adjustments, as necessary, to allow them to be built.
. Nearly half (49%) of Bremerton's families and households had incomes below
80 percent of the County Median and were considered "low-income" in 1990.
. About 19 percent of Bremerton's owner households were paying more than
30% of their gross incomes for housing, while 35.3% of renters were
overpaying. Most of our households are renter-households.
Land Use - Page 13
The economic characteristics of Bremerton residents and households suggest a need
for more stable career-oriented jobs to complement recent growth in the lower-paying
service sectors. At the same time, Bremerton's housing stock needs to be upgraded
to provide a better balance of housing for all income groups. The Land Use Element
and Plan Map will designate the most appropriate locations for housing, business,
industry, and public/quasi-public land uses that will be needed to meet changing
needs and gradually improve our socio-economic conditions.
,. . .
.. ... d....
. '" "...
. . "...., d... .
. . _n_ . .. __.. .
.. ...... ... . _. un .. .. _ . . . ...
. 4~ . ECONOMIC DEVELQPMENTCONSIOEAAIIONS>
A. ECONOMY OF THE STATE AND REGION
Idaho, Oregon and Washington were among the ten fastest growing states in 1990
and a recent (1994) U.S. Census Bureau report predicted that Washington would
continue to be the fourth fastest growing state, behind Florida, Texas and California.
While the U.S. economy was in a recession in the early 1990s, Washington's
economy remained relatively healthy. In fact, the hardest hit areas were New England
and the Middle Atlantic states. High employment growth in the Pacific Northwest
made 1990 one of the best years ever. Total employment has continued to grow.
The most troubled sector of the regional economy has been the wood products
industry. Timber harvests have been reduced to protect endangered species and to
adjust to long-term sustainable harvest programs on public forest lands. Some local
communities have been hit hard by unemployment and have taken steps to adjust
through economic diversification or other means.
Aerospace is Washington's largest manufacturing sector and dominated by The
Boeing Company. Many smaller manufacturing subcontracting firms rely heavily on
Boeing. About 20 percent of Boeing's business is defense and space related and
about 24,000 Boeing employees are currently working on defense contracts in
Washington. Obviously, there is concern over military and space program cutbacks
and how they might affect the economy of the state.
Total non-agricultural employment in Washington was 2,155,000 in 1990. Declines in
lumber and wood products were offset by small gains in nearly all other
manufacturing sectors. Employment growth is expected to be fairly slow over the next
few years as Boeing continues to make adjustments, as state and local governments
trim budgets, and as troubled industries and military-reliant communities diversify.
Newer high-technology sectors such as computer software and hardware,
biotechnology, and environmental management technology continue to flourish
throughout the Northwest. This region is also working hard to project a new and
strong international image, particularly toward Canada and around the Pacific Rim.
International trade through Northwest ports is expected to grow significantly.
Land Use - Page 14
. ,....
Lower business costs, comfortable lifestyle, and natural beauty have made
Washington a very desirable place in which to live and establish a business.
Continuing population and economic growth will be accompanied by growing
environmental issues. Protection of old growth forests, air quality, water quality and
quantity, natural resources management, waste disposal, salmon runs, and
preservation of other threatened wildlife species and sensitive areas are sure to grow
in importance as they are placed in the path of growth and new development.
These obstacles will, in many cases, increase the costs of business and are likely to
affect our overall economy. Thus, it is critical that the Comprehensive Plan, and
particularly the Land Use Element, provide the most suitable sites for economic
growth in locations that have the least potential for environmental conflict. .
B. THE LOCAL ECONOMY
The Kitsap County economy has been largely dependent upon its five military bases
and continued strong support for federal military spending. These bases provide
about 40 percent of all jobs in Kitsap County. As cut-backs occur in military
spending and bases around the country are closing, our state and local economies
are feeling the pinch. Rather than succumbing to the threats of higher unemployment
and economic decline, we are accepting the challenges of new opportunities and
economic diversification.
Three of the County's five major military employers are located within the City of
Bremerton --- the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the Naval Hospital adjacent to the
Jackson Park community, and the Naval Supply Center. These facilities provide
approximately 20,000 military and civilian jobs. However, the nature of those jobs
has changed recently with the military "down-sizing". Today, more than half of the
skilled shipbuilders are being paid to take old ships apart, a task that may not last
more than a few more years. The diversification efforts are aimed at how we might
keep those skills here at home, but in jobs that have a brighter future.
This County's economic imbalance is reflected in the lack of major industrial or
manufacturing businesses, very few industrial parks, and less than 3 percent of our
jobs in the manufacturing sector. Most of our new jobs have been in the lower-
paying retail and service sectors, which have grown by about 25,000 jobs since 1980.
Most of those jobs are located in the retail complexes of Silverdale and scattered
throughout the County in smaller commercial locations such as along the Kitsap Way
and Wheaton Way corridors of Bremerton.
The strong growth in retail and service sector employment is attributable, in part, to
the fact that Kitsap County continues to be a very desirable and affordable place to
live and is a relatively easy commute to the larger 1-5 Corridor job markets of Seattle,
Tacoma and other east Sound areas. If Kitsap County continues to grow in popularity
as a retirement community and recreational/tourist destination, retail and service
growth will continue to grow to serve those needs.
land Use - Page 15
Recent studies by the Economic Development Council of Kitsap County and the
County's Department of Community Develbpment have determined that there is a
considerable deficiency of land that is of stlitable size, properly served, and planned
and zoned for new industrial development throughout the County. An EDC committee
determined that the County should designate more than 2,000 acres of land for new
commercial and industrial development to :meet growth and diversification needs.
I
As part of Bremerton's Land Use Inventory process, an Industrial Lands Inventory was
completed in March 1993. It reviewed the 'Character and degree of existing and
potential development for all industrially-zoned areas in the City. Of the 474 acres of
industrial zoning, 217 acres (46%) are currently developed and used for industrial or
commercial purposes. The remaining 54 percent (257 acres) will provide
opportunities for new development. The s,hipyard's industrial lands were not included
in the "Industrial Inventory" but were included in the citywide Land Use Inventory
which found that our industrial lands account for about nine percent of our total land
area --- very close to the national average. I It's much more difficult to determine the
degree to which PSNS land is used and how much expansion potential exists.
C. BREMERTON ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES
The supporting policies that follow State planning goal #5 (Economic Development)
in Section 3 of this element outline the City's economic objectives, as they pertain to
the Comprehensive Plan. These policies a~e generally supportive of state, regional
and county economic objectives and with the adopted Countywide Planning Policies.
Economics are also addressed in the policies of other elements of this Plan. The City
,
may expand its Plan to include a separate element to deal more directly with
economic issues. Such an element could be added during a subsequent update.
The Economic Development Council of Kitsap County (EDCKC) is working to retain
existing employment, expand existing employers' operations, and promote selected
new employment opportunities.
Policy: Bremerton supports the efforts of the EDCKC and will assist, through land
use planning and other means available, in promoting a strong, countywide economy
and balanced economic growth that will:
. Improve support for existing industry and business.
. Stabilize local area economic fluctuations.
. Diversify employment opportunities. :
. Strengthen the tax base.
. Create new jobs. ,
. Improve the general countywide business climate.
. Manage the character of economic growth.
. Research and distribute demographic data.
. Diversify and strengthen the EDCKC's membership and funding base to ensure
the continued delivery of economic development services in Kitsap County.
Land Use - Page 16
...r..).lR. .....B\kt.:fiSR.~1~JffiXbEA)>>......u>> ......
>>0.. ,,'>:.:;.::.:\.1 n~,~:\q,:, ,V.:Y.V:':I'n..<t\n ...:.,...:.:.:::.... . .
In accordance with the Growth Management Act, each city must submit a proposed Urban
Growth Area to Kitsap County. The County must review the proposals, locate other areas
having urban characteristics, and formally establish Urban Growth Areas countywide.
October 1, 1993 was the deadline to establish "interim" UGAs.
A. DEFINITIONS
Throughout this planning process there has been controversy over terminology. The
key terms .urban. and "rural" are not specifically defined, nor are the preferred .or
acceptable density ranges or types of development within each category. Thus, we
have relied heavily on the following definitions provided in the Growth Management
Act (ESHB 2929) for guidance:
(1) Urban Growth refers to growth that makes intensive use of land for the
location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree
as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of
food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral
resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically
requires urban governmental servics. "Characterized by urban growth" refers
to land having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to
an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth.
(2) Urban Growth Areas means those areas designated by a county pursuant to
Section 11 of the Growth Management Act, which includes the following basic
guidelines and principles:
(a) Urban growth shall be encouraged within the designated UGA and
growth outside a UGA can occur only if it is not urban in nature. (There
is a need here for a clear interpretation of what is "urban" and what is
"rural", along with their respective densities and uses.)
(b) The UGA must include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban
growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding
twenty-year period. (Our Countywide Planning Policies directed two-
thirds of new growth into urban areas and one-third into rural.)
(c) Each city must proposed a UGA and the county must attempt to reach
agreement with the city, or justify in writing why it could not.
(d) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by
urban growth that have the public facility and service capacities to serve
such development, and second in areas already characterized by urban
growth that will be served later.
Land Use - Page 17
(e) It is appropriate that urban governmental services be provided by cities,
and urban governmental services should not be provided in rural areas.
(ij Interim UGAs must be adopted by October 1, 1993 and final UGAs
adopted at the time of cornprehensive plan adoption.
(g) All urban growth areas must be reflected in county and respective city
comprehensive plans. (Each city needs to know the limits of its UGA
well before adoption of the County's Plan. This suggests that the
"interim" UGA, adopted by Oct. 1, 1993, should be as close as possible
to the final UGA.)
(3) Urban Governmental Services include those governmental services
historically and typically delivered by cities, and include storm and sanitary
sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and
police protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities
associated with urban areas and normally not associated with nonurban areas.
In addition to the terminology addressed in the Growth Management Act, Bremerton
developed an extensive Glossary of planning terms to assist the CAC, Planning
Commission, City Council, and general public, and which was distributed to other
jurisdictions for their use as well.
B. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
The "Urban Growth Areas" chapter of the Countywide Planning Policies for Kitsap
County addresses a number of growth issues, but did not establish UGAs. However,
policies were adopted to guide the establishment of UGAs, based on a process
outlined in Element 2 of the Region Wide Growth Management Strategy which was
adopted by the Kitsap Regional Planning Council on November 13, 1991. That policy
was generally consistent with guideline documents published by the State Department
of Community Development and recommended a land use inventory and build-out
analysis of available lands to provide the foundation for the UGAs.
Bremerton based its UGA proposal primarily on existing development patterns,
access, urban utilities and services, and the approximate additional area that may be
needed to accommodate the County's urban growth needs. Bremerton's proposal
was based, in part, on a detailed Land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis of all
lands within the City and some additional adjacent unincorporated areas.
C. BREMERTON'S URBAN GROWTH AREA PROPOSAL
(1) First Submittal: Bremerton submitted a proposed UGA to Kitsap County on
May 26, 1992 for incorporation into the Countywide Planning Policies that were
being developed at that time. (UGAs were not included)
Land Use - Page 18
(2) Second Submittal: Bremerton's UGA proposal was refined and resubmitted in
the fall of 1992. The UGA included the unincorporated communities of
Silverdale and Gorst, Bremerton National Airport and the adjacent industrial
park, and other areas as illustrated on the following map. It was specifically
noted that the UGA was not a proposed annexation map and that
interjurisdictional cooperation and coordination would be essential to ensure
that urbanization would be efficiently implemented.
(3) Interim UGA Adoption: In October 1993, Kitsap County adopted the "Urban"
and "Semi-Urban" designations of its current Comprehensive Plan as its
"Imterim UGAs". The adopted UGA was not based on the cities' proposals
and was not consistent with the County's draft Land Use Plan.
(4) Third Submittal: At the County's request, Bremerton again reviewed the
proposed UGA, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept
public comments, no amendments were made, and the City again submitted
the same proposal on February 24, 1994.
Kitsap County adopted its Comprehensive Plan and Final UGAs on December 29,
1994. Until appeals of the County Plan and UGA process are resolved, Bremerton's
UGA will be depicted as shown on the map on page 20, with the understanding that
the UGA will be adjusted later through the normal Plan Amendment process.
D. URBAN GROWTH AREA MANAGEMENT
Much of the area around Bremerton is "urbanized" (characterized by urban
development). Residential densities and development patterns are urban in nature
and design, and many areas enjoy public water and sewer utilities, paved streets, and
other typically urban services. Commercial districts extend beyond the City limits and
the county's primary airport and industrial park are expected to expand and will need
services. All such areas should be contained within Urban Growth Areas.
Bremerton provides urban services to some unincorporated areas but lacks zoning or
other land use control. Thus, coordinated land management procedures would help
ensure the coordinated provision of those services. The City and County must work
together toward agreements and mutually-adopted plans for future land uses and
densities so that we can more accurately plan for our future service needs. The UGA
will accept most of Central Kitsap's new growth and will demand a high degree of
interjurisdictional cooperation. Bremerton will include all of its service areas in its
Comprehensive Plan along with provisions to ensure that future land use amendments
within those areas are done mutually to avoid premature and unnecessary demands.
The Countywide Planning Policies include provisions for an "Urban Growth
Management Agreement (UGMA)", to be entered into by Bremerton and Kitsap
County and which would provide the guidance needed for a smooth growth and
development transition throughout our shared UGA. It is the intent of the City to
pursue the development of this agreement immediately following Plan adoption.
Land Use - Page 19
-11\ --J:::;I i I),
...J l=fYffll ,_
^ ~q~~
diH1lL,
~4 ftl~ 'iI'~] l ~!' ~,~~ ~ ~ rJJf~f tJ)
r~' - =l r _ ~ 'J~.
I f- .111 - II'M l' '~m:
I ~ ,: tIo ilfc Jl Jtlll, 1P.\.\
" ' tl: I.' I _ P};1
_ ' \. 1_ '-t-l= 1-/ ~~
I l!JJ: u.-., 0.' I =I=~ I~ --J
IJI - , I " g--E]i~
'I'll. . - ~'g ~ 'V~iIi, ~ -rr ~ 7~!I '[If ~r-f"\
. I;~~ -'l...~1-- c-: ~ "Ii -I' -
'r~,J~iiIT 'I!!tm-; ~l ]'
~(,i~~ _ .- r'~ ::1111; _ -LJ--IPr
Silverdale -:,.j I--~- - - IT JI U'
1 unineor rate? 1 IY -h -~
Proposed
URBAN
GROWTH
AREA
J
~ i'jlfll
'T= L'
-'-
~~m~,J
It ~ ~~i
II~
11 ~
May 26, 1992 I...L li.
November 1992 ~I-- liflI,~ '~
February 24, 1994J!~lm1 __ ,~' ,(,oj
I', /J. '
~ 1It1-1-l-JOl " _,
~JI-IH 1J111't'I'h~ 1~1frl1i I- ,-
T'~II I ~ I U U .
----- Bremerton City limits
Urban Growth Area
~
Prepared by:
Bremerton Planning
Submitted:
Revised:
Reviewed:
tm
r
DYl!s Inlet
'JI
j
- I I -"
~":; .~'
~!:l.incorporated
la. 10
~
II~ 'F
1---
0::
----I ~
~ I _-
"
~ "
...,
I
I
I
""
I
dJs>
\;>
-:=J L ___' _ -.-J
-_ J-E:_
. .Ii
-I--I~-I
-lr{ r~
--
.
L.
~'l.
'j, r,r
i/ J'nLi~i
IlJ~~-- , :
~Tl
-.. ..r~~p :
... C;ly of .,emerton rhj: 1 ,fJl
-'~H=t~-; I--~.~;~
"-':.:,J~ "il" ~ ~f' tij;t:~ ~
~,~ ~ M-~l:II / ;r)"P III,,! ~ ~ ;r~=--' r ~
;=" 97 ____ ~- ~ ~1f S1~ :/") ;:r_
~ ~f1~"~:C:~'I"'!~ ~~~i~~:~=
',( ~~:~~I ~ 0 ~l--F:~~ __
~.' ! I · Ii Land Use '- Page 20 ::-
~~l 1~-c-fM31'9~~wr ~
?:Lj~ L"j ~Tv-J'll l'aiC1 __ ~
.~..
ityof
remerton
~-~j~
liI!li!!~"V
~1
~
Sinclair Inlet
Port fA
Orchard 1i; 1
~
-
...,.
~
~~
~111~t_,,11
rltl
\J.:
~f
,",,0'
s.;
c
;J
I~~
it
~
!1 - j-
-IF" ;
\=r ~I
R;!l .
71 ~,.
~- I
; -H+-:"jJt:
I~:
".=17,'
According to Kitsap County's adopted Countywide Planning Policies, the Urban
Growth Management Agreement is to include at least the following:
(1) The UGMA must address Mure annexation proposals and the annexation process.
(2) Annexation policies guiding the County and individual cities shall be adopted in a timely fashion
and subsequent annexations processed according to the terms of those policies and related
agreements.
(3) The UGMA will include provisions that will guide the provision of public services.
(4) A method for determining appropriate compensation, if any, for major capital construction projects
within annexation areas. The UGMA must also include a method for sharing revenues and
expenses resulting from annexation actions.
(5) Pre-annexation agreement issues related to the provision of urban governmental services must be
considered in the UGMA.
(6) The UGMA must include levels of service (LOS) standards, following a countywide process to
establish a common methodology.
(7) The UGMA will provide the process by which jurisdictions may review and comment on each
other's Plan amendments, zone changes, and development applications.
(8) The UGMA must identify common and consistent development and construction standards to be
applied throughout the UGA. These may include streets and roads, utilities, and other
infrastructure.
(9) The UGMA must identify services to be provided within its UGA, the service purveyors, and the
terms under which the services will be provided.
6. LAND USE RATIOS & DENSITIES
It's helpful to have a good understanding of the balance and patterns of land uses within our
City, and a comparison of how our land use ratios are similar to or different from those in
other communities. This exercise can also help us find land use deficiencies and determine
whether or not a major trend adjustment is justified.
Land use ratios refer to the breakdown of various categories of land as a percentage of the
total amount of land in a community. Ratios have been used as land use planning "rules of
thumb", but are more commonly used to identify strengths and imbalances. Our Land Use
Inventory provided the acreages of each type of use, which were then tallied and mapped so
their relationships could be better viewed and discussed.
A. NATIONWiDE LAND USE SURVEY
An extensive study of land use ratios was undertaken by the American Planning Association
in 1992. The APA surveyed 66 municipalities to update an older 1983 survey. In order to
accommodate the wide range of data sources, the survey used only the categories of
residential, commercial, industrial, and public. Since the intent was to review "uses" of urban
land, vacant, agricultural, and forest areas were not included. However, resource extraction
(gravel pits) was included as an industrial use. Transportation facilities, rights-of-way,
communications, and utilities were included in the "public" category. Mixed uses were
Land Use - Page 21
tabulated according to the dominant use of the property which, in most cases, was the
ground floor use. The process and categories use(j in this survey were very compatible with
Bremerton's Land Use Inventory and the results were somewhat predictable.
The following are some highlights and findings from the 66-city survey that are of value in
Bremerton's Land Use Element. Acreage figures piertain only to the "urbanized" areas of
Bremerton and do not include the City's watershed and other forested Utility lands.
Disclaimer: Cities have different land use requirements and different factors affecting their land use
distribution. These figures should be used only to better understand how we compare with other cities in
terms of general land use breakdowns.
(1) Residential Uses -.. National Survey
In 1955, 40 to 42 percent of city land was in residential use. A 1973 follow-up
found about the same percentage. However, suburban development (sprawl)
began to show up in the statistics in 1983 when the residential percentage rose
to 48%. Densities tended to be lower in newer sprawling western cities. By
1992, the percentage had exceeded 50% in the average city.
A number of factors are now working hard to reverse the urban sprawl trend,
including basic economics, home prices, availability of financing, zoning
trends, incentives to cluster, encouragement of mixed use developments,
preservation of resource and rural lands, and others. This is especially true in
growth management states that are required to do responsible planning that
will result in higher urban densities and more efficient use of urban
infrastructure. '
Single family dwellings comprise 73 percent of the housing stock of a typical
city. Bremerton has a higher overall density than the typical city and our figure
is a much lower 49 percent, or 60 percent when combined with duplexes.
Forty percent of Bremerton's housing stock is comprised of multi-family units
(more than one dwelling unit within the same structure), compared to only 14%
in the typical community.
Although manufactured homes are growing in rural popularity, they comprised
only 3% in the surveyed cities and less than one percent in Bremerton.
(2) Commercial Uses --- National Survey
This category includes offices and retail business. The commercial ratio rose
from 3.3 percent of all land uses in 1955 to about 10 percent in 1992. Much of
this change is attributed again to a sharp increase in suburban sprawl, in the
form of strip commercial, primarily one-story retail, garden office complexes,
and other development that caters to the automobile and that includes great
expanses of parking lots, which are also included in this category. Newer
suburban communities tend to have higher proportions of commercial land
use.
Land Use - Page 22
The average square footage of commercial space per worker increased from
110 sq.ft. in 1942 to 342 sq.ft. in 1988. Thus, three times as much land is now
used for the same number of employees, which has helped raise the
commercial ratio.
Approximately 7 percent of Bremerton's urban area is devoted to commercial
and office uses, which is less than typical, but which would be expected in a
higher-density community.
(3) Industrial Uses m National Survey
In 1955, the average industrial land use ratio was 6.4 percent. Industrial land
use peaked in the late 1970s or early 1980s at around 12 percent. By 1992,
the average had slipped to 10.5 percent. In small cities and suburban areas,
the figure has remained constant at about 7.5 percent. Coldwell Banker
determined that we experienced the highest ever national vacancy rate in 1990
of 6.9 percent for industrial buildings larger than 100,000 square feet. This was
attributed to an economic shift from manufacturing to service industries that is
continuing.
We are also experiencing a trend toward mixed commercial and industrial
businesses. The result is often "heavy commercial" rather than what used to
be considered "light industry". Mixed use concepts are increasing in popularity
and provisions are being added to zoning ordinances. Bremerton allows
several forms of mixed use development and it's getting more difficult to find a
clear separation when applying development standards to many industrial and
commercial uses.
(4) Parks and Recreational Uses --- National Survey
We often apply the National Recreation and Parks Association's (NRPA)
standards of acres per thousand people when planning for park and
recreational facilities. Ten acres per 1000 residents has been the traditional
rule of thumb for calculating the number of acres of park land needed in a
community. Unfortunately, many cities have fallen well short of that goal and
have looked at other ways of measuring their park and recreational facilities.
One way is to view them as a percentage of the community's overall land use
inventory.
In 1955, the amount of developed park/recreational land was 4.4 to 7 percent.
Newer suburban communities with large single-family lots tended to have fewer
parks but also had large open fields at the local schools. Private open space
in inner city areas simply wasn't available, and inner city schools were also
crowded onto small parcels, often with asphalt playgrounds. Thus, public
parks were considered much more important in those areas, and the only real
opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Land Use - Page 23
The survey results showed that the percentage of park lands varied from 1
percent in several communities to more than 20 percent in Peoria IL, Reno NV,
Galveston TX, and some smaller cities. However, there were too many
measurement inconsistencies and other variables to establish a useable
average.
Even in Bremerton, there are different ways to measure parks and recreational
lands. Should they include private facilities? Should they include joint-use
facilities? Should open space incluqe cemeteries or open water areas?
Should the City's thousands of acres of watershed and forested Utility lands be
included in the category of open space, even if they are not available for public
access or use? Our Land Use Inventory found that 9.5 percent of urban lands
are devoted to these uses, not counting our utility lands or school sites, but
including significant public-asseslsible "open space" areas such as cemeteries.
(5) Institutional Uses --- National Survey
This category has grown gradually from about 10 percent in the 1940s to 13
percent in 1983. Larger cities typically have larger percentages because they
tend to provide more public services of a regional nature, along with their
related facilities.
Surveys found that uses such as hospitals, churches, schools, and
government buildings are all directly ,related to the population. As population
grows, so do these uses. Other uses, such as museums, civic centers, and
colleges, are not affected by population growth in the same ways.
These types of uses are normally allowed throughout the community, within
I
the commercial, industrial and residential zones. General demand is
predictable but it's not necessary for;the Comprehensive Plan to designate
specific sites in advance of need 'for most facilities. In fact, pre-designation
could damage the process of site acquisition by inviting speculation or causing
an artificial value adjustment.
(6) Transportation & Utilities Uses --- National Survey
These facilities account for the second highest percentage of land uses.
Generally, the amount of public right-of-way increases in proportion to the
percentage of single-family dwellings.
ISTEA and "neotraditional town planning" are tools that may affect the ways we
plan for transportation. We will improve the management of land use and
transportation systems rather than simply adding capacity to existing streets
and highways. Successful implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes,
bus lanes, ridesharing, encouraging the use of alternate modes of travel, and
coordinated land use and transportation policies could help to hold ROWand
transportation use ratios steady as population continues to rise.
Land Use - Page 24
Bremerton's Land Use Inventory found that 18 percent of the City's urban area
consists of public rights-of-way. The percentage increases in the older central
areas that are characterized by a typical grid-pattern of streets and alleys and
relatively short blocks. Newer suburban subdivisions with larger lots, no alleys
and reduced-width streets tend to have a much lower proportion of ROW.
(7) OVERALL BREAKDOWNS
For comparison purposes, the following figures for Bremerton include only
developed lands within the "urbanized" portion of the City. These figures do
not include the thousands of acres of watershed and other Utility-owned lands.
1< '., . .. ...11992APA SURVEY L I
. .. ... .
.. .... .1993 BREMERTON INVENTORY
LAND USES
RESIDENTIAL 48% 35% 41.7 Ac.j1,000 pop.
COMMERCIAL 10% 9% 10.6 Ac.j1 ,000 pop.
INDUSTRIAL 10% 9% 10.0 Ac.j1,000 pop.
PUBliC 32% 47% 55.9 Ac.j1 ,000 pop.
(8) CONCLUSIONS
(a) Bremerton's land use ratios for commercial and industrial lands are not
significantly different from the average of the 66 cities surveyed in 1992.
(b) Bremerton's fairly high-density residential core and a compact
residential development pattern result in a smaller proportion of land
area devoted to residential uses. This figure also reflects the fact that
Bremerton is a mature community and its housing stock does not
include many large-lot suburban (sprawl) subdivisions.
(c) The larger than normal amount of "Public" lands might be attributed to
the presence of a community college, a freeway, two cemeteries, and a
higher than average percentage of public street rights-of-way.
(d) Bremerton's growth focus is within its current City boundaries. We
don't expect to see a significant growth in total land area, but we can
expect changes in land uses within the City. As population increases,
additional land must be provided for the services, jobs, retail centers
and other uses that accompany growth.
Land Use - Page 25
(e) If we use the current acres of land use per 1,000 population as a guide,
it's clear that we will need vast amounts of new commercial and
industrial land area to accommodate 20,000 more people. In fact, at a
rate of 10 acres per 1,000, we would need 400 acres of new
commercial and industrial development -- in addition to the 200 or more
acres of new parkland.
(f) Not all of those related land uses will occur within the City. Many may
locate outside the City but within the surrounding Urban Growth Area, in
accordance with the County's Land Use Plan for the UGA. Others may
be accommodated through rezones, redevelopment activities, mixed
use development, or higher-intensity development within existing zones.
Some trade-ofts may occur as the City continues to evaluate its needs
to accommodate residential growth, or perhaps to focus greater
attention on its role as a center of commerce and industry with more
land, resources, and development opportunities in that direction. The
Comprehensive Plan will continue to evolve and change through the
process of periodic review and amendment, and as the result of new
ideas and changing community needs and desires.
Land Use -. Page 26
...,.'." ..... ..".... : ", " ....
7..EAsTBREMERTON PI..AN.
A. EAST BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION
For ease of analysis and planning, Bremerton was
divided into three "sectors", The East Bremerton
sector includes all areas north and east of the
Port Washington Narrows. Within this area are
the community of Manette, Harrison Hospital,
lIIahee State Park (outside City), the Wheaton Way
commercial corridor, Perry Avenue Mall, and
points of interest.
All lands were inventoried, including
unincorporated areas, and existing uses and
residential densities were determined. For
purposes of this section, only lands within the City
limits will be addressed with the understanding
that Kitsap County will produce a consistent and
coordinated land use plan for all unincorporated
areas.
B. LAND USE INVENTORY
The City's land use inventory went beyond the City limits because it was necessary to
understand the nature of existing development, land use patterns and trends, and to possibly
assist Kitsap County in determining whether or not these areas should be included in the
Urban Growth Area. Also, Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan has traditionally included these
unincorporated surrounding areas and, at the time of the inventory, they were included in the
"Bremerton Planning Area".
The detailed results of the City's land use and build-out capacity studies are contained in the
April 1994 (revised) document entitled land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis and
won't be repeated here. The following table provides a summary of land uses within the City
limits of East Bremerton. This sector contains no watershed or utility lands and its total area
is about 11 percent of the total City area. This is the smallest sector.
land Use - Page 27
E. BREMERTON
LAND USES
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PARKS & O.S.
SCHOOLS
PUBLIC
WATERSHED
UTI L1TY LAN DS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
VACANT
I TOTALS:
607.7
148.5
, 1.6
94.8
96.2
61.2
0.0
0.0
~69.6
347.7
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
37.3
9.1
0.1
5.8
5.9
3.8
0.0
0.0
16.6
21.4
100.0
TOTAL ACREAGE
I '
1,627.3
% of City = 11.1
c. RESIDENTIAL LANDS
(1) Overall Character:
Most East Bremerton neighborhoods have been around long enough to be
considered mature, but not old. When we compare this area to older Central
Bremerton, we see that East Bremerton is lower in overall density, structures
are newer, average property values are higher, and most neighborhoods have
not been seriously impacted by non~residential intrusions. East Bremerton
neighborhoods are often on hilly ter~ain with exceptional views of the Olympics,
Cascades, Mt. Rainier, Seattle, and surrounding waterways.
Multi-family dwellings dominate in East Bremerton. Their portion would
approach 60 percent if duplexes were included in the total. The overall
appearance, when passing through, is a mostly single-family community. Most
condominiums and apartment complexes are clustered in high-density districts
and along shorelines, and tend to be well-sited and buffered from surrounding
uses and views. The Manette area is probably the most diverse in terms of
residential mix, which may be contributing to its unique character and strong
sense of community.
(2) Breakdown of Residential Types
by Numbers of Dwelling Units:
Single-family dwellings 2,573
Duplex dwellings 806
Multi-family Dwellings 2,948
Mobile Homes 19
40.5%
12.7%
46.5%
0.3%
(3) Residential Density: A key principle of this Plan is to build higher levels of
Land Use -. Page 28
residential density along major transportation corridors and around terminals.
In such areas, we will strive for a minimum density of7 units per acre. East
Bremerton already has a good density base and an overall average density of
6.9 DU / Acre. The Build-out Analysis showed that a maximum residential
density of 11.8 DU / Acre could be reached at full development. To be most
effective, higher densities should be within easy walking distance of transit
routes and in close proximity to commercial and office districts.
DENSITIES
Residential only. Does not include lands that are
zoned or used for non-residential purposes.
-
-
..
[2]....
. '. .' . <> . ~ '
..; . "," - ,;.~
. .'. -.-.
D
GREATER THAN 10 DU/Acre
8.1 to 10 DU/Acre
6.1 to 8 DU/Acre
4.1 to 6 DU/Acre
4 DU/Acre or less
Land Use - Page 29
D. COMMERCIAL LANDS
Approximately 9 percent of East Bremerton lands are in commercial use. This is typical of
the 66 cities in the APA survey and reflects the citywide average. In addition to these lands,
the Land Use Inventory found another 51.9 acres that are not in commercial use but are
commercially zoned and could be developed to me'et growing commercial needs.
(1) The Perry Avenue Mall and surrounding businesses serves the east side in
the vicinity of Perry Avenue and Sheridan Road, an area that has considerable
growth potential both within and outside the present City limits.
(2) The Sheridan Village Shopping Center shares a mixed commercial/medical
district along Old Wheaton Way at Lebo. This district is centrally located, has
good access, and is growing toward 'the north and southeast. The City will
develop a more specific plan for the Harrison Health Services District in 1995.
(3) The Manette Business District, located at the east end of the Manette Bridge
is an older neighborhood center that ,has considerable improvement potential.
A business survey was conducted in the spring of 1994 to get comments
about the district's current health and suggestions for improvements. A more
specific land use plan will be recommended if the business community
supports the idea and participates in the program.
(4) The Wheaton Way Corridor is a long strip of intense auto-oriented
commercial activity. This is a very su'ccessful and valuable commercial strip.
However, commercial signs, lights, noise, and heavy traffic dominate and the
result is an environment that is oft,en hostile to the pedestrian or bicyclist and
generally unattractive to the passer-by.
(5) The Brownsville Corridor is the northerly extension of Wheaton Way beyond
the City limits. Kitsap County has planned and zoned this corridor in a manner
that will continue the "strip commeircial" pattern even further.
I
E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS
East Bremerton has virtually no industrial base. Among the few exceptions are a clothing
manufacturing business and a moving and storage warehouse. Retail and service
businesses dominate the non-residential sectors and there is very little land remaining that is
clearly suitable for industrial use. Truck access, proximity to markets, utilities, and other
factors tend to discourage the establishment of new industries or an industrial park in the
East Bremerton area. However, the City will encourage small businesses that assemble
products or conduct on-premise sales of manufactured goods in a mixed-use environment,
as well as small home-based operations.
Land Use - Pag,e 30
F. PARKS & SCHOOLS
Parks and open space areas in East Bremerton include Lions Field, Stephenson Canyon
Park, the East Park Greenbelt and YMCA area park, Sheridan Community Center, Bremerton
Theater, the Blueberry Patch on Sylvan Way, Bataan Park, the Senior Center in Manette, and
several small street end waterfront parks. These are addressed in greater detail in the Parks
and Open Space Element and in the Capital Facilities Plan Element.
The Land Use Plan includes designations for the protection of recreational and/or open
space areas along all shorelines. The purpose will be a combination of public access,
recreation, natural bank protection, and wildlife habitat preservation, as well as a first step in
integrating the City's various environmental regulations.
An optional "Environmental Management Element" is included in this Plan to assist in the
integration of various environmental plans and codes. And the "Capital Facilities Plan
Element" addresses park needs specifically, with emphasis on the financial aspects of
providing for the City's future growth.
The Parks Department recently updated its 5-year Comprehensive Parks & Recreation
Plan, to be adopted in early 1995. That process provided much of the parks and open
space data that are now contained in the Capital Facilities Element.
Schools are also addressed specifically in the Capital Facilities Plan Element and all existing
schools and known sites for proposed new facilities are shown on the Comprehensive Plan
Map. The City will work with the Bremerton School District on joint~use facilities and other
programs of mutual interest, but will not speculate on the locations of future school sites prior
to completion of the school district's plans. Major concerns of this Element, as it pertains to
schools, are safe and convenient access to and from schools, prevention of conflicting or
distracting adjacent land uses, and protection of surrounding neighborhoods from school-
related activities.
G. OTHER LAND USE ISSUES
(1) Transportation: A large portion of East Bremerton traffic has its origins and/or
destinations outside the City and travels through the community primarily on
Wheaton Way. East Bremerton has a build-out capacity for an additional 3,700
dwellings. Lands beyond the City limits are even less densely developed and
have much greater development potential. The peninsula extending from
Manette to Silverdale can expect to more than double in population. The
possible results of that growth on the transportation and road systems is
addressed in the Transportation Element. It's possible that the City and/or
County Land Use Plan will have to be adjusted if the financial means cannot
be found to provide the needed transportation facilities "concurrent" with new
development.
Land Use - Page 31
(2) Public/Quasi-public Uses: The public category includes a variety of public
and quasi-public uses. These include utilities, governmental services, public
schools, Harrison Hospital, the library and Post Office complex on Sylvan Way,
and the City utilities/services center on Olympus Drive. Many of these will
follow growth and will be absorbed i~to the community under present zoning.
Other "essential" facilities will be addressed in the Capital Facilities Plan
Element and through regulatory adju!?tments, as necessary.
Churches, private clubs, and similar Qrganizations are also examples of quasi-
public facilities, but are usually small and not planned in advance. The Zoning
Ordinance provides for these facilities within other zones.
H. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS
At the end of this element are brief but more specific land use and improvement plans for key
areas of East Bremerton, including:
(1) Manette Business District
(2) Harrison Health Services District
(3) Wheaton Way Corridor
Land Use - Pag~ 32
... ... ........... ... . .
......8: ...............C12mFfA12......BREMERfQf\J.......plAN............................
A. CENTRAL BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION
The Central Bremerton sector includes areas
south and west of the Port Washington Narrows,
the Central Business District, puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, and all other areas west to the vicinity
of National Avenue and Oyster Bay. Also within
this area are Brem~rton High School, Olympic
College, Evergreen Park, Forest Ridge Park, the
Charleston Business District, and other points of
interest.
All lands were inventoried and existing uses and
residential densities were determined. For
purposes of this section, only lands within the City
limits will be addressed with the understanding
that Kitsap County will produce a consistent and
coordinated land use plan for all unincorporated
areas.
B. LAND USE INVENTORY
\\-
\.-
'.:=" \
..= ~
. ,
. ~..-.--
..".-
.".
;; ,
;;
;;
~;. ~f
--...- ..... ~L~
;; 1
......~ ;; 11\
I ...;,J.c"'~
'''''_ c."
,;
...
'"
/'
~.,..;..: ,..-
The City's land use inventory included Rocky Point because it was necessary to determine
the nature of existing development, land use patterns and trends, and the potential build-out
based on County zoning. This was particularly important because Rocky Point Road is
essentially a very long cul-de-sac street that empties directly onto Kitsap Way and has a high
potential for additional congestion and access problems. Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan
has traditionally included Rocky Point, Navy Yard City, and other unincorporated adjacent
areas and, at the time of the inventory, they were included in the "Bremerton Planning Area".
The following table provides a short summary of land uses within the City limits of Central
Bremerton. This sector contains no watershed or utility lands and its total area is about 13
percent of the total City area.
Land Use - Page 33
C. BREMERTON PERCENT
LAND USES TOTAL ACREAGE OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL 576.6 30.0
COMMERCIAL 190.2 9.9
INDUSTRIAL 235.9 12.2
PARKS & O.S. 113.8 5.9
SCHOOLS 67.6 3.5
PUBLIC 4,1.9 2.2
WATERSHED 0.0 0.0
UTILITY LANDS 0.0 0.0
RIGHT-OF-WAY 396.7 20.6
VACANT 302.1 15.7
I TOTALS: I 1,924.8 I 100.0 I
% of City == 13.1
c. RESIDENTIAL LANDS
(1) Overall Character:
Bremerton's oldest neighborhoods and structures are located in the Central
sector. These neighborhoods are as diverse in their architecture as they are in
their socio-economic characteristics. Neighborhood appearance also varies
considerably from the high-traffic arterials to quiet tree-lined residential streets,
and from rows of attractive bungalows to waterfront condominiums. This
sector of Bremerton includes the full range of residential possibilities. It also
includes the most intense, but not always well-conceived, mixtures of
residential and commercial in the CBD, Charleston and elsewhere.
The character of Central Bremerton cannot be described without noting the
presence of structural age, poor maintenance, deterioration and dilapidation.
This is the inner city of Kitsap County and, although the problems don't
measure up to those of large cities, they are serious problems that need
attention. All cities age -- some mme gracefully than others. Much of Central
Bremerton is now at a turning point. More than half of the homes are more
than 50 years old. We can't afford to allow the deterioration to grow into more
serious blight. The City intends to take actions that will force a transition in a
positive direction. Some specific options have already been developed and
others will follow.
(2) Infill Capacity:
Fifteen percent of the Central Area is considered vacant, which includes
partially-developed lots. Seventy-five pecent of the 6,809 dwellings are single-
family homes or duplexes, which is a radical contrast to East Bremerton where
multi-family units are the majority.
Land Use - Page 34
The Residential Build-out Analysis found that the current zoning would allow an
additional 1 ,858 single-family and duplex residences and an additional 1,026
multiple-family units in Central Bremerton. These would accommodate about
6,750 new residents. These figures are pure calculations of allowed
development to give us a better feel for the current potential for new
development, without consideration of the wide variety of market, economic
and environmental factors that tend to shape the local market.
Remaining vacant lots will accommodate some new growth. However, the
Central Area has relatively few vacant lots, so most new dwellings will more
likely be built as infill on underutilized or partially used lots as they become
available, or would be provided through redevelopment activities.
(3) Breakdown of Residential Types:
Single-family dwellings 4,324
Duplex dwellings 756
Multi-family dwellings 1,729
63.5%
11.1%
25.4%
It should also be noted that the Central sector also contains Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard and a constantly changing number of Navy ships. It also
includes West Park and Jackson Park housing complexes, and a number of
rooming houses and group quarters facilities. These are listed in the Land Use
Inventory and most are updated annually as part of the City's Census update
reporting.
(4) Residential Density:
As noted in the East Bremerton Plan discussion, a key objective is to build
higher levels of residential density along major transportation corridors and
around terminals so that public transit is economically feasible and becomes a
legitimate alternative to the family car. A minimum density level of 7 units per
acre has been proposed for those corridors.
The residential areas of the Central Bremerton sector have an average density
of 8.1 units per acre, the highest in the City. Maximum build-out figures
based on today's zoning would raise the overall density to 11.6 DU / Acre.
Nineteen of the Central Bremerton subareas already have densities exceeding
ten units per acre (see following map) and are already being served by Kitsap
Transit. These high density neighborhoods are located around Evergreen Park
and extend from the CBD to Charleston. They follow Burwell, Sixth, and
Eleventh Streets, each of which is currently a transit route.
Land Use -- Page 35
D. COMMERCIAL LANDS
DENSITIES
Residential only. Does not indude lands that are
zoned or used for non-residential purposes.
-
-
III
D....
: .' ". '0 . , ~ :~ : ~ :'
" ':.-' :;. :.':.
D
GREATER THAN 10 DU/Acre
8.1 to 10 DU/Acre
6.1 to 8 DU/Acre
4.1 to 6 DU/Acre
4 DU/Acre or less
The developed lands within this category (not incll:Jding vacant), comprise about 11 percent
of all developed lands within the Central Area. This is very close to the 10 percent average in
the APA study of 66 cities. Our Land Use Inventory found an additional 15 acres of vacant
commercially-zoned land within this sector for future expansion.
(1) The Central Business District is the focus of business activity and often the
focus of attention. The CBO has been struggling through a ten-year transition,
brought on primarily by the commercial development of Silverdale in the mid-
1980s. The retail importance hais shifted from the CBO to Silverdale and also
to auto-oriented strip commercial areas. Oowntown Bremerton is now working
to establish a new identity and land use mix that will work effectively to bring
the area back to prosperity and vitality.
Recent studies have introduced new downtown and waterfront development
concepts, have stressed the importance of improved ferry service and an
intermodal transportation facility, and have recommended the promotion of
Land Use - Page 36
major new housing to create a more balanced round-the-clock CBD
"neighborhood". These concepts will be summarized in the CBD Area Plan at
th~ end of this Element.
(2) The Charleston Business District along Callow Avenue is one of Bremerton's
older commercial districts and remains at an important transportation cross-
roads. The district is showing its age and in need of physical improvements
and district management -- possibly through a local business association. The
Plan will promote higher-density housing in and around this district and will
recommend assisting local property owners in the development of a specific
Area Plan for their district.
(3) New mixed use applications were introduced with adoption of the City's new
Zoning Ordinance in 1988. This was a slight change from past practices of
concentrating major commercial and office uses in commercial districts to
keep them out of residential neighborhoods. A "Neighborhood Business (NB)"
zone was adopted in 1988 to allow small personal and neighborhood service
uses within or adjacent to neighborhoods. These areas exist in the South
Smith Cove area (Eleventh Street Place), at Callow and 15th Street, along Sixth
Street, and other locations.
(4) In-home businesses are allowed in some residential zones. These may
include home occupations, some types of personal services, and office uses.
The idea is to allow compatible businesses and services closer to their users,
thereby reducing their need to travel. It also allows for maximum use of the
home and reduced demand for commercial office space.
(5) Parking lots are a significant land use in the Central area, totaling 41 acres. In
most cases, these are commercial lots in which people pay to park. Lots that
were clearly accessory to another business or land use were mapped as part
of the "parent" use. Some exceptions were made for excessively large parking
lots on separate parcels, such as those used by Olympic College and
Bremerton High School. With a greater emphasis (Transportation Element) on
mobility alternatives, we won't expect to see the creation of more large parking
lots. In fact, it's possible that the provision of automobile parking facilities will
be discouraged, or at least limited, in favor of other options.
E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS
Central Area commercial lands total 236 acres, about 14.5 percent of all development. A
large portion (204 acres) lies within the puget Sound Naval Shipyard. There are two
identifiable industrial "districts" outside the shipyard in the Central Area. One is in the Smith
Cove area along Sheldon Boulevard. The other is along Thompson Drive, north of Fifteenth
Street. Many of the uses mapped in this category tended to be small scattered uses, often
in commercial zones and occasionally in residential areas.
Land Use - Page 37
Other than PSNS expansion into the Charleston area, there are no plans to increase the
industrial presence in the Central Area. In fact, the City has taken steps to reduce industrial
opportunities by reducing some industrial zoning to' "Business Park" zoning, and to
encourage the relocation of the remaining industrial! uses from the Smith Cove and
Thompson Drive areas so that those lands might be recovered for more compatible uses.
F. PARKS & SCHOOLS
Parks and open space uses were mapped as th,sy exist and included extensive areas within
PSNS. The Parks and Open Space category accounted for 114 acres, including the major
parks (Evergreen and Forest Ridge), Ivy Green Cemetery, and smaller scattered playfields
and other areas.
The 68 acres of school acreage within the Central Area included Olympic College, Bremerton
High School, Naval Avenue School, and other institutional facilities.
The need for land acquisition for new schools and/or public parks, recreational facilities, or
open space will be addressed by the affected school districts, in the City's Comprehensive
Parks Plan, and in other elements of the ComprE~hensive Plan, most specifically the "Capital
Facilities Plan Element". As more data becomes available on land needs or specific sites for
schools, parks, open space, etc., the Land Use IElement will be adjusted to accommodate it.
G. OTHER LAND USE ISSUES
(1) Transportation: Central Bremerton's arterial streets handle great volumes of
traffic. The Warren/Eleventh Street intersection is one of the busiest in the
state. Adding 20,000 to the City's population, and a similar amount
immediately outside the City will bring about some serious traffic concerns.
Improved ferry service is a primary need that will, in turn, affect traffic to and
through the CBD and other areas of the community. The new Highway 304
entrance into the City and the question of whether or not one-way streets are
needed will also be continuing issues. These will be addressed in greater
detail in the Transportation Element.
(2) Public/Quasi-public: The "Other Public" category of the Land Use Inventory
includes a variety of public and quasi-public facilities, including churches,
frateral lodges, community centers, and governmental services and offices.
These uses accounted for 42 acres and are the types of uses that will grow in
proportion to population growth. The City's Plan and zoning will
accommodate these uses as they are needed.
(3) PSNS Expansion: The puget Soundi Naval Shipyard is expanding westward to
Callow Avenue. Indirectly related to that expansion is a new arterial entrance
design from Charleston Beach Road into Callow Avenue. Care will have to be
taken to ensure that these changes will satisfy the shipyard's needs, but not
adversely affect surrounding land uses, traffic patterns, and the health of the
Charleston Business District.
Land Use - Page 38
H. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS
At the end of this Element are brief but more specific land use and improvement plans for
key areas of Central Bremerton, including:
(1) Central Business District
(2) Charleston Business District
(3) Park Avenue Corridor
(4) Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan
(5) So. Smith Cove Redevelopment Area
Land Use - Page 39
a~uWESTBREMERT6N>PLAt.J ..... ...
A. WEST BREMERTON SECTOR DESCRIPTION
The West Bremerton sector is, by far, the largest of the three with 11,122 acres, or about 76
percent of the City's total area. The urbanized por1ion accounts for about one-fifth of the
sector and includes all areas west of National Avenue and Oyster Bay, the West Park and
Jackson Park communities, the Naval Hospital, NAp Park, the developing Pendergast Sports
Complex, Kitsap Lake, the City's sewage treatment plant, SR-3, and other points of interest.
On the urban fringe are operating gravel extraction operations and undeveloped hills.
The non-urbanized 4/5 of the West Sector consists mostly of City Utility-owned forest lands,
the City's Union River Watershed, Gold Mountain ~olf Course, and some smaller facilities.
Also included in this sector, but physically separated, is the Anderson Creek utility lands east
of Gorst and south of Sinclair Inlet. In December 1994, a portion of the Anderson Creek area
(approximately 340 acres) was declared to be surpius utility land and has been designated
for industrial use on the Comprehensive Plan.
( I
Jr
~
All lands were inventoried and existing uses and residential densities were determined. Only
lands within the City limits or in City ownership will be addressed, with the understanding that
Kitsap County will produce a consistent and coordinated land use plan for all unincorporated
areas.
B. LAND USE INVENTORY
The City's land use inventory included only areas within the City limits. The following table
provides a short summary of land uses within the City limits of West Bremerton.
W. BREMERTON PERCENT
LAND USES TOTAL ACREAGE Of TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL 382.4 3.5
COMMERCIAL 81.4 0.7
INDUSTRIAL 142.9 1.3
PARKS & O.S. 345.8 3.1
SCHOOLS 22.0 0.2
PUBLIC 226.5 2.0
WATERSHED 3,529.2 31.7
UTILITY LANDS 4,963.4 44.6
RIGHT-Of-WAY 387.6 3.5
VACANT 1,040.8 9.4
I TOTALS: I 11,122.0 I 100.0 I
% of City = 75.8
c. RESIDENTIAL LANDS
(1) Overall Character: . Residential lands account for only 3.5 percent of the total
land area and the overall residential density is a very low 2.3 dwellings per
acre. Much of West Bremerton and adjacent unincorporated areas might be
considered Bremerton's "urban fringe". These areas were originally rural and
still retain much of their rural character and lifestyle. The neighborhoods
surrounding Kitsap Lake have a character of their own and residents often
express a sort of protective "pride of ownership" regarding the lake and its
environs. West Bremerton is a very desirable place in which to live, as
demonstrated by the success of the Dockside on Kitsap Lake community and
other new investment and development.
(2) Infill Capacity: The City's watershed and utility lands are important to the
City's water source and forest resources and are not being considered for
residential development. However, with the urbanized portions of the West
Bremerton sector, the Land Use Inventory found 784 acres of vacant or under-
utilized residential lands that are presently zoned for residential use. This
Land Use - Page 41
availability of land, along with proper zoning and a very low current density,
provides for the greatest residential development opportunities in Bremerton.
Since West Bremerton is generally newer than other parts of Bremerton, there
will be very few opportunities for redevelopment. Most new development wi!!
be in the form of new subdivisions or infill on remaining vacant lots.
(3) Breakdown of Residential Types:
Single-family dwellings 844
Duplex dwellings 110
Multi-family dwellings 1,582
Manufactured Homes 113
31.9%
4.1%
59.7%
4.3%
The housing type breakdown is somewhat misleading. With nearly 60 percent
of the housing stock being multi-~amily units, one would expect to find an
overall density considerably higher than 2.3 DUjAcre. The answer is in the
density of the multi-family developments. Most of these are located within
Jackson Park and West Park. Both of these multi-family communities have
considerable amounts of internal open space, mostly single-story structures,
and very low overall densities. Although Jackson Park and West Park tend to
dominate the housing statistics for West Bremerton, multi-family development
is not characteristic of most of the West Bremerton area.
(4) Residential Density:
It was stated earlier that the existing ,residential density of the West Bremerton
sector is a low 2.3 units per are. At maximum build-out under current zoning,
the density could rise to 6.7 DUjAcre. This is still relatively low because very
little of the zoning allows multiple-family development.
Higher density within and along maj<;>r transportation corridors remains a
priority. The City will look for opportunities for higher density development
along Kitsap Way; in the vicinity of cpmmercial service centers, and along
transit routes. A large Planned Unit Development has been partially approved
adjacent to the Pendergast Sports Complex site. Twenty percent of the land
area within that PUD may be developed for multi-family units to a density of
approximately 20 DU j Acre.
D. COMMERCIAL LANDS
The land use table shows that commercial development amounts to only 0.7 percent of West
Bremerton's total area. If only the urbanized areas are considered (without the watershed
and other utility lands), the amount of existing commercial increases to 3.6 percent.
Land Use -- Page 42
Most of the commercial development is concentrated within the Auto Center District or the
small neighborhood service center at the north end of Kitsap Lake. Restaurants, motels and
other tourist-related uses are located along Kitsap Way on each side of SR-3. Only 12.6
acres of vacant commercial land remains in West Bremerton and the City will be looking for
opportunities to increase commercial development opportunities, especially in areas that have
good freeway visibility and easy access to SR-3.
E. INDUSTRIAL LANDS
Most of the area's 143 acres of industry are located within the Auto Center District, which is
zoned for "General Industry", the City's "heavy industrial" zone.
Mineral resource extraction operations are "industrial" land uses for planning and zoning
purposes. Gravel extraction takes place at the west end of Werner Road and in other
locations throughout the area. These sites have limited life expectancies and the next use of
those lands is not yet clear. Some hilly sites offer excellent views and may be more desirable
as residential sites. The Plan reflects the current industrial use and, at the owners' requests,
will support the "Industrial Park" zoning that has been on these properties since 1988.
It's apparent that all lands presently zoned for industrial use are not necessarily most suitable
for for non-resource type industrial uses. Some have physical, locational, or other limitations.
Some owners will request Plan amendments to allow more appropriate uses --- primarily
residential. Lands that really are uniquely-suited to future industrial uses will be strongly
protected by the City from competing non-industrial development pressures.
The old Kitsap Lake Drive-in Theater, north of the lake was zoned for industrial development
and will soon become a new puget Power facility. Some adjacent (currently residential)
lands to the east have been added to this industrial park district for future expansion.
F. PARKS & SCHOOLS
The West Bremerton sector is fortunate in having a great deal of undeveloped land and many
opportunities for parks and recreational areas. The area already has Kitsap Lake Park, NAD
Park, the new Pendergast Sports Park, Jarstad Park near Gorst, Gold Mountain Golf Course,
and smaller parks and recreation facilities in Jackson Park, West Park and other areas.
With the vast amount of total area, its surprising that there is very little public shoreline
access. Jackson Park offers a shoreline park and beaches for its residents. Kitap Lake has
the public park and two other small public access points. And, those fortunate enough to
live in waterfront homes or condominiums have access to their shorelines. The Parks and
Open Space Element of this Comprehensive Plan will explore ways in which NAD Park and
other areas might be further developed to provide new access opportunities.
Three public schools serve West Bremerton; Jackson Park and West Hills Elementaries, and
a new elementary school just east of Kitsap Lake. Since West Bremerton has the greatest
growth potential, it will also generate additional demands on the school system to provide
more facilities. This matter is discussed in greater detail in the Capital Facilities Plan Element.
Land Use - Page 43
G. OTHER LAND USE ISSUES
(1) Transportation: A Gorst to Brernerton bypass route has been discussed and
may become more important as growth occurs and State Highway 3 becomes
more congested. Such a route, depending on its location, could open up new
areas for development and provide better access for commercial and industrial
businesses as well. (See Transportation Element)
(2) Werner Road Industrial Corridor: As Auto Center nears full capacity, there is a
growing need for new industrial sites. Although the district has been zoning
for heavy industrial development, that zoning allows a number of non-industrial
commercial uses as well. The result has been higher property values (costs)
and a greater proportion of commercial uses than intended. The commercial
development of this "industrial" zone has reduced the City's inventory of
available industrial sites. We am now looking for other suitable sites for
industrial expansion. The most obvious and easily-accessible area is the
corridor that extends along Werner Road from SR-3 to the gravel pits at its
west end. Much of this corridor is currently within an unincorporated island
which should be annexed to the City eventually.
H. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS
(W-1) Kitsap Lake Business District
(W-2) Werner Road Industrial Corridor
(W-3) West Hills Area Plan
(W-4) South Auto Center Enhancement Area
(W-5) Pendergast Sports Complex
Land Use -- Page 44
"" ...... ....... ....... ... . .... ... .. ".. ... ..... ...............
Ipi~~I~B~H~QY9XI~II0~~.......~Ng~............................
The City's Union River Watershed and other Utility-owned forest lands were included in the
West Bremerton sector. This section provides some additional information about the unique
nature of these non-urbanized lands that are within the City limits but not available for urban
development.
A. UTILITY LANDS MANAGEMENT
The City's Utility-owned lands are managed by the Utility Lands Management Plan and
also by the City's wastewater and other adopted plans, which include the following
provisions:
(1). Water Resources:
Bremerton has a plan for the management of thousands of acres owned by the
Bremerton Water Utility. These lands include the Union River, Anderson Creek,
Gorst Creek, and Heins Creek watersheds as well as other Utility owned lands.
The overall objective of the management plan is to provide an adequate supply
of high quality drinking water at a reasonable cost. Strict water quality control
measures are needed to accomplish this. In addition to the surface reservoirs,
groundwater sources are also important to the utility. Programs are in place to
protect those sources from contamination and overdraft.
(2) Forest Resources:
Kitsap County has a colorful history as a producer of timber products and
much of the County remains in timber company ownership. The City's utility
lands are mostly forested, soils and climate favor tree growth, and the long-
range plan is to continue to manage these valuable forest resources.
The Utility Lands Management Plan (ULMP) recommends that the City
implement a program of sustained yield harvest on utility lands. The Union
River drainage would be harvested at a rate of about 40 acres per year and
other lands at about 60 acres per year. It would take about 60 years (about
year 2046) to bring all the lands into a sustained yield rotation. At that time,
the annual cut would stabilize at about 2.8 million board feet. There is no
reason to believe that surrounding development pressures will erode the forest
productivity of these lands.
Forest management on Utility lands is not a new concept. A forest inventory
and management report was prepared in 1952 and several follow-up analyses
have been carried out by the Utility or its consultants since that time. The
Utility employs its own professional forester to supervise forest management
activities in accordance with the long-range management plan.
Land Use - Page 45
(3) Biosolid Disposal:
Bremerton's wastewater treatment plant generates a solid residue, referred to
as biosolids. These were dispOSEid of at the Olympic View Landfill until
increasing volumes and tighter disposal regulations resulted in a switch to a
land application (silviculture) method: of disposal. Of the various options
available, this was found to have the lowest cost, as well as low environmental
and health risks. Today, all of BrE~merton's biosolids are used in silviculture
application on hundreds of acres of Utility-owned lands near Gold Mountain
Golf Course. This practice is enhancing tree growth in these areas as well as
providing an environmentally friendly means of biosolid disposal.
BIOSOLlD
DISPOSAL
AREAS
(Silviculture)
~o::t:!'::!..'S...!::~_~.!::/O",g~_
TOWN6t.uC:>> 1') ~OUTH
(4) Fish: The City Utility has worked with the Department of Fisheries and the
Suquamish Tribe to enhance the salmon fishery at Gorst. Protection of
streams within the watershed and utility lands will continue to be a primary
objective of the management pro~~ram.
(5) Management Objectives:
The City's management objectives for these lands are resource-related and
structured to protect the watersheds and timberlands. Within the strict
protective structure of the Plan an:! objectives that could allow some use of
these lands for research activities or other uses that are clearly in support of
overall utility operations objectives.
Land Use -. Page 46
(6) Recreation:
The Utility lands are divided into use "zones". One of those is "Recreation" to
accommodate Gold Mountain Golf Course. The golf course will probably be
expanded within the next few years, but not into lands that are critical for the
protection of watersheds or forest resources.
(7) Commercial Uses: A "commercial" designation can be applied to specific
sites to accommodate various types of commercial agreements, such as
antenna site leases. Any further commercial use of Utility lands will be
evaluated for compatibility with overall management objectives.
(8) Surplus Lands: When the Utility Lands Management Plan was prepared there
were several "blocks" of surplus utility land that were not needed for water
supply protection. The Plan suggested that these lands may be suitable for
other "higher and better uses". The land surrounding Reservoir #3 was an
example, based on its close proximity to an urban area, etc. Those lands have
since been transferred to private ownership for urban development. Portions
of the Anderson Creek drainage and lands around Lake Tahuya were other
areas of surplus property and were suggested for development.
The City will continue to build its protective land use base around the
watershed and, when opportunities arise, will consider a sale or trade of
properties that might achieve a higher level of resource protection.
B. THE LAND USE PLAN
The map entitled "Watershed & Utility Lands LAND USE PLAN" shows the 20-year
plan for these lands and includes:
(1) The Union River Watershed --- totally protected from development.
(2) Gold Mountain Golf Course and its expansion area.
(3) Jarstad Park west of Gerst on Old Belfair Highway.
(4) The Anderson Creek "Industrial Park" district souteast of Gorst was found to be
more suitable for industrial uses than for continued forestry and watershed
uses. The City will retain its wells on the property but allow it to be sold and
converted to much-needed industrial development sites.
(5) Other City Utility-owned lands (designated "UL") will continue to be managed
for forest production. However, a study is being conducted to determine if any
of those lands can be declared surplus and converted to other uses.
(6) Develop a specific area plan for the "Anderson Creek Corporate Campus".
Land Use - Page 47
City of Bremerton
UNION RIVER WATERSHED
and
UTILiTY LANDS
II
Prepared by:
Bremerton Plennlng
.------.,.----
I --
I
I
I
I
I
o I
..
I
I
I I
I I
+------------_....--
~I:z :
~l~ I
~I. I
j:i I
I
I
I
:"\
I ---
I
I
I
----
Land Use -- Page 48
.' ... .
. . ..... .... .' . . .
.................. ............... ............................ .......... . ........ .... . .... .....
ii. .......SPEGIFICAREA13IlANS)
A. INTRODUCTION
Earlier sections of the Land Use Element discussed the East, Central and West sectors of
Bremerton and the watershed/utility lands. Policies and land use proposals for those
"general" areas were discussed, as they are reflected on the Land Use Plan map.
In addition to the three sector descriptions, a number of smaller more specific areas and/or
issues also need to be addressed. This section of the Land Use Element allows a greater
degree of detail for each of these important areas.
Although this section is entitled .Specific Area Plans", not all of the following areas have been
developed to "plan" status. Some of these areas have been identified as problem or
opportunity areas and are presented in an introductory manner, sometimes with proposed
guiding policies or recommendations for further studies or actions. Some describe plans
that have already been completed and are used or referenced within the Comprehensive .
Plan. All were determined to be important enough to the community to warrant attention
within this Plan and beyond.
B. AREAS INCLUDED
This section of the Land Use Element is intended to be ever-changing. The areas identified
as needing further study or action today will be replaced with other areas in subsequent Plan
revisions.
This edition of the Land Use Element includes the following specific area plans:
E-1 Manette Business District
E-2 Harrison Health Services District
E-3 Wheaton Way Corridor
C-1 Central Business District
C-2 Charleston Business District
C-3 Park Avenue Corridor
C-4 Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan
C-5 South Smith Cove Redevelopment Area
W-1 Kitsap Lake Business District
W-2 Werner Road Industrial Corridor
W-3 West Hills Area Plan
W-4 South Auto Center Enhancement Area
W-5 Pendergast Sports Complex
Land Use - Page 49
........EZ~:> ...Ml\NEUE. BOSINESS[JIISTF{I€T<.i ........ . ...... .
A. LOCATION:
The Manette Business District lies at the east end of the
Manette Bridge in East Bremerton. For purposes of
this Plan, the "study area" includes all commercial
businesses along Eleventh Street, as well as those on
Harkins, Pitt, Shore Drive and Wheaton Way. Residential
properties are also considered part of the district.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION:
This small neighborhood business district contains a
well-defined core of businesses along Eleventh Street
and Harkins that includes a grocery store, restaurants,
night club, appliance store, and other personal services.
The location of the bridge and the confusing combina-
tion of Harkins, Pitt, Wheaton and Eleventh result in an
awkward flow of traffic through the area.
III I
:>
<
I ~ ~
<
.
>
<
J:
>
a:
II:
III
11.
The district consists of both new and very old structures, constructed without an architectural theme or master plan.
The result is a mix of building sizes, styles and conditions. Local businesses claim the area is deficient in parking.
It also lacks amenities, such as landscaping, street trees, attractive signing and lighting, pedestrian facilities, and
other visual features that could greatly improve the overall appearance of the district.
C. BUSINESS DISTRICT SURVEY:
In the spring of 1994, as part of Bremerton's Comprehensive Planning program, a questionnaire survey was
conducted of property owners and businesses within this study area. Seventeen responses were received. On a
scale of 1 to 5 (1 being best), the overall status of the district was given a rating of 3.3 and "customer/employee
parking availability" was rated lowest (3.8). Categories rated slightly higher than average were "appropriate mix of
businesses" and "pedestrian convenience and comfort".
Most respondents felt that there is not too much commuter traffic and traffic is fine at present levels. Of least
importance were better bus service and bicycle usage, although those categories were rated above average in
importance.
Of various activities that might bring benefits to the district, "voluntary clean-up or fix-up campaign" ranked highest,
followed by "low-interest rehab./improvement loans" and "street tree or landscaping program". Activities having
lowest priorities were "more restrictive regulations" and "targetedl code enforcement program". Narrative comments
included a mix of ideas and feelings about this district. Some were very critical of its appearance and degree of
maintenance while others felt it was "perfect". Many were very concerned about the impacts on business of the
possible closing and rebuilding of the Manette Bridge. The present location was preferred to new alignments.
About 71 percent felt the business district would become stronger jf more people lived in and around it. The
concept of living quarters above businesses was specifically supported by at least one. And, although several
discouraged government intervention, many felt that the government, businesses, and neighborhood groups should
work together on activities to benefit the district.
Land Use - Page 50
D. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Manette Business District is vital to the community. It is in a strategic location to capitalize on traffic flow,
visibility, and neighborhood convenience, but is also vulnerable to continued deterioration, congestion, and other
adverse effects of its confusing circulation pattern. Consistent with the City's visions related to the maintenance of
healthy and attractive neighborhoods and business districts, The following actions are recommended:
1. The City should undertake a traffic study of the business district and Manette
neighborhood and create a master plan for future streets- and street improvements
that will handle projected traffic volumes most efficiently.
2. The City should work with the local neighborhood, businesses, State Dept. of
Transportation, and others in formulating comments and recommendations regarding
the future of the Manette Bridge, including alternative locations and alignments.
3. The City should encourage the establishment of a Manette Business District
association that can meet regularly, discuss problems and opportunities, coordinate
promotional activities, and initiate and follow through with identified district
improvements.
4. The City should offer to assist the Business District association and/or neighborhood
association in the development of a Manette Business District improvement plan to
include some or all of the following:
a. A master plan for future land uses in and around the district.
b. Zoning adjustments to more directly reflect the district's growth ambitions.
c. A strategy to improve the image and visual appearance of the district, possibly
including landscaping, street trees, signing, design guidelines, and building
maintenance programs.
d. A plan to improve mobility through pedestrian-related improvements,
bikeways/routes, bus scheduling and bus stop design.
Land Use - Page 51
..............12;.. .........IiIJxRalstTJN......H.~tTA......S.E.IRVIG.ES..... DlstRioT...........
A. LOCATION:
An area of East Bremerton generally bounded by...
. Sheridan Road on the north
. Warren Avenue on the west
. Port Washington Narrows on the south
. East Park Residential Area on the east
B. AREA DESCRIPTION:
Harrison Hospital and associated medical offices and
support services have evolved into a regional health
care complex that accounts for most of Bremerton's
2,600 health services jobs. As the complex grew, it
gradually encroached into the surrounding neighbor-
hood, converting vacant lots and residences into new
medical facilities and parking lots. jWW~ I ~
The district also consists of the sheridan Village Shop- ~~I I Lr.=~G.
ping Center, which provides a good range of neighbor- ~Ir ]c=J ~ B~ ~
ho~d shopping opportunitie~. Several restaurants, con- DB ~ ~= 1\
venlence markets, auto services, churches and other I~ 00 8~ I \
uses fill the local non-medical service needs and round ro,-, r-, [QO"!J 9'0 =q
out the range of available services.
Residential uses surround the district. Some older properties have been converted to non-residential uses, but
adjacent stable neighborhoods remain. Along the western edge of the district are higher-density residential uses,
including a convalescent center, apartments, and a new senior apartment complex.
As the few remaining vacant lots are developed or committed, Harrison Hospital and other medical facilities are
facing not only new land acquisition costs but also the hurdles of Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones,
especially if their plans involve further encroachment into adjacent residential neighborhoods.
C. SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSAL:
Half a dozen zoning districts control land use and development within this district. To date, only market forces and
the very general Comprehensive Plan have guided growth and zoning. There is a need for a more specific area
plan developed separate from but consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and which is based on the City's vision
for its regional medical complex, as well as on basic planning objectives:
Vision:
Harrison Hospital will continue to playa major role in the provision of
medical services, and its surrounding district will continue to grow and
strengthen its role as a regional health services center.
land Use - Page 52
Objectives: (The minimum framework for the area plan)
1. To build on past health services and commercial investments.
2. To improve access to the service providers, as well as circulation within the district.
3. To maintain and strengthen the professional relationships between Harrison Hospital and
surrounding physicians' offices and related medical services.
4. To anticipate Mure growth needs and incorporate them into a land use plan for the district that
will minimize the need for Mure Plan amendments and rezones.
5. To minimize increased traffic, bypass traffic, physical encroachment, and other disruptions to
surrounding stable residential neighborhoods.
6. To maximize the efficient utilization of existing lands through creative design and site planning,
improved public transit service, mixed use development, and other features.
7. To establish a balance of land uses that will complement each other and maintain long term
stability.
D. SUGGESTED OUTLINE fOR THE AREA PLAN:
1. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS
a. Land Use Inventory.
b. Population and Residential Area Analysis.
c. Physical Condition Survey.
d. Economic Conditions and Opportunities.
e. Utilities.
f. Transportation/Mobility.
g. Appearance/Aesthetics.
2. ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
a. Regional Significance.
b. Business Activity and Economic Growth.
c. Preservation of Residential Quality and Desirability.
d. Problems and Opportunities.
3. PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS ADDRESSING MAJOR ISSUES
a. Further Studies Needed.
b. Capital Expenditures Needed.
c. Private Investment Needed.
d. Implementation Strategies.
Land Use - Page 53
.1::::3: ..... ......W8EAfONWAYCORRltJOR{..?<..}
A. LOCATION:
The Wheaton Way Corridor is one of Bremerton's most
active transportation corridors and business areas. It
extends from the Warren Avenue Bridge northward to
Riddell Road and beyond into unincorporated areas.
Beyond Riddell the corridor is more commonly referred
to as Brownsville Highway.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION:
Major stores along the corridor include Safeway, Eagle
Hardware, K-Mart, Bag-N-Save, and a wide array of
auto services, restaurants and fast food outlets.
The corridor also passes through an established low-
density residential neighborhood, and past schools.
For the most part, land use patterns are well defined
and not expected to change significantly. The only
exception may be the school district property northeast
of the Wheaton/Sheridan intersection which may be
better located and of greater value for non-school pur-
poses. A mixed use designation has been placed on
the Land Use Plan for that reason.
The fact that Wheaton Way carries a large volume of
through traffic sometimes conflicts with its commercial
and local circulation functions. As growth in the East
Bremerton and nearby unincorporated areas continues,
the demands on Wheaton Way will also increase. The
Transportation Element deals more directly with this
issue and provides alternatives.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. For purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Wheaton Way Corridor must
continue to provide the following primary functions:
a. Carry regional through traffic efficiently and within its adopted Level of Service.
b. Carry local traffic to and from businesses, public facilities, and residential
neighborhoods.
c. Provide visible and easily accessible sites for businesses and services.
Land Use - Page 54
2. In addition to the basic functions, and absent specific design guidelines, the City
should ensure that the following policies are considered during the permitting process
for all future expansion and new development along the corridor:
a. Developments shall provide interconnecting pedestrian walkways, to the
greatest extent possible, to encourage walking.
b. The provision of safe and frequent pedestrian crossings of Wheaton Way shall
be a priority and shall not be precluded by the need to move large volumes of
traffic.
c. A street tree program shall be established by the City and applied to all new
and expanding development through their landscape plans.
d. New curb cuts and driveways shall be discouraged. Frontage roads or
common access points serving several adjacent properties are preferred.
e. The City shall consider amending its Zoning Ordinance to add incentives or a
bonus system for mixed-use development, possibly based on a point system,
th~t will encourage increased densities and commercial/office intensities along
the Corridor and maximize land use efficiency.
f. For transportation planning purposes, priority shall be given to Plan
Amendments and Rezones that would increase residential density within one-
fourth mile of the Wheaton Way Corridor.
g. Nonconforming signs, parking, structures and other improvements shall be
phased out at the earliest opportunity.
h. In considering design alternatives, preferential treatment shall be given to
designs that favor mass transit, car-pooling, bicycling, or walking over the
single-occupant vehicle.
3. The City shall proceed to initiate the preparation of a cooperative City jCounty jState
Wheaton Way jBrownsville Highway Corridor Study, extending from Burwell Street to
Waaga Way.
NOTE: Also see Transportation Element for similar transportation-related study.
Land Use - Page 55
., . .... ...... .
.. . ..... -,.
. ... .. .... , . .
...... ...... .... .
.... ,........ .... ............... ........... ........',. ..-....... .
.c~ 1:}~EN)fRAla{JSI~ES$dDIStRICTi/
A. LOCATION:
The Central Business District is described in the
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance as the geographical area
bounded on the south by PSNS, on the east by the
Port Washington narrows outer harbor line, and on the
north and west by the rear property lines of properties
that front on Sixth Street and Warren Avenue.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION:
Bremerton's CBD has historically been the business
and commercial center of Kitsap county. A general
decline set in during the mid-1980s for a variety of
reasons, including the construction of the new Kitsap
Mall in Silverdale.
While private business was declining, a number of public
projects were being implemented along the waterfront.
These included the removal of the old ferry terminal and
YMCA building and construction of a new .temporary"
ferry terminal. A floating recreational pier was con-
structed from the end of the First Street dock. The
shoreline north of First Street was enhanced with a
concrete "overwater park", the placement of the histori-
cal ship USS Turner Joy, and a recreational marina.
Other dilapidated structures were removed and more
are scheduled to go.
During the past year, the City and local property owners combined resources to rebuild a one-block section of
Fourth Street, between Washington and Pacific. It is now a velY attractive meandering street with street trees, wider
sidewalks, decorative street furniture and lighting, a fountain, and other amenities.
It's clear that the CBD is in transition from its former retail-commercial focus to a new mix of business, government
and residential that will be more diversified and that will result in a more economical and comfortable
"neighborhood" balance. Residential development in and around the CBD is an important key to the success of this
transition and will be emphasized in this Plan and in the zonin~l to follow.
C. STUDIES:
A number of downtown economic, design, redevelopment, and revitalization studies have been commissioned over
the years. Each has produced innovative concepts and new ideas, but most were costly and few have actually been
implemented. The most recent study was completed by the LElland Consulting Group in 1993, in cooperation with a
large Downtown Task Force which continues to strive toward implementation. The study is commonly referred to as
"The Leland Study". It looked at the economics and revitalization prospects for the downtown area and the
feasibility of a waterfront hotel/convention facility. It provided a range of possibilities, along with steps that would
lead gradually toward revitalization. This study also pointed out that Bremerton is in a good geographical position
to accept growth, but needs to properly position itself in the marketplace so that positive economic change will
occur. The City will need to be ready to take the initiative and seize the opportunities when the time is right.
Land Use - Pa~ 56
D. DOWNTOWN VISIONS AND POLICIES:
The following visions and policy statements were derived from Plan Element "B" (The Vision for Bremerton), recent
studies, and the City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan:
VISION:
The Central Business District will continue to be the heart of Bremerton,
providing a diversity of economic, residential, recreational and cultural
activities that will attract new growth and visitors to the area.
The CBD will become more of a Hpeople placeH as new residential
development joins with other activities to create an active downtown
neighborhood. A high-density low rise ''waterfront village" will link the CBD with
the waterfront, marina and overwater park, and will provide quality housing for
Seattle commuters who rely on fast reliable ferry service.
The revitalized CBD will offer culture and entertainment, new retail shops and
services, a hotel with convention facilities, offices, art galleries, quality
restaurants, and other specialty businesses.
POLICIES: 1.
The City of Bremerton will:
(a) Promote the development of a regional intermodal transit "plaza"
to replace the temporary ferry terminal.
(b) Continue to work toward improved ferry service to Seattle.
(c) Undertake positive activities and projects in the downtown area
that are designed, in part, to build public support for the
community and CBO revitalization.
(d) Continue to work with downtown merchants and property
owners to refine goals and objectives, to develop
implementation strategies for revitalization and new
development, and to develop a list of public and private
.opportunity sites. and funding sources for new development
and CBO enhancement.
(e) Work with downtown interests to develop guidelines for the
various sub-districts of the CBO.
(f) Continue the marketing efforts that are already underway and
convince developers and lenders that the City's improvement
program is critical to the success of downtown renovation.
Land Use - Page 57
(g) Revise plans, regulations, and the permitting process, as
necessary, to allow and encourage the intended types of uses
and get them approved as expeditiously as possible.
(h) Promote land uses and development patterns consistent with
the following Urban Diagram and continue to study and refine
the diagram to reflect the best interests of the community.
Central Business District
URBAN DIAGRAM
Neighborhood
Preservation
Transit
high-de
mixed-
~. Redevelopment to
~t::1 - -, ~ 1---,---., ~- ~d High-density Resid.
l'H "-0-- '- ~ ~~ ~~
~~gl f-- I-'- 1-_
1--: '- HI . . 1-_ s~\\JGt.
I < f--- '--- 'li == =1=: = ';:=
: Ii i I = i:: rr[lffi ~ i- .==1-- - f-- \'I,IIt. '
lcrn..ST. _ - f--V NIP- -
~Y::J. ~ I 11I1 i i II - - ',--<-- , - ~ 1:8
.r=- - rf .---i - --
~ - '-- 1--= --
---;'---' ~ I I 11I1 : , , , <, I-- _ ~ ~ /-----'~
~~~ ~ !II l-- _ -- I
----id mt ST. i- f--- l-- '-l-~
~I~ l-- -- --"--
~ ! ITO i, I 11]1 i == - ' -+-- ~ r=---
~ i f--- , .~~~ '--
c; . lId--- = 1= == - f---:""'- ~ Sixth Street
ion to ST -- i I I c~W f-- - '-- ~ '---- /' Office & Resid.
nsity ~ i f-r-H I--L-
use \ c Ilj'lii:1 qj' f-- -"'1 l--l-- C:t=: ~ '--
>j , I ill ~ f---i-- 5./
<(I I l--f--,_
~IL Sixth Street ,'ft ~
(;:: , I II IT L- AutO-oriented
\ ..... ST . .
I l \. I I I I! I I I ~ : III III Ifr71.IT II I IL -,/ -,
'1111 ~r\11 II' , ~ i ,- '~' -' if-- 'Cd
'\ "'" .-- ..;:
:w1i '{II I : l! r I I !1"-k.
! I ~ ~I 1 w ~-~
I " ! I ~- ~ nlrr
I r I ~ High-density
"" N1lr~R .lJ1TT
; iT! III~ 1 jj::. J Residential
, I I Tf II II l l .... Y I! I 'I 7/:;::j 1
' I f!!
--.. IIIL I / .o.......~ / g
I T~ ..n ..-..- _u -. ~ _ /L r J ~
......-_,-- I='c-. ~ (]
~ i 1[i! ... ~
-commercial ~
king ~ f-;;Ifj 7, I ~ .~
~ /. II ....
Service Commercial I'f" sr...... ", I I? f
I " I
~~ I,
'J). I,
Compact, intense '. ~
pedestrian-oriented . Waterfront
retail district ~ Mixed Use
Hotel/Historic I
District Intermodal
Terminal
Highway
and Par
land Use - Page 58
E. FERRY TERMINAL AREA:
VISION:
An intermodal transportation terminal that provides an effective, functional and
attractive regional transportation facility that is integrated with Bremerton's
waterfront and Central Business District.
POLICIES: 1.
The City will coordinate its downtown land use patterns and
transportation facilities with its ferry service and terminal development
expectations.
2. The City will support and participate in feasibility and design studies
regarding replacement of the present "interim" terminal. Such studies
may also involve such jurisdictions as Washington State Ferries, State
Department of Transportation, Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit, and others.
3. The design for a new terminal facility shall include consideration of at
least the following issues:
(a) Adequate vehicle holding area and measures to prevent overflow onto
downtown streets.
(b) Easy and comfortable pedestrian access and circulation to and from other
downtown locations.
(c) Reconfiguration of the Washington/First Street intersection to separate
pedestrian from vehicle traffic, ensure a smooth flow of off-loading vehicles, and
increase safety.
(d) Integration - of commuter services on ground level of terminal that might include
a cafe or coffee shop, gift shop, tourist information services, etc.
(e) Possible inclusion of offices or facilities that might accommodate small group
meetings.
(f) Covered walkways and outdoor waiting areas.
(g) Adequate access, circulation, and waiting areas for transit buses and taxis, as
well as convenient rider access to those services.
(h) Bicycle racks and lockers.
(i) Limited on-site commuter parking, with priority for short-term and handicapped
parking.
U) Look for public/private partnership opportunities that might lead to a facility that
includes expanded commercial, office, or other areas that might benefit from the
terminal location.
(k) Include the possibility of a future heliport in design concepts. (This may be the
only suitable downtown location for such a facility.)
Land Use - Page 59
, '. . . .... .... '. ... . .
............G~2.:.... .............~.H~~~sTo.~.......BIJSI.NE$s...o.l.sIRlct................... ....
A. LOCATION:
The Charleston Business District is centered
around Callow Avenue, and to a lesser extent
Montgomery Avenue, and concentrated pri-
marily between Eleventh Street on the north
and First Street on the South. The district is
irregular in shape and includes some adjacent
commercial, office and light industrial busi-
nesses as well.
Street access to the district is excellent.
Kitsap Way flows into Eleventh and Sixth
Streets, while Charleston Beach Highway
(S.R. 304) provides access from the south to
Burwell Street and Callow Avenue.
B. THE NAME:
The Charleston Business District is the downtown portion
of the former community of Charleston, which was con-
solidated with the City of Bremerton in 1927. Callow
Avenue is the central street and in recent years the area
has been known as the Callow Business District. A recent
(spring 1993) property owner and business questionnaire
found the name Charleston to have important historic
significance and to be clearly preferable to Callow.
On that basis, the area will be referred to as the
Charleston Business District throughout this Plan.
C. AREA DESCRIPTION:
1./-1-/-/-1-1-
1_1.1_~I_I_I_:o
,e\_lel_lele/o,.
1.1-1.leI.I.I.
This business district is central to at least five residential neighborhoods which, in turn, are
separated from each other by arterial streets. The arterials function as barriers to effectively
prevent ease of movement or interaction between these neighborhoods. Even so,
neighborhood residents do have good access to this business district.
The business district provides a full range of retail shopping and personal services. The 7/11
convenience store at the south end of the district, the Bremerton Food Outlet at Sixth and
Montgomery, and the new Safeway at Eleventh and Callow satisfy most grocery needs.
Several restaurants, a bakery, and a tavern or two add variety. Retail stores include a
sporting goods store, bicycle shop, furniture stores, used and antique goods, sports card
shop, appliances, and others. Services include automotive repair, gas, animal care,
pawnbrokers, banks, beauty school, hair care salons and others.
L.aJ1d Use - Page 60
This district has a lot to offer. Unfortunately, it is also quite old and showing its age. On a
scale of 1 to 5, those responding to the business district survey gave the district an overall
quality rating of 3.5. The feature that was rated lowest was customer/employee parking
(3.9), followed closely by lack of overall visual/aesthetic appeal (3.7), lack of attractive and
effective signing (3.7), and poor physical condition of buildings (3.6). Eighty-one percent of
the respondents felt the district could become stronger if more people were living in or
around it.
Traffic considerations were rated higher than physical conditions. Most agreed that current
traffic volumes are okay and that improved bus service would benefit the district. But most
were cool to the idea of one-way streets.
When asked what kinds of activities would bring the greatest benefits, the highest rated
response by far was "low-interest rehabilitation/improvement loans". The action bringing the
least benefit was "loosening up development regulations.. Between the extremes,
respondents felt relatively positive about a targeted code enforcement program, a voluntary
clean-up or fix-up campaign, a street tree or landscaping program, and design standards for
new buildings and signs. Some expressed frustration at the lack of organization of the
business community and the difficulty in getting individual property and business owners to
commit to district improvements. They expressed a need for coordination and leadership
from within the district itself, but with support and assistance from the City.
At least five distinct neighborhoods surround
the Charleston Business District. They are
separated from each other by arterial streets
which act as barriers to mobility and inter-
action.
Land Use - Page 61
D. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Consistent with the City's visions related to the maint~nance of healthy and attractive
neighborhoods and business districts, the following actions are recommended:
1. The City shall carefully consider the impacts of the Highway 304 improvements on the
Charleston Business District and on circulation in and around the district and new
PSNS gates and expansion area.
2. The City shall encourage the establishment of a Charleston Business District
Association that can meet regularly, discuss problems and opportunities, coordinate
promotional activities, and initiate and follow through with identified district
improvements.
3. The City shall offer to work with local property owners, businesses, and surrounding
residents in the development of a Charleston District Neighborhood Plan to include
some or all of the following:
a. A master plan for future land uses in and around the district.
b. Zoning adjustments to more directly reflect the district's growth ambitions.
c. A strategy to improve the image and visual appearance of the district, possibly
including landscaping, street trees, signing, design guidelines for new
construction and rehabilitation, and building maintenance program.
d. A plan to improve mobility through pedestrian-related improvements,
bikeways/routes, bus scheduling, bus stop design, and other means.
E. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW:
The Charleston Business District has retained much of its original character. The central
portion along Callow is very pedestrian-oriented with small stores, window displays,
interesting storefronts and signs, and a human scale.
,
New development and building rehabilitation projects can be encouraged to take into
consideration these features and design their projects accordingly. The City can assist by
advising clients of design options and by applying adbpted criteria in the site plan and design
review stages of the permitting process. For a project to be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, it should be found to be consistent with the following criteria:
1. Efforts to repair and rehabilitate older existing structures are. encouraged.
2. Natural exterior building materials such as wood and brick are preferred over
concrete, plastics, or metal.
land Use - Page 62
3. Exceptionally large stores should be located at the extreme north or south of the
district, or along Montgomery Street to avoid disruptions to the small business
character of central Callow Avenue.
4. Providing a higher density residential base is an important objective. One or two
stories of residential development are encouraged over street level businesses
whenever possible to bring more people into the district as residents. The City will
look for ways to assist through incentives or other means.
5. In keeping with regional and citywide transportation objectives, local district policies
will give preference to travel modes that provide alternatives to the single-occupant
vehicle. Some additional parking should be provided, but so should bicycle facilities,
improved bus service, and pedestrian amenities.
6. New parking lots should not front on Callow Avenue, but should be provided behind
the buildings, off alleys, or along Montgomery Street. The possibility of consolidating
properties to create a single large parking lot along the west side of Montgomery
between Burwell and Sixth should be investigated.
7. The present Bremerton School District administration building property at the
northeast corner of Burwell and Montgomery should be master planned for business
uses or a mixed use development that can take advantage of the high-traffic location'
while also becoming a part of the business district.
8. In addition to being consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, signs are encouraged to be
simple, in scale with the buildings and surroundings, and consistent with the "Old
Charleston" character (or other locally adopted theme) of this district. (The district
association may wish to establish design standards.)
9. All new development shall be pedestrian oriented.
a. The primary entrances to buildings and businesses shall be from the street
frontage sidewalk, particularly buildings fronting on Callow and Montgomery.
b. Street front facades shall showcase their businesses and encourage window
displays. The City will consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow no
more than 40 percent (suggested) of a building's first floor width to consist of
solid walls to the street.
10. The Zoning Ordinance shall be adjusted to encourage the continuation of established
development patterns that provide the district's character and to adjust setbacks,
parking, or other requirements that may be overly restrictive. At the same time, the
City will emphasize the importance of landscaping requirements and encourage street
trees, private landscaping, and other amenities that might enhance the visual
appearance and image of the Charleston District.
land Use - Page 63
..'.......... ...... ...:.........:....:...:.;.:...;.'."'.' ".'';" ""', .....;;..,.. '.' ...,
......::: :::.:.': ::::.:;. ..>>>>>>>>>..;.;.;,>,.... "'::... >...,.,.. ......'.'.'.', .
C~3:/ ......P~I<AVENLJlEeQRRI[j0Fl)..
A. LOCATION
Park Avenue provides a connection between
the west side of the Central Business District
and residential areas north of Eleventh Street.
It extends northward from Burwell to the
Port Washington Narrows, a distance of
about 0.8 miles. The concept of this corridor
is to connect the downtown with the Ever-
green Park neighborhood to the north and
provide an urban greenway that will offer
multiple modes of transportation and that will
become the focus of future redevelopment.
B. CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION
The southern half of the Park Avenue Corridor
is currently in a state of transition. There is
no central theme or cohesiveness. It is com-
prised of a mixture of shipyard-oriented park-
ing lots, offices, small service businesses,
auto-related services, and even some small
industrial businesses. The newest and best
maintained properties are at the Sixth/Park
intersection and include a bank, a 7/11 con-
venience market, and insurance offices.
SMITH COVE
Business structures south of Sixth are in need
of repair, maintenance, or redevelopment.
North of Sixth, many old houses have been
removed and a considerable amount of
vacant land now lies between Sixth and
Eleventh. This area was given "Mixed Use" zoning six years ago, but has little to show for it.
The MX zone continues to offer a wide range of commercial, office, and high-density
residential development potential.
~ ~
~ FERRY
. "-- TERM I NAL
The general character changes north of Eleventh Str~et as the corridor enters the Evergreen
neighborhood. Even with the commercial and public facilities near the corner of Eleventh and
Park, this is clearly a residential area. A strategically placed neighborhood entrance sign
might further reinforce the character of this place.
Land Use - Page 64
C. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
1. Overall Objective:
To assist the redevelopment and improvement of the Park Avenue Corridor
into an attractive, people-oriented, heavily-landscaped urban greenbelt linking
the Central Business District with Evergreen Park, with linkages to shorelines,
Olympic College, Bremerton High School, and other points of interest.
2. Development Concept Policies:
(a) A mixed-use concentration of development shall occur along both sides
of Park Avenue between Burwell and Eleventh, consisting of high-
density residential uses, offices, and limited service commercial.
(b) A pedestrian-friendly boulevard shall be created with wide sidewalks,
coordinated design and signing, pedestrian amenities, bikeways,
professionally-designed landscaping, and continuous street trees.
(c) Off-street parking requirements may be reduced when the reduction is
counterbalanced by an emphasis on alternative modes of travel,
frequent bus service, or other management techniques or programs.
(d) A collaborative effort of the City and local property owners shall develop
a master redevelopment plan for the corridor. The planning area may
include areas west of Park Avenue to Warren, between Burwell and
Eleventh, and other related areas as appropriate.
D. IMPLEMENTATION
1. The development concept will be implemented through Comprehensive Plan
policies, mixed-use zoning, development guidelines or incentives to encourage
creative design, and with the possible use of pUblic/private partnerships.
2. The City shall develop plans for needed utility improvements, based on the
levels of density/intensity proposed in the Comprehensive Plan and allowed by
zoning, and to ensure .concurrency" (public improvements in place when new
development needs them).
3. The City shall initiate installation of major landscaping and street trees to
establish the overall theme and appearance and to provide incentives for
private investment to follow.
Land Use - Page 65
.. .....CI4: .................CA~J3.U$fl.~~.B<3.Fl~~.~.......~.E.IB~.FJQ.~~Q~.~................
".. .......... .
, . .....
Campus/Evergreen is actually the
combination of two neighborhoods.
The "Evergreen Park" neighborhood
lies to the north of Eleventh Street
and east of Warren. The "Campus"
neighborhood is directly west, extend-
ing to Naval Avenue. For purposes
of a grant-funded neighborhood plan
project in 1992, these two neighbor-
A. LOCATION
B. AREA DESCRIPTION and THE PLAN
The Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood covers 271 acres and is very diverse. It includes
more than 1,200 dwellings, some heavy industrial uses in the vicinity of Smith Cove, and
limited commercial uses. It is also the home of OlymPric College, Bremerton High School, a
number of churches and other public and quasi-public: facilities, and Evergreen and Rota
Vista Parks.
The area consists of mostly small lots and has a relatively high density of 8.5 dwellings per
gross acre (includes abutting streets). It also has a considerable capacity for additional
residential infill development. A Build-out Analysis showed that another 700 dwellings could
theoretically be added to the area, based on today's z6ning and land availability.
The Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan was adopted as a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in December 1992. It will continue to be ~n extended part of the Plan but will
also function independently an area-specific neighborhpod plan that is consistent with the
citywide Comprehensive Plan.
The goals of the Neighborhood Plan were based on the 13 goals of the Growth Management
Act to help ensure planning consistency. The Plan defines the neighborhood and its physical
characteristics; provides a socio-economic and housing profile; and identifies problems and
needs in all major areas including land use, housing, transportation, parks and open space,
and utilities. It also includes specific recommendations in the areas of residential land use
and density, commercial and industrial, schools, parks and recreation, mixed use
redevelopment, and traffic and circulation.
Land Use - Page 66
C. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The PURPOSE of this plan was to help guide City decisions pertaining to land use and
zoning, public improvements, parks and recreation programs, shoreline improvements, and
other matters of concern to this particular neighborhood.
Since the Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan is designed to function independently of
the citywide Comprehensive Plan, the following is provided to familiarize the reader with an
overview of the policies and development proposals for this area. The Plan document itself
should be referred to for more specific information and wording.
1. GOALS AND POLICIES:
The goals and policies address the following:
(a) Toprovide a long-term plan (20-years) that will guide future change and
decision-making, and that will encourage the type of public improvements and
private development that are most needed and desired.
(b) To promote public transit and other laternatives to the single-occupant vehicle.
(c) To give greater emphasis to the pedestrian environment.
(d) To provide a coordinated and efficient circulation system while reducing
bypass traffic. and de-emphasizing the dominance of the motor vehicle.
(e) To provide a mixture of housing sizes, types and costs for all economic
segments of the population and to encourage infill development.
(ij To prevent the encroachment of large-scale businesses into the neighborhood
while allowing small "mom & pop. scale convenience stores and services.
(g) To encourage mixed use development, particularly residential over commercial.
(h) To enhance and expand existing parks and recreational opportunities and
access to nearby shorelines.
(i) To recognize the open space and recreational opportunities offered by the high
school and college and better integrate them into the neighborhood.
0) To provide for the future expansion needs of the two schools.
(k) To ensure the adequacy of all public facilities and services to meet the growing
needs of this neighborhood.
(I) To establish a strong neighborhood organization that will provide on-going
leadership and cooperation throughout the implementation of this plan.
Land Use - Page 67
........ ..G1s.:... .............~Qy!e.......sM.jfrH.....GQVE.....BeG>Evs.LQP.MEN];...........
A. LOCATION
Smith Cove is considered part of the
Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood and was
addressed in that Neighborhood Plan.
The cove is relatively small and shallow and
is located immediately south of Evergreen
Park and at the north end of Pacific Avenue.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
The cove has been severely impacted by past
development. It has a history of oil tanks,
fuel piers, and possibly even a landfill. It
is currently home to Brem-Air, the local trash
hauling company which parks and maintains
its trucks within feet of Smith Cove waters.
Other industries and small businesses also
operate along the area's Sheldon Boulevard.
Smith Cove has a great deal of potential as a community recreational and aesthetic asset.
However, there are some obstacles to overcome. The existing industries tend to adversely
impact the area's potential. Puget Power has a major transmission line crossing in the area.
The residential neighborhood is deteriorating. Local streets are narrow and in need of repair.
And pedestrian walkways and visual amenities are lacking.
This area has a number of small and large vacant properties, most of which are currently
zoned "Business Park". There is considerable opportunity for new development. However,
the development potential cannot be realized until some of the key problems are corrected.
C. THE PLAN FOR SMITH COVE
The Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan, adopted in December 1992, included analyses
of and specific recommendations for the Smith Cove area. Since this neighborhood plan
was adopted as an extended part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, it will continue to
function independently, consistent with the citywide Plan.
The goals, policies and recommendations that pertain to the Smith Cove area are oriented
toward redevelopment and address the following matters:
Land Use - Page 68
1. To redevelop residential areas that have fallen into a severe state of deterioration.
2. To work toward the relocation of all industrial uses from the Smith Cove area,
including the City maintenance yard at 14th and Park Avenue.
3. To provide visual and physical public access to shorelines, including the southward
expansion of Evergreen Park and eventual public greenway along the south shore of
Smith Cove.
4. To recognize the environmental importance and sensitivity of the shorelines and
waters of Puget Sound and protect them from over-use, pollution, and poor
development practices.
5. To establish a "mixed use redevelopment" plan designation for the neighborhood
around South Smith Cove and follow-up with similar zoning with the additional
requirement that any significant new development be based on a Planned Unit
Development for the entire area to help ensure harmony and land use compatibility.
6. To consider improvements to Sheldon Boulevard to create a pedestrian-oriented
central street onto which the new mixed-use neighborhood would front.
Refer to the Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan for additional information.
SOUTH SMITH COVE AREA
Development Concept
Land Use - Page 69
Land Use - Page 70
.......Wi.:~...;..... ..........~t$Ap.......lAI<E.......BUSIN.ESS.......~'~JRI&1\....................................................................
A. LOCATION
This neighborhood business district is located
north of Kitsap Lake and along both sides of
Kitsap Way.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
This business district serves the Kitsap Lake
community and surrounding areas. It includes
a market, drug store, and other smaller
businesses. The area also includes a small .
rural fire station (F.D. #12), auto repair and
other services, and a carpet sales outlet.
\
LaJ,(,e.
. -' ,- . ~ . , :
Although the district has a good overall mix
of businesses, they are separated by a wide expanse of asphalt that poses a major obstacle
to pedestrians. Thus, the businesses on each side of the highway can't relate to each other
very well and customers tend to drive across the street rather than challenge the traffic.
The area lacks curbs, landscaping and street trees that could better define the edges of the
roadway and separate it from parking lots. Driveway locations and parking area entrances
are confusing, there is no coordination of design or signing, and there may be a need to
paint, repair, or better maintain some of the commercial structures.
C. RECOMMENDATION
A specific business district "improvement plan" is hereby recommended, but only with the
support and participation of area property owners, businesses and residents of the
surrounding neighborhood. Such a plan might include at least the following:
1. Property/structural condition assessment.
2. Utility infrastructure capacity analysis to ensure it ability to serve new growth
and business expansion, as allowed by zoning.
3. Parking design and management program to coordinate and make most
efficient use of existing parking areas.
4. Landscape improvement plan that includes frontage landscaping along Kitsap
Way, as well as street trees for appearance and hard surface relief.
5. Pedestrian improvements to increase comfort and safety, including one or
more very visible pedestrian crossings of Kitsap Way.
Land Use - Page 71
....V!!}~t. ...............,ER~.ER.....F{OAm.......I.~QgS1fFt'At.....EOFlIH.I.Jlli)~R.. ...
A. LOCATION
Werner Road extends westward from SR-3.
It provides the southern entrance to the
Auto Center Way industrial/commercial
district, as well as to area neighborhoods
and to the future Pendergast Sports
Complex.
(:
,
2J~.
":=J ~ ~,
Beyond the industrial area, Werner Road ==:3 c:::::::J .
climbs a short but relatively steep hill, then =:J c:::::::J
flattens out for a distance before entering the
gravel extraction areas at its west end.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
Werner Road passes through an unincorporated County "island" that is completely
surrounded by the City of Bremerton. For much of the distance, the area consists of
scattered homes on large lots, vacant lots, a church, ~nd other uses. Because of its direct
access to the freeway (SR-3), and because of the development opportunities and good future
availability of urban utilities and services, this corridor appears to have considerable potential
for industrial growth. The Economic Diversification Committee has recommended that the
corridor be included on the County's Comprehensive Plan and that request is currently being
considered.
Bremerton also believes this is an excellent location for industrial expansion and is showing it
on its Comprehensive Plan, with the understanding thqt most of the area is outside the City's
jurisdiction.
C. RECOMMENDED POLICIES
1. The City shall work with Kitsap County to ensure that both City and County
Plans designate this corridor for future irildustrial development.
2. The City shall ensure that its utility capaCity can adequately serve this area and
plan for any needed service extensions and infrastructure improvements.
3. The City shall work with local property oymers to coordinate an annexation of
this unincorporated "island" as soon as pOSSible so that the Werner Corridor is
within one jurisdiction.
4. The City shall consider preparation of a corridor development master plan that
would establish minimum standards and expedite the permitting process.
Land Use - Page 72
................... ....... . . ............. .... .... . ...-..... .. . ... ............. .....-. . .. . ..... ..... ...
:::-:-:-:......:;.:.;.:-;:::;.:.;::.;.:-:.;.:.;..... .:::.:.;:::::;:::;:::::::::::::::::;:::::...:.....::::::;:::::;:::-:<;:::;:::::;:;;,>::":' .':::::,:,::,::,,::':'. .....:.::::..:.>...:...:::::.........:...:..:.::.::::.:....::..;:::::;:::::::::"';'<-: :..':':;::::::;:::::;.:.: ......::;...:.:..::.:::::::;:...;.....:.:...
Vil+S:_S810~li~$~R~Pt1(f\J.>) ...........
A. lOCATION
When this area plan was written in 1989, the
130 acre area was totally unincorporated.
The area extends south of Werner Road to
the Sunn Fjord residential development. It
is bounded on the east by SR-3 and on the
west by Union Avenue and the City limits.
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
This area includes about 300 individual lots,
about 180 dwellings, a church, a small park,
a restaurant, a major auto dealership, and a
soft drink bottling company. The terrain is
very hilly with good views of Sinclair Inlet,
Bremerton, and Port Orchard from the higher
elevations.
C. CURRENT STATUS
.. fiIJJffi
" ~
~ \ 8Iffi5
fttID,=
~.~
[ll!tI!gO, ffi[[
QI1tIYQ .1iEW
~1~li
Vk I. ffirnJ
.~
~
This area plan was adopted as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on February 7, 1990.
Since that time, two annexations have brought approximately 80 percent of the area into the
City. Most of the Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning districts that were
incorporated within this Plan have already been implemented. Street and utility plans will
follow.
This Plan remains on track. The City will continue to look for opportunities to complete the
annexafion of the entire area and eliminate remaining unincorporated pockets so that streets,
utilities and other improvements can be planned and installed smoothly.
The newly revised Comprehensive Plan will incorporate the recommendations of this area
plan to ensure plan consistency.
Land Use - Page 73
....WSl.:......... .......$Q.UTtj......AOIQ... .cB.N1-~R......E~.~~NceMIEN-r....ARIEA..........
A. LOCATION
The South Auto Center Enhancement Area
lies immediately north of Werner Road and
generally between Auto Center Way on the
east and Kean Street on the west.
B. DESCRIPTION
In the spring of 1993, City staff prepared the
South Auto Center Industrial District Enhance-
ment Program as an urban renewal plan. The
primary objectives were to initiate the removal
of dilapidated structures, debris, and other
blighting influences so that the southern
portion of this important business district so
that new private investment would occur and
the area would complete its development, as
intended by the City's Comprehensive Plan.
~<
r;-
J.~ -<~
J]tf;~o~ .j-+
~ t:) .d
~
ftdn
ffiD
~~n
Part of the program was to improve traffic flow and utility services, particularly storm
drainage. The extension and improvement of Rodgers Street between Auto Center Way and
Kean Street was also an objective.
C. CURRENT STATUS
The Urban Renewal Plan has been prepared, property acquisition and clean-up costs have
been determined, and some enforcement activities have taken place.
This document will continue to guide clean-up actions and its recommendations have been
incorporated into other elements of this Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency.
Land Use - Pal~e 74
.HtAj5<>~\ dt8N........jS~t6~Ad*S.dhR.. ......~S..\~O\.jdl..r::1(,....)><.
":'>.,.y.~ .;:::::::.;... ~::-= .....~~.gQr\~~:;~:.. ..... rr:)J '.(~:': ../ty, , ...'YIC.~: "::";...
C. CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. LOCATION
The site of this future sports complex is
approximately 50 acres in size and located
generally south of Werner Road and west
of Union, but fronts on neither. Access is
gained through the National Guard property
to the east.
B. CURRENT STATUS
The City's parks department is currently
implementing the development plans. The
complex should be partly available for play
by the summer of 1995.
To the north of the sport complex site is the proposed industrial corridor along Werner Road.
Industrial uses are generally considered to be compatible with sports complexes. The
National Guard Armory property lies to the east and it too is being considered for industrial
development because of its relatively flat terrain and good access to SR-3.
The City has approved a "planned unit development" for lands to the west and south. The
PUD will consist primarily of residential development, but will also include some industrial
park development. The potentially close proximity of the residences to the sports complex is
a concern that should be reviewed during the next design stages of the PUD and during the
"Phased SEPA" review which is currently being processed along with the PUD.
The development of an area plan for lands in the vicinity of the sports complex is not
recommended at this time. Design work being administered by the City's Parks Department
and nearby development being reviewed and permitted by the Department of Community
Development should provide adequate site plan review to ensure that the sports complex and
adjacent industrial develoment, traffic, noise, etc., will be compatible with nearby future
residential development.
...
land Use - Page 75
...........$;1...:.. ...........ANPERSON....CRE.EK...C.ORPOMTE.....GAM.PUS...............................
S. R. 16
A. LOCATION
An undeveloped area of approximately 400
acres, located east of Gorst, mostly south
of SR-16, and west of Anderson Hill Road.
d
Ii
B. AREA DESCRIPTION
.~~~..~~~~'T..t:!_
.rOw.....i;..' '" 1) ~OU"i...
The subject area currently hosts City of
Bremerton ground water supply sources.
The terrain slopes upward from Sinclair Inlet
and Highway 16 to an elevation of nearly
400 feet at the southwest corner. The area
includes a system of streams and ravines.
;\
I'
I'
1\
I \
u
..
C. SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSAL
The owner of the site proposes a comprehensive development that would include a planned
office, hotel, and warehouse distribution development. The mix of proposed uses on this
single site represents un unfamiliar combination that is not readily processed through existing
development regulations and zoning. The uniqueness of this proposal justifies further
analysis to ensure a quality development as well as slensitivity to its neighbors and
environmental characteristics.
Included in this study should be an analysis of infrastructure availability and timing. The cities
of Port Orchard and Bremerton have agreed to provide both sewer and water to support a
large-scale corporate campus at this location. The detail,s need to be completed.
...
B:LAND-USE.E-E
Land Use - Page 76
....,.............;.;..... :.;.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.'.: ..-... ....::::.....:-::.:.:.:.:.:....:::-:.:::: :...:.:.;...:.:..;.:.:.;.:-:.:.:-....:_;.:-..;.:.:. .. ..................
l.'.~~~;;;'~:;:;~
RESIDENTIAL:
LOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
3 TO 8 DU/Acre
MDR MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
8 TO 18 DU/Acre
HDR HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
More than 18 DU/Acre
COMMERCIAL:
C-G GENERAL & HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
C-P GENERAL & PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
NC NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE .
MU MIXED USE/PUD
INDUSTRIAL:
HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
BP BUSINESS PARK
RE RESOURCE EXTRACTION
T TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES:
P or OS Parks & Open Space.
S Schools
H Hospital
C Cemetery
PW Public Works
U Utilities
~ MILITARY FACILITIES
FTC C 1 r----- n ,;;f
mE!l~LB~fj3mMlCl~UI.l rDLfl~ ~r,T I R;dd.I~~: J : //~
J IIrrT L I~~ umCQ rill HDR ~ r I '00, /-~ --ij ~
~ L- -Ir-l.- om! ]-'.: ~' II lr 1 1M +- 11 II I IH:/ 7)?fjj
I :n~~ -u. ~LDR~ cr;~ ~ MDR ~~ ~~~ ~ _ I ~f/-y
~I/' , f/ DJJ l- '111, L?, ffffiLOR~ lit- l - ~
~ ~ I r [j fmiffi3~" I ,~) w.
r\l~ 0 LOR ">~~ MDR II ~ L~ Rim "- ,'~, JlTJ~~ :~~I ~
I ,\ ~ ~ MDR' ~I EJEfI7: mrro '-J' II ~
\\ 1:?~ H ttt'i(5fiIIIP I IT LDR l\TT I IiL 553r::r: IiIfE I ' ~
~VJg ""'ea.,L ~ ~ 1ft " rTH, L-.; y,
(,J/-o 0 r: Tl "".J -r ;,J::
B 00 n. r:: ffi C-G 0 MOR :1 IT :J;;L0
, ~~c 00 =-:-n.r; ~ MOR MDI1.J IT-...
\~Y::>'f)L Sylvan WayJffi I q, .... .. -~- ~
~~ n- ~L; It! LI-'p [;- -GI ~ LJ&. ~I~t p Iii .-J~BiI1~ SIEI I I~
E"I .-.- HDR' LOR J1: -Lf '" L LOR LOR ~ I 51 ~5 r!!jfj
'r\~ ~~r- LOR HDR 11 S I;ffi~ JJ S ....~ffiA:; ~~~IRTITlI'111I ill!I~' 11 Ip.-~~ --eWJr4:4l;j
~ I -/ ~ -,-, ~ III ~ fI, ~~,.~ ~ ~fjfJJJ, f-!_~lIl1lllllllllmrnrralo::u:RIQ ~~ic,'T=~EF'" )
] ~~ .- ~,IIIlWII Ie:, II II ~B' ,~ --J;J = ~ ,~----c -
I ~ U I I 1!l1Tt:J -1:""- I I . - -,!...--j-1
:& LDR l:S! a:: ~ ~ ' =t:: M U ' .- =J , I I , ffiDH=1 rrITtjilTl- ,---' ,I r--, Cc.-D h ,- -
Ib '~ == ~II I ""C-G ~-G (t.LOR,S -i n ; 1/' I
N I ~ Ii ~ Ifm J;:J r=iP1 ' r;:::r 1-1111 J II ~ C-G II"' I
~ . 8m . 11-11 j IrTTTTTl ...: I I I
~ '1 I ~ ~ ~~R ':;c-G' HDR~~R III III Gm;1 I
~MDD.J' ~~LOR~ 1-<~ D~ -r- ~~ i 0TmnJ, II ~I
n'-'~ ~~,~ }.... ~ c-p~'--' I c..<:: ',' 'I
~ ~ LOR" - - :;;oJ :::.J ~ !Il;.; , = ti:B II
~ >!. \"dj ~ LOR MP,R ~ C p /i / rn t- ~";:
p ~ ~~\-~~ I'~)"- ~- '() OS'" Iin= I 1-,,1 , I :r' 11i
~~pR I ~~ H' r ~~ s - :1\1=11
~~F.~~~ ~ MDR ~~ S ~ ,I
~ ~~~.tc-P /I 4;:i \! ~1~aQIi-~ H I ~
~ C"J) ;"/ l1.illlWillJ ~I EllIIIT[o~ ~ {~
~ . ~ P DIIIIIlE s ~J:tj "tcl3 ~ 14
~ I . ITIIIIIJ:lj l::l E8 mB I- jjill ~ 7
Ci~ . ~n~ ~diL~~~
~~~~D MOR~~ I"\-l~ma~ Ht=d
"~ oG 1~lmlil " MDR~p
~~i(\ ~HD.!' ommnMDR ~R
~~1' ~ ~~mir~' fl
. "'~~" ~ "'~~,) ~. !:j;Jm~.
~~ ~~..lO-OOmwlrlj
~ HD~"~~~P1!
p ;s:J "p
LOR.....
~
''lj~~
,~,
1
~
~~
, 1~~~FHwno.m
I
I 1-1
L
.u.<
Adopted by:
Bremerton City Council
Resolution No. 2508
April 5, 1995
Ilr'lflllll:
RESIDENTIAL:
LOR
MOR
HDR
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
3 TO 8 DU/Acre
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
8 TO 18 DU/Acre
HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
More than 18 DU / Acre
COMMERCIAL:
C-G
C-p
CBO.
NC
MU
INDUSTRIAL:
HI
IP
BP
RE
T
GENERAL &HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
GENERAL & PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT .
. NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE
MIXED USE/PUD
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL PARK
BUSINESS PARK
RESOURCE EXTRACTION
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
':~::.;::::: ::" .;.. ....... .
.......::...;.;.:::::::::.:.:.:-.:;..;.;.;......
. :..:.:::.:.:...;.:.:.;.......:...........
........ ......... ....... .
:: :::.:::;::. ':;':: ::: :;:. ::: :~:::::;::: .;.; .:;:;:
;::-;::;:\:<-:.;::::::;:>:.::::.;:..-::.;
PUBLIC & QUA
SI-PUBLlC FACILITIES-
P or OS P .
arks & Open Space
S
H
C
PW
U
~
Schools
Hospital
Cemetery
Public Works
Utilities
MILITARY FACILITIES
Adopted by:
Bremerton City Council
Re~olution No. 2508
Aprll5,1995
_ ~lll
~ I ---' ---,
j~' P7
1t=~~ JJ
i~- ~ =TI1 ~
III ;-; 9S
I 1 -=l -1.J:: [
, -I--;:=~\ . ~
~ ~ ~ :.lr:::.
~I m}, 1P::::r:::::
.D\\:.J . '>- ~
: ~~~I~. (m~ ~ -;;: P
_ :, '~ :'l... Kitsao Wa'L Cop
==. ". ~ ~-"-G.r-t2.-G ~
~t~ld. , ~@ : '::':"\ ~~
~~... 1" LOR . r\ I~. ~ ,LOR ID
_.~ .. K~a: c ~ ~ ~~.Rj'~\~\ ~~~ Oyster Bay
~ I ~ I, \ Vl ~ HOR
:::j - . "\ lliW --'! \.l 'P'-
~ ~ ~~ tr~ /1 7~\ ~f~
== ~I::j. of "l C-G;'I"l :0< LOR1.... C-P_
~ ~~ 1= · C~ U~~ORn
- --= -1:=.1 t.' ~~~h3 .f- fl. ~ --
.JP- ~ ~7 I~ ~~~JR ~~~ C-~~
,...... y~ W~ ~~~~~ ~ark U q
OS ff~~JF:. HI' ~' ~ I~
LOR 1-1t7 m- tE h---l ..\.Y" Ii=:
U //~ , LOR 1=:: 1 7W... ~~~IP'
IJ Ul;; ,pi _" ~ :;,= c.P ~~~ ) ..,::R
/7/1 I fl ='1 I H- -- ~HI ~
1J1 ~~.JJ!I~IP I ,!1.... ~ I J ~
) / Ir r= Werner Rd. nrr r-r m:n:m
IP -IP I I ~ I\E:t \ ~
I ~- IP P;rr TtJ I U IrC-.G\ fI';;E
, , -L! I I ,~?' sa:mt
, I fi5ID (0) ~
-=-- EBD IfttllIE!
IP 11!R ~C
.Jull~ ~ ~ II
J~ q: I~
~L~
I-::Im j
: d/krcf
~~
-I}) ~[I
=
. J~i~
LL
:.est;.:..~[~rij~~(jJ8::'::':.':";:::<:::':':":'. .;: '.' '.': ::'::>:.;>' .......
. i:::::i::::wi:k::lrX ":li::,es:I!i':' :':'I!lI?:?1\lkif ". .
:"elSl~MEz "Q~ES "IJHlZt\li'M~ .
;::":::-::::;:::;:::::::::;::::::;::::::i; ::::::::..::.::;:::::::.)/:'. ......... .:-:::.:::::::;::i:i;;.::::" ..;:.{. .
RESIDENTIAL:
LDR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
3 TO 8 DU/Acre
MDR MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
8 TO 18 DU/Acre
HDR HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
More than 18 DU / Acre
COMMERCIAL:
C-G GENERAL & HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
C-P GENERAL & PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
NC NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE
MU MIXED USE/PUD
INDUSTRIAL:
HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
BP BUSINESS PARK
RE RESOURCE EXTRACTION ;
T TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES
PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES:
P or OS Parks & Open Space
S Schools
H Hospital
C Cemetery
PW Public Works
U Utilities
~ MIUTARY FACIUTIES
-LOR
~~
~~
~c=J
:E7p
H
I I
Adopted by:
Bremerton City Council
Resolution No. 2508
April 5, 1995
~~
f-J~
~
~J
i
LO~ e I
~ II
~i~
ft/ ~
\ HOR ';r~ :
I '(ff/;(~~~
S II'I'~~/~ 1
-- % ~:
, r'~ MDR ~ ~)
-
~~
,.-'-11 I
"~
L=LDR:
'E:i3 i
Jackson
Park
\
/1
liS
~- ~
/'j
%;~~
I"'//h.
S "U',n//-
.11.3
NA Park
...,....,--
MDR
f I~' =:::::
~I~
'I--
\--
T
Ostrich
Bay
o 3
~
P
I
-
P
-
~
I
LOR
LOR
g
~
'''-
-T--
\
\
I
I
1
1
\
c::J
1
1
I
I
+-----
-
~1'2
t-I<
uJ1-
:l 9
Sl~
-11-<
~I"::
1
I
I
i'\
t
I
I
I
I
I
--~--
I
I
I
I
I
111.'~111Ij,\
""'--
I
I
: COMMERCIAL:
I
I C-G
I
-~
I
I
GENERAL &
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL:
IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
HI HEAW INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC /QUASI-PUBLlC.
,
P or OS PARKS, RECREATION,
& OPEN SPACE
WATERSHED (general area)
CITY UTILITY-OWNED LANDS
WS
UL
~D.
I
I
I
I
I
I
--.
----
~~
~
l~
~
L
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----t---
I
I
,
-rO-.}-.l'Slo-lIO ~ """021'1--1.
TOW':-SHIP-':'l> ~OU\H-
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
I
I
I
'- I
,
Unincorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
(fI
~
w
o
:z
4:
Adopted by:
Bremerton City Council
Resolution No. 2508
April 5, 1995
---
---
---
~
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENT
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
BREMERTON ENGINEERING
PARAMETRIX, INC. Consultants
Adopted: April 5, 1995
F
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
Element F
TRANSPORTATION
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF THIS ELEMENT ................................. 1
B. STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
C. SCOPE AND CONTENT ...................................... 3
D. GOALS, POLICIES and THE VISION FOR BREMERTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION. . .. 8
B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................................ 10
C. LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................................ 13
D. ACCIDENT INFORMATION ................................... 18
E. TRANSIT AND FERRY SERVICE ..................:............ 20
F. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
G. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
3. FUTURE CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES ........................ 24
A. TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . .. 24
B. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE SCENARIOS TESTED ........... 28
C. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32
D. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
4. PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS. . . . . . . .. 40
A. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
B. TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 42
C. FERRY SERVICE AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
D. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS .................... 45
E. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. . . . . . .. . .. 46
F. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . .. 48
G. COST ESTIMATES ........................;................ 49
5. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ......................... 51
A. EXISTING AND PROJECTED REVENUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
B. IMPROVEMENT COSTS/REVENUE COMPARISON ................. 52
C. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . .. 53
LIST OF TABLES
Table ~
1 Existing Corridor Level of Service ............................... 17
2 Existing Intersections that Exceed the Annual Accident Thresholds . . . . . .. 19
3 Population and Employment by T AZ - Bremerton Planning Area . . . . . . . .. 26
4 2014 Corridor Level of Service for All Scenarios .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
5 Transportation Network Assumptions for the Various Scenarios ......... 31
6 Future Potential Travel Demand Reductions in Congested Corridors . . . . .. 39
7 Kitsap Transit - Short-, Medium-, and Long-Range Goals .............. 44
8 Planning-level Cost Estimates for Scenarios 3 and 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
9 Cost/Revenue Comparison for Scenarios 3 and 6 ................... 52
10 Six-Year Funding and Projects (in thousands of dollars) - Transportation. . . . 55
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Functional Classifications ....................................... 9
Roadway Characteristics and Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Existing Traffic Volumes - Average Weekday ........................ 12
Existing Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Existing Level of Service ....................................... 16
Existing Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................. 22
Transportation Analysis Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Year 2014 Scenario 3 - Level of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Year 2014 Scenario 6 - Level of Service. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Year 2014 Scenario 3 - Total Daily Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Year 2014 Scenario 6 - Total Daily Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
APPENDICES
Available separately with other Plan background materials:
. APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMARY
. APPENDIX B - VOLUME AND CAPACITY INFORMATION FOR SCENARIOS 1 - 6
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT F
TRANSPORTATION
1. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF THIS ELEMENT
As an important element of the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Element must be
consistent with all other elements and will assist Bremerton in moving toward its vision
and goals. This element will not simply promote more parking lots and wider streets. It
will encourage efficient multimodal and intermodal transportation systems that will give
our citizens an array of mobility options. It will address bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
mass transit, ferry service and other components of transportation.
This element also recognizes that there are more than three million registered
automobiles in this state. We are traveling 50 billion miles per year and consuming
roughly three billion gallons of fuel. While we work on mobility alternatives, we can't
ignore the importance of the family car, motorcycles, service vehicles, 18-wheelers, and
the many other types of motor vehicles that presently serve our needs. .
The systems and strategies proposed in this element are based on regional priorities but
also coordinated with the comprehensive plans of our neighboring cities and Kitsap
County. The proposals within this Element will be consistent with those plans and will
contribute in a positive way to the regional transportation "system" that we all share.
A well-coordinated regional transportation system will enhance the efficient movement of
people, goods and services at optimum levels of safety, economy and energy efficiency
while also helping to reduce urban sprawl and other undesirable development patterns.
B. STUDY AREA
The Transportation Element covers all areas within the City limits of Bremerton. If the
City's Comprehensive Plan is expanded to include areas beyond the City limits, such as a
smaller Urban Growth Area or Area of Mutual Concern, the Transportation Element will be
expanded to ensure adequate services to those areas as well. Some aspects of this
element will deal with transportation services that connect us with other areas, but are not
fully within the City, such as ferry and transit services. Figure 1 shows the study area for
the Transportation Element.
Transportation - Page 1
I
,'''c-. ......~
"':<P", .'
cw ,...,.",
.-- '<;~;:,--- ,~...
_. w 'U
~_ c_ <:~." ~~
"
\
,
J_
Parametr'J{, 'nc.
_PI!!- CWlQIWI)
I'fDESTRINI FiiiiY
~:
NN
~j
,
j
I
Q1Y OF RMER10N
CCUlREHENSIVE
~A1IQN PlAN
_1 ,. ..
(B
I1.SI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 1
Study Are.
Transportation - Page 2
C. SCOPE AND CONTENT
Section 365-195 WAC contains .procedural criteria" for adopting comprehensive plans
and their development regulations. It also contains the specific requirements and
recommendations for the Transportation Element.
The guidelines that were set forth in the Growth Management Act require, at a minimum,
the following:
(1) Outline of assumptions to be used in estimating travel and travel needs for
comprehensive planning.
(2) Inventory existing capital facilities and transportation services, including:
(a) Air: Airport access, heliport facilities, etc.
(b) Water: Ferry, industrial, and pleasure craft facilities.
(c) Land: Streets, highways, pedestrians, and bicycles.
(d) Public Transit: Levels of service, etc.
(3) Establish Levels of Service (LOS) standards for all arterial streets and transit routes.
(4) Establish a Master Plan of Streets that designates development standards for primary
and secondary arterials, collectors, local access, industrial and private streets. (May
also consider scenic route standards.)
(5) Outline systems improvements that will be necessary to bring substandard facilities up
to the desired level of service.
(6) Forecast traffic levels for the next ten years, based on the land use plans of the City
and surrounding unincorporated areas that are expected to affect local traffic
demands.
(a) Locational and capacity improvement recommendations.
(b)' Recommendations for new facilities or routes.
(c) Outline appropriate phasing of those improvements.
(7) Analysis of funding capability and funding sources.
(8) Multi-year financing plan to serve as a basis for the required six-year program.
(9) Reconsideration for funding shortfalls.
(10) Provide for ongoing intergovernmental coordination.
(11) Establish Demand Management Strategies to deal with demands.
Other important aspects of this element are:
Transportation - Page 3
(1) Adequate public participation during the preparation and adoption of the
Transportation Element.
NOTE: This element followed the same path as all other elements, in accordance
with the City's adopted Citizen Involvement Program. This path includes open
meetings and involvement opportunities at the Citizens Advisory Committee, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council.
(2) Internal Consistency with all other Plan elements.
NOTE: The Transportation Element was designed primarily to implement the Land
Use Element. All Plan elements were coordinated throughout the process to ensure
internal consistency, as well as consistency with the plans of other affected
jurisdictions.
(3) A "Concurrency Management Program".
NOTE: After the City has adopted Levels of Service (LOS) standards, it will not be
able to permit new development that causes the LOS of a particular transportation
facility to decline below the adopted standard, unless improvements or strategies to
accommodate the development's impacts are made "concurrent with the
development', In other words, those improvements or strategies must be in place at
the time of development, or a financial commitment is in place to complete them
within six years.
D. GOALS. POLICIES AND THE VISION FOR BREMERTON
This Transportation Element revises and expands the Transportation Element of the 1986
Comprehensive Plan. Although the basic goals and objectives have not changed
significantly, the City has gone through an extensive visioning process and policy review
in order to determine the most desirable direction and actions.
This Plan must be supportive of and consistent with certain state, regional and county
transportation plans, including their goals, objectives, and policies. It must also provide
a strategy that will implement our own vision of Bremerton's future.
(1) Statewide Transportation Goal: The Transportation Goal of the State of Washington,
as stated in the Growth Management Act, is:
Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional
priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
(2) Regional Transportation Plans: In strengthening our role as a "metropolitan center",
as envisioned in the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020 Plan, our
Transportation Element is consistent with and helps promote the following goal and its
policies:
Transportation - Page 4
GOAL: Strategically invest in transportation facilities to support the regional system
of central places.
SUPPORTING POLICIES:
. Provide a transit-oriented transportation system linking central places.
. Connect regio~al, metropolitan, and subregional centers with rapid transit.
. Connect residential areas with centers through expanded transit and passenger
ferry service.
. Promote an interconnected system of diamond lanes serving the urban areas.
. Promote a moderate expansion of key roadways that support centers and access
to jobs.
. Promote programs encouraging transit and ridesharing options, modifying travel
behavior.
. Develop a regionally coordinated network of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
. Invest in transit early so options are available.
. Develop transit options before expanding highway capacity.
. Support investing a greater percentage of the dollar in transit than in highways.
. Maintain the existing transportation system in a safe state.
. Promote transportation projects that get the most efficiency our of existing roads.
. Promote programs that shift travel demand to less congested times or reduce
demand.
(3) CountYWide Planning Policies: Countywide Planning Policies were adopted in
August, 1992, to guide the efforts of all jurisdictions that would be doing
comprehensive planning within the county.
Section "0" of Kitsap County's CPP document is entitled "Policies for County-wide
Strategies for Transportation Facilities and Services" and includes numerous
transportation policies under the following general headings:
(a) Relationships with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and Peninsula
Regional Transportation Planning Organization (PRTPO).
(b) Identification of needed transportation related facilities and services within Kitsap
County .
Transportation - Page 5
(c) Coordination of intra-county transportation planning efforts.
(d) The process for establishing coordinated and consistent level of service standards.
(e) Strategies for transportation demand management.
(4) The Vision For Bremerton: Element "B" of this Plan provides the vision of
Bremerton's future that guides the policies and recommendations of this
Comprehensive Plan. The following visions were included under the heading
"Transportation and Mobility":
(a) Population growth will challenge our ability to move around freely.
(b) Use of the family car will be discouraged in favor of other options.
(c) The Plan will address bus, ferry, carpooling, bicycling, walking, etc.
(d) New development patterns will allow people to live closer to work.
(e) More frequent and dependable ferry service will be available to Seattle.
(1) Possible "mosquito fleet" type services will supplement the ferry service.
(g) We'll see higher density development around multi-modal terminals.
(h) We will orient new development and densities to better accommodate mass
transit.
(5) Bremerton's Transportation Goals: The statewide planning goal is supplemented by
the following supporting goals of the City of Bremerton:
(a) Provide for safe, economical and energy-efficient movement of people and goods
while protecting the quality of life.
(b) Provide transportation facilities that will meet present and future needs, conserve
energy, and minimize environmental harm.
(c) Provide safe, efficient circulation patterns and roadway design to achieve economy
of energy and time with a minimum of advers,e environmental impacts.
(d) Provide safe, convenient bicycle and pedestrian facilities that can serve as viable
alternatives to automobile travel.
(e) Provide regionally coordinated mass transportation systems that relieve traffic
congestion, promote energy conservation, and serve the majority of the people.
(1) Provide an efficient circulation system for the shoreline areas which is adequate for
marine and land traffic without detracting from shoreline amenities.
Transportation - Page 6
(g) Utilize railroads and bridges on the shoreline to a minimum and, where they are
necessary, place them in a manner which will preserve and enhance the visual
and physical access to and physical characteristics of the shoreline.
(6) Relationships To Existing Plans & Policies: In addition to the vision statements and
goals, the City has also reviewed the goals and policies of its 1986 (existing)
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the provisions of the following plans to ensure
consistency:
(a) Waterfront Access Plan (Bremerton) -- Adopted: 1989
(b) Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan (Bremerton) -- Adopted: 1992
(c) West Hills Area Plan (Bremerton)-- Adopted: 1990
(d) County Transportation Element (Kitsap Co.) -- Draft: 1994
(e) Kitsap Transit long Range Plan (Kitsap Transit) -- Adopted: 1993
(f) Implementation Plan: Passenger-only Ferry Program -- Adopted: 1993
(g) Washington Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan (WSDOT) -- Draft: 1993
(h) Vision 2020 Regional Growth/Transp. Strategy (PSRC) -- 1991
(i) Draft Metropolitan Transportation Plan (PSRC) -- 1994
0) Other plans and documents.
Transportation - Page 7
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND. DEFICIENCIES
This section of the transportation plan describes the existing transportation system conditions
in the study area. This includes a description of the roadway characteristics, functional
classification, traffic volumes, level of service, accidents, transit and ferry service, and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
A. ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Figure 2 depicts the functional classification of the arterial roadway system serving the
study area and shows the ferry routes serving the City of Bremerton. Identification of the
roadway functions is the basis for planning roadway improvements and the appropriate
standards (right-of-way width, roadway width, design speed) that would apply to each
roadway facility. The following definitions serve as a general guide in determining street
classifications:
· Principal Arterials - Intercommunity roadways connecting primary community centers
with major facilities. Principal arterials are gene~ally intended to serve through traffic.
It is desirable to limit direct access to abutting properties.
· Minor Arterials - Intracommunity roadways connecting community centers with
principal arterials. In general, minor arterials ser:ve trips of moderate length. Access
is partially controlled with infrequent access to abutting properties.
· Collector Arterials - Streets connecting residential neighborhoods with smaller
community centers and facilities as well as access to the minor and principal arterial
system. Property access is generally a higher priority for collector arterials; through-
traffic movements are served as a lower priority.
· Local Access Streets - Streets providing direct access to individual residential or
commercial properties.
The transportation plan addresses only the arterial street system within the City of
Bremerton since local access streets typically do not have capacity deficiencies. A brief
description of the arterial streets and highways in the City of Bremerton follows:
SR 3 is the sole north-south freeway in Central Kitsap County. Located on the west side
of Bremerton, this four-lane facility accommodates both regional and more localized travel
between surrounding communities in Kitsap COUlnty. Interchange connections within the
City of Bremerton exist at Austin Drive, Kitsap Way, Loxie Eagans Boulevard/Werner
Road, and SR 304.
SR 304 is a designated State Route with a partial interchange connection to SR 3. SR
304 extends northeast into the City of Bremerton, where it functions as a four-lane
undivided arterial facility. The existing SR 304 alignment follows Farragut Street east to
Callow Avenue, Callow Avenue north to Burwell Street, Burwell Street east to Washington
Avenue, and south to the Ferry Terminal.
Transportation - Page 8
o
'"
::l -~
I~
19
.:..---..
IN(
I
CITY OF BREMER TON
COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
~ ,~
~ o~Ch~_ ~@s,
.~ ~~
~J- "'\~
"'r
"-
\
\
I
I
P.r.metrlx, Inc.
RD
PORT ORCHARO
~ ~ - - - iiiieSrRiAH FERRY
'\.
\
\
""
/~\
,I \
,/ -----..
r
I
FlI.E: 18ll62SB1/ll11162S17
LEGEND
~
ILJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2
Functional Classifications
FREEWA Y
PRINCIPAL. AR7F:RIALS
- - - - - - - MINOR ARTf:RIALS
- - -- COLLECTORS
Transportation - Page 9
The other major east-west arterials in downtown Bremerton are 6th and 11 th Streets.
Both are four-lane undivided facilities from Washington Avenue westward. These two
arterials ultimately come together at Kitsap Way (SR 310), continuing as a single, major
arterial to the interchange connection with SR 3 and northwest to Chico Way. In east
Bremerton, Riddell Road, Sylvan Way, and Sheridan Road are east-west arterials
connecting to Wheaton Way (SR 303).
The major connector from downtown Bremerton to east Bremerton and the Silverdale
retail area to the north is Warren Avenue/Wheaton Way (SR 303), a four/five-lane arterial
that extends from Burwell Street north across the four-lane Port Washington Narrows
Bridge. The two-lane Manette Bridge also connects Washington Avenue in downtown
Bremerton to Wheaton Way in east Bremerton. Other north-south arterials that provide
traffic circulation in Bremerton include Washington Avenue and Pacific Avenue in
downtown Bremerton, Naval Avenue to the west of the downtown area, Perry Avenue and
Pine Road in east Bremerton, and National Avenue in west Bremerton near SR 3.
Access to SR 3, and to newly developed areas west of Bremerton, is provided by Loxie
Eagans Road/Werner Road, which is located midway between SR 304 and Kitsap Way.
Loxie Eagans Road is a four-lane urban arterial/collector from SR 3 to Arsenal Way. To
the west, Werner Road is an undivided two-lane, rural collector route.
The characteristics of these arterial roadways in the study area are shown in Figure 3.
The majority of other roadways within the city limits are two lanes with a speed limit of 25
mph.
Existing intersection traffic control devices are also indicated on Figure 3. The major
arterial street intersections are signalized as shown. Most other intersections are two-way
stop sign controlled on the minor streets, with four-way stops at the Sylvan Way/Perry
Avenue, 13th Street/High Avenue, 15th Street/High Avenue, and Price Road/Harlow
Drive intersections.
B. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figures 4 (daily) and 5 (PM peak hour) from traffic
counts recorded between 1987 and 1994 by the City of Bremerton, Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Parametrix, Inc. The volumes shown were
not adjusted to a common 1994 base since traffic volumes have remained relatively
constant during the last five to seven years. In several locations where traffic counts were
available for more than one year, traffic volumes have actually decreased during the last
five years.
Figure 4 shows average daily weekday traffic volumes on the arterial street system.
Average daily weekday traffic on city streets range from 1,200 vehicles per day on 1 st
Street west of SR 3, to 45,000 on Wheaton Way. The higher-volume arterials are Kitsap
Way between 11th Street and SR 3, SR 304 between Callow Avenue and SR 3, and
Wheaton Way/Warren Avenue between 11 th Street and Riddell Road.
Transportation - Page 10
Parametrlx, Inc.
l
~
"'~~:,:;:
"~
r-~
~~:::=::::::~l
"'e=~~-= ,
t~!:~1
'~,;
't;.
'~,i
=.-,-~--, u-;-~~..:':~.l
I
I
I r
l..J
i
c_...._____
i
'L~~,
C::.:::::,
~~':':""""J:!'
j
~
:;;--=~~
I
!
f.;:.;::"~~=~
~
(
--.
......,.."
(..~-"
\
CHICO ...v
aTY OF BREMERTON
CCMlREtDSIVE
lRANSPORTAnON PLAN
PLI: 1_'11_'.
(B
IlSI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
. SlGNAUZED IHTERSECTION
o 4-WAY S10P
NOm
S1RalS ARE JM) /.AHES AND HAK A 25 "..,
SPEEI) I.AIIT CXCEPT IIHERE SHOrIM 0lHER1I5E
S1RalS ARE JM) WAY CXCEPT Co 11tH AT THE
tINETT[ Mf)G[ AND CALLAHAN IJIC)ER IMRRI:H A \E
Transportation - Page 11
.. S'RJ' SIGN
~ SPEEI) lilT
- FOIJR I.AHE ARlERlALS
Figure 3
Roadway Characterlatlca
and Traffic Control
Parametrlx, Inc.
;~~~,jo'~--r_
<.''''~4 .
~t..t~'
')
)
@
..4,
.....~~--.~-._..-'.
~-]-~y
"<...""
j
~
f
.'.OI~.......",-"",=-
,
J
~
I
QTY OF BREMERTON
COMPROENSIVE
lRANSPORTA liON PLAN
I'JU: ._.,,_..
,--.I
(B
~
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
(ill) AIERACE IlEEJaMY TRAFFIC
NOm
'TRAFFIC IoO!.l.M'S ARE UNNMJS1ED FROItI AC1WIL.
'TRAFFIC COlJNl'S ~ 8[JIEEN fNT AND fIN
Figure 4
Exl.tlng Traffic Volume.
Average VV.ekday
TransportIItion - Page 12
Afternoon peak-hour directional traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 range from 100 to 2,300
vehicles per hour on the arterial street system. SR 3, between Bremerton and Gorst, has
the highest peak-hour directional volume at approximately 3,700 vehicles per hour in the
southbound direction.
C. LEVEL OF SERVICE
The following section provides a summary of the of roadway Level of Service (LOS)
standards and methodology used for the Transportation Element of the City of Bremerton
Transportation Plan. The purpose of this information is to provide an overview of LOS
and to identify its relationship to the transportation goals and policies of the City.
(1) Level of Service Definition: Level of Service is an estimate of the quality and
performance of transportation facility operations in a community. One commonly
used method is the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual LOS
system. The degree of traffic congestion and delay is rated using the letter "A" for
the least amount of congestion to the letter "F" for the highest amount of congestion.
The following Level of Service categories provide general descriptions of the different
levels of service defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. The community decides
what level of traffic congestion is tolerable (Le., decides whether their standard is "C,"
"D," or some other level). The choice of a particular LOS threshold can vary by
planning subarea, roadway classification, or specific corridor or street. Establishing
LOS standards is also a requirement of the State's Growth Management Act.
(2) Level of Service Categories:
. Level of Service A: A free flow condition. Speeds are at or near the speed
limit and little to no delay exists. Freedom to select desired speeds and to
make turns and maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high.
. Level of Service B: Zone of stable flow. Drivers still have reasonable
freedom to select their speed. Only minor delays of 5 to 15 seconds per
vehicle at signalized intersections are experienced.
. Level of Service C: Still in the zone of stable flow, but speeds and
maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The
selection of speed is not affected by the presence of others, and maneuvering
within the traffic stream requires vigilance on the part of the driver. Longer
delays of 15 to 25 seconds per vehicle are experienced at signalized
intersections.
. Level of Service D: Approaches unstable flow. Speed and freedom to
maneuver are somewhat restricted with average delays of 25 to 40 seconds
per vehicle. Small increases in traffic flow can cause operational difficulties at
this level.
Transportation - Page 13
~--
-'~q?1r.
~,,- Q4'~7-1Ctf"b
Parametr'J(, 'nc.
),
II)
1100
'>>0 '<8
~
?
,
[
--=0;.;:=_,_.
-~~=-~'?<':V-EY .~~-O
-'~-"=]--
--~~--~
i
I
,..,~
--~....., .--,--~-,-,-~-
J;'JTSAF
LAll2'
QlY OF IIEMERTON
CDFREtDSIVE
lRANSPORTAlION PlAN
I
--J
fIUl '_'\'_
~
ILJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
~ DIRECTIONAL,."" PEAK HOUR
Figure 6
Existing Traffic Volume.
PM Peak Hour
NOm
lRNJ'JC ~ ARE UNAIMIS1ED FR06f AC7UAL
lRNJ'JC COCM7S RE'CIOIlDiED IE71IEEN '987 AND 'fH
Transportation - Page 14
';.1
. Level of Service E: Represents operating conditions at or near the capacity
of the roadway. Low speeds (approaching 50 percent of normal) and average
intersection delays of 40 to 60 seconds per vehicle exist. Freedom to
maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult. Any incident can be
expected to produce a breakdown in traffic flow with extensive queuing.
. Level of Service F: Describes forced flow operation at very low speeds.
Operations are characterized by stop-and-go traffic. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop
in a cyclic fashion. Long delays of over 60 seconds per vehicle occur at
signalized intersections.
A more technical method has been developed in the Highway Capacity Manual to
measure LOS, involving the calculation of the volume to capacity ratio (V /C) of the
roadway or intersection. The following Volume/Capacity (V /e) ratio ranges have been
developed for determining planning level mid-block LOS on urban and rural roadways.
ws
A
B
C
D
E
F
less than or equal to
less than or equal to
less than or equal to
less than or equal to
less than or equal to
greater than
Volume/Capacity 01 /e) Ratio
.3
.5
.75
.90
1.0
1.0
More detailed methodologies to calculate LOS at specific locations such as
unsignalized or signalized intersections are outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual.
These are typically utilized during the development review process to assess potential
traffic impacts on roadway facilities in the project vicinity.
(3) Existina Level of Service: Based on current traffic volumes, the volume to capacity
ratio and Level of Service was calculated for mid-block arterial roadway sections
throughout the City. The results are shown in Table 1 and graphically in Figure 6.
Level of Service D was selected as the initial LOS threshold to identify system
deficiencies. This is the LOS standard used in most urban areas in the Puget Sound
region, including the urban portion of Kitsap County. This is a reasonable initial
threshold to begin to identify deficiencies in the network. The following existing
roadway sections exceed or are close to exceeding this Level of Service D threshold
during the PM peak hour:
. SR 304 - Preble to Farragut
. Warren Avenue/Wheaton Way (SR 303) - Bridge to Sheridan Road
. Kitsap Way (SR 310) - Callow Avenue to SR 3 (high LOS D approaching LOS E)
. Manette Bridge (high LOS D approaching LOS E).
Transportation - Page 15
,,<;~~~
<-' ,.,#(~'O:"-~;~ 4~r
r~l
Parametrbt, 'nc.
~-=-~:'EO<II""l
L~.~,,~._
r-~
,
,,;:~~~~
-~--'''''~
k.~~;:;::.~~_"':::.-~
r-
jY~1--=
i,
II
,
l
~
< -""""'-="'''-'''''~
1.
!
aTY OF BREMERTON
CCl.tPRaBlSIVE
lRANSPORTA11ON PLAN
fa&: \_.,.._.
LEGEND
~ LOS I vjt:;
LOS LE\El. OF SEJMC('
vIe ~ 10 CN'AaTY RAlJO
Figure 8
Exletlng Level of Service
(B
ILJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
TraIlIpOI1a&ion - PIlge 16
. Table 1
Existing Corridor Level of Service
Two-Way
Peak Hour VIC Level of
Street Section Volume. Capacity Ratio Service
WEST BREMERTON
6th Street Washington to Warren 760 3,650 0.21 A
6th Street Warren to Callow 1,880 3,425 0.55 C
11th Street Washington to Warren 1,060 3,425 0.31 B
11th Street Warren to Kitsap Way 2,300 4,100 0.56 C
15th Street High to Callow 690 1,440 0.48 B
Auto Center Way S/O Kitsap Way 1,030 1,625 0.63 C
Burwell Washington to Warren 880 1,440 0.61 C
Burwell Warren to Naval 1,510 1,950 0.77 0
Burwell Naval to Callow 1,400 2,800 0.50 B
Callow Farragut to 6th 1,990 3,050 0.65 C
Callow 6th to 11th B40 1,950 0.43 B
Cambrian (304) Preble to Farragut 2,360 2,600 0.91 E
Farragut (304) Callow to PSNS 920 2,600 0.35 B
Harlow 1 st to Price 140 1,025 0.14 A
High 6th to 15th 370 1,025 0.36 B
Kean Werner to 1 st 360 1,440 0.25 A
Kitsap Way Callow to SR-3 3,240 3,725 0.87 0
Manette Bridge 1,430 1,600 0.89 0
National Kitsap to City Limits 640 1,440 0.44 B
Naval Burwell to 11 th 1,200 3,050 0.39 B
Pacific Burwell to 11th 400 1,200 0.33 B
SR 304 SR 3 to Preble 2,930 4,000 0.73 C
Warren Burwell to 11 th 1,350 4,100 0.33 B
Warren 11th to Bridge 3,300 4,100 0.80 0
Warren (Wheaton) Bridge to Callahan 4,050 4,100 0.99 E
Washington 6th to Burwell 940 3,650 0.26 A
Werner National to SR-3 1,370 3,650 0.38 B
Transportation - Page 17
Table 1 - Continued
Two-Way VIC Level of
Street Section Peak Volume Capacity Ratio Service
EAST BREMERTON
Perry E. 11th to Riddell 560 1,310 0.43 B*
Pine Sheridan to Riddell 610 1,310 0.47 B
Riddell Pine to Petersville 990 1,200 0.83 D
Sheridan Pine to Halverson 1,020 1,310 0.78 D
Sylvan Pine to Petersville 1,060 1,440 0.74 C
Trenton E. 11th to Stone Way 470 1,310 0.36 B*
Wheaton Callahan to Sheridan 3,190 3,725 0.86 D
Wheaton Sheridan to Riddell 2,960 3,725 0.79 D
· No traffic counts available; volumes from traffic model.
D. ACCIDENT INFORMATION
Accident data records compiled by the Washington State Patrol for the City of Bremerton
were reviewed for the years 1989 through 1993. Major intersections were reviewed for the
number of accidents and accidents severity (personal injury, fatalities, and property
damage only). The results of the analysis are contained in Transportation Appendix A.
The criteria used to determine if an intersection should be considered for further
examination from a safety perspective were:
. Five or more average accidents per year for unsignalized intersections
· Ten or more average accidents per year for signalized intersections.
This is similar to criteria used by the City of Seattle to identify intersections that should be
examined from a safety perspective. After many years of using these thresholds, Seattle
has found them to be a simple way of identifying possible safety issues and prioritizing
intersection improvements. This list does not imply that Bremerton is responsible for
improvements at all of these intersections. At some of these intersections there are no
consistent accident patterns or no reasonable improvements that could be identified to
decrease accidents. Table 2 identifies the intersections that exceed these accident
thresholds based on the average number of accident during the last five years.
There are 10 signalized and 6 unsignalized intersections that have exceeded the annual
accident thresholds during the last 5 years. Most are on the major arterial corridors in the
City including: Warren Avenue/Wheaton Way, Kitsap Way and 11th Avenue.
A review of the accidents involving a fatality revealed that over the last five years
approximately two people were killed each year in accidents involving automobiles. A
total of 12 fatalities occurred over the five-year period. All fatalities occurred at different
locations. A list of the fatal accidents are also included in Transportation Appendix A. .
Transportation - Page 18
Table 2
existing Intersections that Exceed the Annual Accident Thresholds
Total Number of Accidents
Intersection '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 Tota 5-Year
I Average
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Burwell/Callow 13 14 14 13 9 63 12.6
Burwell/Montgomery 14 11 11 14 9 59 11.8
11th/Kitsap Way 11 11 21 12 12 67 13.4
11 th/Callow 6 16 5 12 18 57 11.4
11th/Warren 11 22 11 19 12 75 15.0
Kitsap 7 12 10 19 29 77 15.4
Way /Shorewood
Kitsap Way/National 10 5 9 11 15 50 10.0
Kitsap Way /Mar.ine 12 12 14 10 12 60 12.01
Wheaton/Sheridan 23 15 16 14 21 89 17.8
Warren/16th 12 12 11 10 8 53 10.6
UNSIGNALlZED INTERSECTIONS
. 11th/Montgomery 5 6 7 4 6 28 5.62
11th/Hewitt 3 6 2 14 3 28 5.63
11th/Veneta 3 4 9 11 2 29 5.83
Warren/13th 5 6 8 22 9 50 10.0
Kitsap Way jpershing 4 13 14 14 11 56 11.24
Pine/Sylvan 3 7 6 5 5 26 5.25
1 Improvements made at this intersection in 1994 should reduce the number of accidents at this intersection.
2 The closing of the south leg of this intersection in 1994 should reduce the number of accidents
3 Providing a protected left turn phase at the 11th Street/High Avenue intersection would likely reduce the
number of left turn accidents at these unsignalized intersections. This improvement is planned for 1995.
4 Accidents at this intersection are primarily caused by vehicle queues back from National Avenue.
S Acc.idents at this intersection have been closely monitored by City of Bremerton staff. Even though the
intersection has averaged more than five accidents during the last five years, only 3 to 4 accidents per year
would be susceptible to correction by installing a four-way stop sign at this intersection. Therefore, the
intersection is below the threshold identified in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for
installing a four-way stop sign.
Transportation - Page 19
E. TRANSIT AND FERRY SERVICE
Transit service .in Bremerton is provided by Kitsap Transit. Current fixed route service is
illustrated on Figure 7. Many of the transit routes serve the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,
downtown Bremerton, and Washington State Ferry Terminal. Transfers between the
various transit routes can be made at the following locations:
. Washington Avenue at the Washington State Ferry Terminal.
. Wheaton Avenue/Sylvan Way intersection.
. Auto Center Way south of the SR 3/Kitsap Way intersection.
These transfer station locations are also shown on Figure 7. Regular transit routes
generally operate on one hour headways with one or two additional runs during peak
periods. Other special routes, such as #15 - McWilliams provide peak hour service only.
Downtown Bremerton is currently served by auto and passenger-only ferries' operated by
Washington State Ferries (WSF) and a privately-operated passenger ferry to Port Orchard.
Both the auto and passenger ferries operated by WSF connect downtown Bremerton with
Colman Dock in downtown Seattle, providing a convenient link between the two
downtown areas.
There are typically two auto ferries operating on the Bremerton-Seattle route; during peak
summer months, one Issaquah class (100 vehicle capacity) and one expanded Issaquah
class (130 vehicle capacity) vessel serves the route, while two Issaquah class vessels
serve the route during the off-peak season. Both :of the vessels also have a capacity for
1,200 passengers. There are currently 14 dail~, runs in each direction on the route, with
operating headways that range from 60 to 105 minutes. The Bremerton terminal area
currently has a holding area for approximately 100 vehicles, two transfer spans, three toll
booths, and overhead passenger loading. The route length is approximately 13.5 nautical
miles and the scheduled crossing time is 60 minutes.
The Seattle-Bremerton passenger-only ferry has a capacity for 250 passengers. There are
5 scheduled runs per day from Seattle to Bremerton and 6 scheduled runs from
Bremerton to Seattle. The scheduled crossing time for the passenger-only ferry is 50
minutes.
F. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are an integral part of the transportation network, and the
provision for these facilities will be incorporated in the transportation improvement
program. Currently, sidewalks are provided throughout the downtown and central
Bremerton areas and in other areas with commercial land uses such as the Kitsap Way
and Wheaton Way corridors. Paved or gravel shoulders are predominant throughout the
other residential areas. Shoulder treatments (paved or gravel); sidewalks, and designated
bicycle routes for the study area roadways are shown in Figure 8.
Transportation - Page 20
.Po,/",.
~ .D..fC.
~~~~~~ Jo.5r~b
l--"""'-"~ .i(lIr
--U .._,..,,"~~.",._._
iJ'1.,
~ \
I
Parametrlx, 'nc.
""- ",--
\,,,\-,.>
\~~::J
~~~~
,-
....-t::=:;::::::=~::~1
'':.:.~~'~.::.:::::.=::::.~~
,
""
"it.
~~
'C~'
{~~
j
'\,
~;:-=-;."
~:::::::;::~_:''1
~_.,'''':~::;ltIjl'
~
;-:~~:=~-::.:J-
~;,
:...51~tr--=<~l"'''
f",","'crl<>l'''''
-',:~,~~~:=~;~i:1;;:~.,~
!:~'l,.,,;~
.. .-'/
,. 1ICCkV" Pi:iiHr iiR-'''''
-,
" ~\
~ '\..
- .,,,,,.... ,.~~ ".... ~^
"'-.
"-~~"'-~'-'-_,
(~~~:['
-....."...i
,:;; .1'~~~-~~-~H
: t
,.I
;
..,.,.$""""_~~'S
~]
.i,.....l.--".....
" .
" . ,~
1"","<,...,:.__"",
I
!
I
,,,I
j
....'}
- ,-.,.."...""
JI'''.
,-:./
'L._}. > ..
,,~rt5~A,F~
r'o-~,}G~-'
~-'--""="'",,:ILJJ_'r_ '~~~'<_~.
~ i -
il I
~J!~.~~::~.~.-
.. .."'.............CHiCij.-.' -
aTY OF BREMERTON
ca.tPRaENSIVE
lRANSPORTA liON PLAN
tor>>ft.,;::c>....-
~"<1UlI\E .y --...
\~~~ \_ ~~~r_~~-..J ~.~~~
).u".-- "
"""'::-'.'
./
-==........,.......,..""'-,..,.......",
~ 1--'/1_""
~
~
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
-@--sus ROUT[S ANO ROUTE HUttfBERS
In. TRANSFER STATICW
Figure 7
Exl8tlng Tran81t Service
Transportation - Page 21
I
_01
~~?;)f F~},.c:-.-,>
~>'(f;:::(~iO'
-----...,..,___ ':t.
-'. ~r
r--'" ~'" ,j . -
i 1 f "".~
I '--.1 '_.~~_,
Parametrlx, Inc.
.
~
E
...
\,
I
i
.;
PErErlMIE RO
<8
t.
t.
! r~~
f ~ II
LJ
~j
~.......~~~
DlY OF BREMERTON
CClitPREtBlSIVE
lRANSPORTA11ON PLAN
ram l_.\l_
(B
ILJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
SDf:WAL.K (2 SIDES)
- - - SDf:WAL.K (f S6JE)
_.. - PA\ED Off CiWA\IEL SHOU.DER
NO SHOU.DER
Figure 8
Bicycle and Pede.trlan Facllltle.
,,""""""" " SJGINED JICltI.[ ....,.
Transportation .- Page 22
G. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
Existing transportation system deficiencies were identified from the Level of Service
information described in the preceding sections. These deficiencies include:
(1) SR 304 (Cambrian Avenue) south of Farragut Street: This roadway segment
currently operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour. A significant portion of the relatively
high traffic volumes on this street segment are a result of employees leaving the puget
Sound Naval Shipyard.
(2) Warren Avenue Bridge: While the existing LOS on this bridge is calculated to be
LOS E, the capacity constraint occurs at the intersections on either end of the bridge.
Therefore, the actual Level of Service on the bridge may operate somewhat better
than the calculated LOS E.
(3) Kltsap Way (Callow Avenue to SR 3): This roadway segment currently operates at
a high LOS 0 approaching LOS E. There are nine signalized intersections in this
segment (including the signals at Callow Avenue and the SR 3 southbound ramps)
that tend to control Level of Service in the corridor.
Other existing transportation system deficiencies have been identified as a result of
discussions with City staff and the Bremerton Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAG). These
deficiencies include:
(4) Kitsap Way intersections with the SR 3 ramps and Shorewood Drive: This
section of Kitsap Way has existing operating deficiencies due to the close spacing of
intersections and large left turn volumes to and from SR 3. The signalized Kitsap
Way /SR 3 southbound ramps intersection currently operates at LOS E and the
unsignalized Kitsap Way /SR 3 northbound ramps intersection currently operates at
LOS F during the PM peak hour. (puget Power Kitsap Service Center Traffic Impact
Analysis, Transportation Solutions, Inc., September 1994).
(5) Werner Road/Loxle Eagans Blvd. between Union Ave./Kean St. and National
Avenue: There are five major intersections in this sections of Werner Road/Loxie
Eagans Blvd., including two intersections with SR 3 ramps. The relatively close
spacing of intersections and large turning movements affect traffic operations in this
area.
Improvements to address the operational deficiencies in these areas will also be
developed as part of the transportation improvement plan.
Transportation - Page 23
3. FUTURE CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section of the transportation plan describes future conditions in the year 2014,20 years
into the future. A number of land use/transportation network scenarios were tested using a
travel demand forecasting model to estimate traffic volumes in 2014. Level of service
standards and future transportation system deficiencies are also discussed in this section.
A. TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A city-wide transportation planning model was developed utilizing the TMODEL2
computer software package. An important function of a model is its ability to analyze
future development scenarios in terms of traffic impacts. This requires a model structure
that incorporates trip generation based on land use characteristics, allowing the impact of
different land use types and intensities to be evaluated. Model output includes peak hour
roadway traffic volumes given specific land use or transportation network scenarios. The
model developed for the City of Bremerton provides peak hour link volumes on all arterial
streets. Intersection turning movement volumes are generally less accurate with this type
of link based model; however, intersection deficiencies typically exist where link
deficiencies are identified.
The land use data is based on the division of the Bremerton planning area into
Transportation Analysis Zones (T AZs) as shown on Figure 9. The creation of the
Bremerton T AZs was based on several factors:
· The existing boundaries of Kitsap County T AZs
. Existing and future land use scenarios
. Travel demand patterns and volumes
· Existing roadway network structure and density
. Geographic features
The land uses contained in the T AZs are segregated into three main categories:
· Residential dwelling units - this category includes single and multi-family dwelling units
· Retail employees - this category includes ail types of retail employees
· Other non-retail employees - this category includes all types of non-retail uses
including office, light industrial, school, hospital, and service employees.
Table 3 summarizes the amount and category of land use in each TAZ for existing
conditions and the future 2014 development scenario (Land Use Scenario 1) provided by
City of Bremerton planning staff. The future recommended 2014 land use assumes an
overall increase of 8,917 households (56% increase over existing) and 18,181 employees
(49% increase over existing). This would result in a total of 24,724 households and
55,361 employees within the Bremerton Planning Area by the year 2014.
Transportation - Page 24
QlY OF BRatERTON
co.PR&ENSIVE
lRANSPORTAnON PLAN
"~
:t'""
o"c'
.,~.
~j>
Parametrlx, 'nc.
10f
PErERMJ::[ RO
~~.
t
';ll
.\
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,J
I
fa.i: 1__
(B
ILJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 8
Transportation Analysis Zones
Transportation - Page 25
Table 3
Population and Employment by TAZ - Bremerton Planning Area
Estimated 1994 Year 2014 Land Use Year 2014 Land Use
Employment (Scenario 1) (Scenario 2)
County City 1990 Non- Total Non- Total Non- Total
TAZ TAZ DU Retail Retail Emp. DU Retail Retail Emp. DU Retail Retail Emp.
79 79 83 195 795 990 1,272 238 874 1,112 781 238 1,674 1,912
80 80 565 300 816 1,116 1,217 400 838 1,238 1,117 500 838 1,338
81 81-A 29 36 62 98 38 176 77 253 38 176 77 253
81-8 21 24 42 66 26 118 51 169 26 18 51 69
82 82 608 180 486 666 654 600 233 833 704 300 233 533
83 83 723 469 300 769 1,570 581 291 872 970 581 291 872
84 84 682 59 134 193 740 81 152 233 740 81 152 233
85 85-A 628 207 851 1,058 1,002 267 772 1,039 603 267 772 1,039
85-8 314 103 426 529 503 133 386 519 1,002 133 386 519
86- - 86 498 80 83 163 669 0 52 52 569 0 52 52
87 87 1,655 17 710 727 1,976 140 957 1,097 1,776 140 947 1,097
88 88-A 636 69 123 192 697 138 93 231 697 138 93 231
88-8 636 69 124 193 697 137 93 230 697 137 93 230
89 89 0 0 5,600 5,600 0 193 7,381 7,574 0 0 6,300 6,300
90 90 0 0 5,600 5,600 0 193 8,073 8,266 0 0 6,300 6,300
91 91-A 22 0 5,600 5,600 22 193 8,073 8,266 22 0 6,300 6,300
91-8 22 0 5,719 5,719 22 193 8,073 8,266 22 772 6,300 7,027
I
92 92 465 10 389 399 791 60 521 581 691 60 521 581
93 93 686 61 692 753 1,044 112 845 957 1,044 212 1,045 1,257
94 94 214 76 561 637 350 648 573 1,221 250 648 1,073 1,721
Transportation -- Page 26
Table 3
Population and Employment by TAZ - Bremerton Planning Area
Estimated 1994 Year 2014 Land Use Year 2014 Land Use
Employment (Scenario 1) (Scenario 2)
County City 1990 Non- Total Non- Total Non- Total
TAZ TAZ DU Retail Retail Emp. DU Retail Retail Emp. DU Retail Retail Emp.
95 95 125 700 1,088 1,788 1,215 1,200 1,471 2,671 3,215 1,200 1,471 2,671
96 96 846 0 261 261 1,329 23 574 597 1,087 23 574 597
97 97 213 14 46 60 435 199 130 329 285 0 0 0
98 98-A 1,314 140 207 347 1,711 140 234 374 1,108 140 234 374
98-8 603 60 90 150 701 60 100 160 994 80 180 260
99* 99 43 379 82 461 146 300 187 487 96 400 187 587
100 100 940 800 825 1,625 1,302 1,346 1,265 2,611 1,302 1,346 1,265 2,611
101* 101 5 203 163 366 3 400 379 779 3 250 179 429
102 102 2,186 265 500 765 3,111 97 3,454 3,551. 3,411 97 1,454 1,551
103 103 490 83 130 213 743 273 381 654 843 173 181 354
104 104 554 14 62 76 738 56 83 139 638 36 83 119
Totals 15,806 4,613 32,567 37,180 24,724 8,695 46,666 55,361
* Does not include land use outside city limits.
Transportation - Page 27
The model was calibrated to match existing volumes on the transportation network within
acceptable levels of error as specified by the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) #255. This calibration process verifies that the model is replicating
existing volumes on the transportation network prior to estimating future traffic volumes
based on the 2014 land use assumptions.
An initial traffic assignment using the 2014 future land use forecasts (Land Use Scenario
1) was prepared on the existing transportation network. The results of this scenario, in
terms of link level of service during the PM peak: hour, is summarized in Table 4.
(Appendix B contains a more detailed spreadsheet showing the volume, capacity, v/c
ratio, and LOS on the arterial street segments within the City of Bremerton). Since this
alternative resulted in many links reaching LOS F conditions with high volume/capacity
ratios indicating extreme traffic congestion, additional land use and transportation network
scenarios were tested and evaluated. These scenarios are identified in the following
section of the plan.
The primary deficiencies in the network for this scenario included:
· the Manette and Warren Bridges
· Cambrian (SR 304) Corridor
. Kitsap Way Corridor
· Warren/Wheaton Corridor
Improvements to these deficient corridors were tested; however, the corridors could not
be improved to LOS 0 or even LOS E conditions with conventional widening and
intersection improvements. This initial Land Use Scenario that was tested on the existing
transportation is referred to as Scenario 1 in subsequent sections of the transportation
plan.
B. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE SCENARIOS TESTED
A second land use scenario and four different transportation network scenarios were
tested and evaluated. The second land use scenario (Scenario 2) involved relocating
some of the future population and employment growth from East Bremerton into
downtown Bremerton and other land use reallocations. The purpose of testing Scenario
2 was to reduce the overall travel demand crossing the Manette and Warren bridges and
in other congested corridors. The total growth in population and employment within the
Bremerton Planning Area for Scenario 2 was the same as for Scenario 1. Table 3 also
shows the future population and employment for Scenario 2 by T AZ.
The four network scenarios were all evaluated using the future land use allocations in
Scenario 2, since the volume/capacity ratios in most corridors were 5 to 10% less than in
Scenario 1. The land use reallocated in Scenario 2 did provide some benefit as
anticipated. Table 5 summarizes the transportation network improvements assumed for
all scenarios as well as the different improvements tested for each scenario.
Transportation - Page 28
Table 4
2014 Corridor Level of Service for All Scenarios
Existing Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
Street Section vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of
Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service
WEST
BREMERTON
Manette Bridge 0.89 D 1.81 F 1.73 F 1.40 F 1.18 F - - 1.08 F
Kitsap Way Callow to SR-3 0.87 D 1.59 F 1.47 F 0.98 E 0.99 E 1.00 E 1.00 E
Burwell Warren to Naval 0.77 D 1.46 F 1.45 F 0.89 D 0.88 D 0.88 D 0.88 D
Cambrian (304) Preble to Farragut 0.91 E 1.33 F 1.21 F 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.89 D
Warren 11th to Bridge 0.80 D 1.16 F 1.10 F 1.09 F 0.93 E 1.28 F 0.94 E
Burwell Washington to 0.61 C 1.03 F 1.14 F 0.56 C 0.56 C 0.60 C 0.56 C
Warren
SR-304 SR-3 to Preble 0.73 C 1.02 F 0.95 E 0.90 D 0.90 D' 0.90 D 0.90 D
Werner (Loxie National to SR-3 0.38 B 0.90 D 0.79 D 0.63 C 0.64 C 0.65 C 0.65 C
Eagans)
6th Street Warren to Callow 0.55 C 0.90 D 0.85 D 0.81 D 0.85 D 0.81 D 0.89 D
11 th Street Warren to Kitsap 0.56 C 0.90 D 0.83 D 0.92 E 0.78 D 0.84 D 0.84 D
Way
Burwell Naval to Callow 0.50 B 0.78 D 0.64 C 0.64 C 0.58 C 0.63 C 0.58 C
Callow F arragut to 6th 0.65 C 0.91 E 0.82 D 0.88 D .0.94 E 0.94 E 0.86 D
Pacific Burwell to 11th 0.33 B 0.75 C 0.91 E 1.24 F 0.72 C 0.74 C 0.52 C
15th Street High to Callow 0.48 B 0.69 C 0.65 C 0.56 C 0.47 B 0.41 B 0.47 B
Auto Center Way SIO Kitsap Way 0.63 C 0.68 C 0.65 C 0.66 C 0.65 C 0.65 C 0.65 C
Farragut (304) Callow to PSNS 0.35 B 0.67 C 0.39 B 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.24 A
Warren Burwell to 11th 0.33 B 0.54 C 0.62 C 0.61 C 0.59 C 0.65 C 0.59 C
Washington 6th to Burwell 0.26 A 0.53 C 0.54 C 0.68 C 0.69 C 0.69 C 0.68 C
High 6th to 15th 0.36 B 0.52 C 0.46 B 0.47. B 0.50 B 0.63 C 0.52 C
Naval Burwell to 11th 0.39 B 0.50 C 0.52 C 0.50 C 0.63 C 0.67 C 0.67 C
Callow 6th to 11th 0.43 B 0.50 C 0.53 C 0.55 C 0.52 C 0.75 D 0.66 C
Transportation - Page 29
Table 4
2014 Corridor Level of Service for All Scenarios
Existing Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
Street Section vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of vie Level of
Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service Ratio Service
11 th Street Washington to 0.31 B 0.48 B 0.52 C 0.53 C 0.61 C 0.67 C 0.63 C
Warren
6th Street Washington to 0.21 A 0.43 B 0.44 B 0.43 B 0.43 B 0.45 B 0.44 B
Warren
Kean Werner to 1 st 0.25 A 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.29 A 0.29 A 0.29 A 0.29 A
Harlow 1 st to Price 0.14 A 0.20 A 0.20 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.23 A
New Bridge Naval to Pine - - - - - - - - 0.94 E 0.57 C 0.55 C
EAST
BREMERTON
Riddell Pine to Petersville 0.83 0 1.44 F 1.19 F 0.43 B 0.39 B 0.49 B 0.39 B
Sheridan Pine to Halverson 0.78 0 1.37 F 1.38 F 0.41 B 0.47 B 0.61 C 0.48 B
Sylvan Pine to Petersville 0.74 C 1.36 F 1.13 F 0.42 B 0.44 B 0.55 C 0.44 B
Wheaton Callahan to 0.86 0 1.12 F 1.11 F 1.06 F 0.92 E 1.09 F 0.92 E
Sheridan
Wheaton Sheridan to Riddell 0.79 0 1.06 F 1.04 F 1.03 F 0.97 E 1.02 F 0.95 E
Pine. Sheridan to Riddell 0.47 B 0.79 0 0.76 0 0.74 C 0.78 0 0.63 C 0.54 C
Perry E. 11th to Riddell 0.43 B 0.89 0 0.79 0 0.80 0 0.64 C 0.67 C 0.67 C
Trenton E. 11th to Riddell 0.36 B 0.60 C 0.56 C 0.54 C 0.52 C 0.41 B 0.52 C
Notes: See Table 3 for documentation on the different land use assumptions in Scenarios 1 and 2.
See Table 5 for documentation on the different transportation network assumptions for ~cenarios 3 through 6. All of these scenarios use the land use assumptions from
Scenario 2.
Transportation - Page 30
Table 5
Transportation Network Assumptions for the Various Scenarios
Scenario Improvement
All scenarios . Bremerton-Gorst Improvements (see Section 5.1 for description).
. Widen Kitsap Way to 6/7 lanes - 11th to SR 3.
. Riddell, Sheridan, and Sylvan widened to 5 lanes at the intersections with Wheaton
Way.
. Triple the amount of ferry service during the peak hours.1
Scenario 3 . Replace Manette Bridge in the same location.2
. No new bridge crossing.
Scenario 4 . Replace Manette Bridge in the same location.2
. Construct new two-lane bridge west of Warren.3
Scenario 5 . Remove Manette Bridge.
. Construct new four-lane bridge west of Warren.3
Scenario 6 . Replace Manette Bridge in the same location.
. Construct new four-lane bridge west of Warren.3
2
3
This would result in doubling the auto ferry service and increasing passenger ferry service to 2 runs in the peak hour.
This project would increase lane widths, resulting in a small capacity improvement.
For modeling purposes, the new bridge was assumed to extend between Naval Ave. to the south and Pine Road to the north. This is only
one of many possible future locations for a new bridge alignment that will be subjected to further study.
Transportation -- Page 31
C. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the adoption of level of service standards
for arterial streets. Consistent with the methodology used to calculate existing level of
service, the level of service standards for streets in the City of Bremerton will be based on
the peak hour link level of service. This methodology and level of service thresholds are
described in the existing conditions section of the plan.
Level of service standards required by the GMA are closely related to the issue of
concurrency. The GMA requires transportation improvements to be made concurrent with
development. Once a street exceeds its level of service standard, the street must be
planned for improvement within six years to a level that does not violate the standard. If
plans to improve the street would exceed the six-year timeframe, new development that
would add traffic to the street could not be approved.
For these reasons, level of service standards need to be carefully chosen for each
different city and for different arterials within a city. Level of Service should desirably be
the same on both sides of a city/county boundary; however, different goals on either side
of a boundary can be legitimate reasons for two juriSdictions to establish different
standards.
Establishing appropriate level of service standards for the City of Bremerton was
discussed with the Planning Commission Citizen Advisory Committee (CAG) at several
meetings. The CAC has suggested the following related to level of service standards:
· Maintain a LOS F with a volume/capacity (v / c) ratio threshold of 1.06 in the Wheaton
Way/Warren Avenue Corridor. (A vlc ratio of 1.08 was later adopted.)
· Maintain LOS E or better (v /c less than or equal to 1.00) in the Kitsap Way corridor
and on the Manette Bridge.
· Maintain LOS D or better (v/c less than or equal to 0.9) on all other arterial streets in
the City.
In addition to the suggested level of service standards, additional suggestions were made
at the November 8, 1994 CAC meeting to clarify the City's position on initiating planning
studies in the deficient corridors. These studies would begin to develop long-term
solutions for improving LOS in the WarrenfWheaton and Kitsap Way corridors. The CAC
did not want to cause any delay in initiating these necessary studies to evaluate
improvements in these corridors. These additional suggestions were:
· The City shall proceed to initiate the preparation of a cooperative city/county/state
Wheaton Way/Brownsville Highway Corridor Study from Burwell to Waaga Way.
· The City shall proceed to initiate the preparation of a cooperative city/county/state
Kitsap Way Corridor Study, from 11th Street to SR 3.
These suggestions were intended to provide clear direction to City staff to initiate these
corridor studies, in cooperation with WSDOT, Kitsap County and Kitsap Transit, prior to
reaching the level of service standard established in each corridor.
Transportation - Page 32
D. FUTURE TRAFRC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
PM peak hour traffic volume forecasts were prepared for the six scenarios using the
transportation forecasting model. These volumes were used to calculate v j c ratios and to
determine the LOS of arterial streets in the City. The LOS and vjc ratios for the six
scenarios were previously summarized in Table 4. The LOS information presented in
Table 4 includes the improvements identified in Table 5 for each scenario. (Appendix B
contains a more detailed spreadsheet showing the volume, capacity, vjc ratio, and LOS
on the arterial street segments within the City of Bremerton). Based on this information,
the following streets would exceed the established level of service standards described
previously.
Scenario 3: Manette Bridge
Warren Ave.jWheaton Way form 11th to Callahan
Pacific from Burwell to 11 th
Scenario 4: Manette Bridge
Wheaton Way from the bridge to Callahan
Scenario 5: Warren Ave.jWheaton Way from 11th to Sheridan
Scenario 6: Manette Bridge
In addition to the above facilities, Kitsap Way is also just below the LOS E or better
standard for all scenarios, assuming that the corridor is widened to seven lanes in the
future. Therefore, the LOS on Kitsap Way would need to be monitored closely to
determine when the widening would be needed.
Based on a review of the future traffic volume and LOS information and discussions with
City staff, scenarios 3 and 6 were selected for further review and analysis. Scenario 4
was eliminated from further consideration since a new two-lane bridge would cost nearly
as much as a new four-lane bridge and cause similar environmental impacts, without
improving level of service to LOS E or better. Scenario 5 was also eliminated from further
consideration because maintaining a crossing of the Port Washington Narrows at the
Manette Bridge location is important from a travel demand perspective. Therefore,
subsequent sections of the transportation plan refer to only Scenarios 3 and 6. Figures
10 and 11 graphically depict the future level of service information for Scenarios 3 and 6,
respectively.
Daily traffic volume forecasts for Scenarios 3 and 6 are shown on Figures 12 and 13,
respectively. The year 2014 traffic volume forecasts for each scenario assume that the
improvements identified previously in Table 5 would be in place.
The year 2014 traffic volume forecasts were prepared assuming that future travel
characteristics would continue to be the same as they are today. The transportation
forecasting model used for this analysis is limited in its ability to predict travel
characteristic changes in the future as a result of:
Transportation - Page 33
--"~'1
~
PH: lID
;""-
j
,..,.~~ -
,~_.-
QTY OF BREMERTON
CCl.FAEtENSIVE
lRANSPORTA liON PLAN
..t1Q.q~
. 4~~(~~
-~t'Q
r'--"-"l"""'}.".,~~i)'
'-Ib._-' '~_,
Parametrlx, Inc.
:::;;;::'"."~='='>'"
L:::~~
l"" ~~~:'_-~m,<'.;.~;,,~,
i
,r"'-"""""',
,,........-.
/-.'
SA~"
"
/(
\, ~"-----',",,-, -'"",
- ...,..-".-
ctICO *Y
flLEll_.'l_
(9
IL...JI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
~ LOS/V/C
LOS LE\El. OF SEJMCE
v/C Io<lLUIllE ro CAPAaTY RAllO
Figure 10
Year 2014 Scenario 3
Level of Service
Transportation - Page 34
Oi
~II)
<tZB>@
'~"o
W;~J_
-- ~
-----'~ -b1r
Parametrlx, 'nc.
, "-
~<\~
'II~ 1
c-'C;:::~
t=o::-~;'"
~
'{~~,
1:;,
,,:p
-.;;i;,
-~,
~~
PIN[
"'1
'~";.
~~~"
t..
~
l~~'~ll
- k,,,,,,.,,,.
I
f";';::::',"
l~'.'
r..--,.J
J
c
!\ .-- '.. e',". ~ DR
" I - ,- .-
"""
o,,:~~~.(~rttc8' E4 Y
~I~""".."
O.S'T}UC'H
ii'"~
t"
,..c-
Ii!
I
1....--.
I
I
- ................--....,. -..-
alY OF' BREMERTON
ca.tPRDENSM:
lRANSPORTAnON PLAN
I'1Ul \_'\'_
LEGEND
€B
n..s-l
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
~
LOS
V/C
NOTE:
LOS I V/C
LEYa. OF SER\fCE
\G..tAlIC,1O CAPltaTY RAllO
LOCA 1ION OF HE'll BRID6E WAS USED
FOR IItXJEJ.MG PURPC15ES CH. y
Figure 11
Year 2014 Scenario 8
Level of Service
Transportation - Page 35
'~\~':i"~T~ .
> O--?-~_&
~-"-. -.... - .\(itt:> 4.-
!""'""''''''''''-1-~'''~''1'' :,"
I J '''',
~ f~ "..--">o-n.,."..
Parametrlx, Inc.
.
\)
/J
~
RO
~,:>"
"\~;;;;;;L:" ,
"r:;;':::'::1
";:,,"~--..I
'..,..."""",.".-
[...~'~
r
, !
""'-"-~~"""l
. "J"'''''-''
'-'3..,....,.....,.,~
".
T-~ '+.......... .....~-_"-'---------_.
"-",i
D..9J~'?fCS' l~~~}>'
I ,i/\
t j/ \..~~_._~~."
t
I
!
O,s'T'l":JCE
BAY
QTY OF BREMER1'ON
CClttPRDENSIVE
lRANSPORTAlION PLAN
J
fll&l1_.\1_,
(B
ILJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
(l!l) A~ IImCDAY TRAFRC
Figure 12
Year 2014 Scenario 3
Total Dally Traffic Volume.
Transportation - Page 36
)].'4',"
. q~
---~. ~"'''
"-- """<"
~r
Parametrlx, Inc.
~
@
1'J'~
':'t.,.
~.j
,"~"
"d~
'--=
I .
i~
'it:.
~"
~-
.,,~
.-.w't
Ii~~~.
I
t::~~o=
i
r
,....,~-
I
..-'
,
~Ill:i=m_
~-=-
\,
'\.,
\,
i~'<"
I
rc
,
alY OF BREMERTON
CDtPRaENSIVE
lRANSPORTA 110N PLAN
B&ll_,\l_
(B
IlSI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
(jj[) A\OAGE MEEKDAY TRAme
NOTE:
LOCA 1ION OF HEW BRIDGE IMS
USED FOR tlODfJ.IH(; PfJRPOSES OM. Y
Figure 13
Year 2014 Scenario 8
Total Dally Traffic Volume.
Transportation - Page 37
. increased transit use,
. implementation of additional intra-county passenger ferries,
. spreading of the peak hour - as a facility becomes increasingly congested, some of
the demand tends to shift to other times of the day, resulting in a spread of the peak
hour,
. increased bicycle use, and
. other demand management strategies such as telecommuting.
Therefore, adjustments to the future volumes for Scenarios 3 and 6 were quantified to
reflect the potential of these "non-traditional- transportation strategies. The results of
these adjustments in the three major travel corridors, Manette Bridge, Kitsap Way, and
Warren Bridge are summarized in Table 6.
For Scenario 3, the non-traditional travel demand adjustments could reduce the total peak
hour volumes by approximately 10 percent. The largest reductions would occur from
increased transit use and peak hour spreading. The level of service standards would still
be exceeded on the Manette and Warren Bridges; however, the LOS on Kitsap Way
would improve to LOS D.
For Scenario 6 with a new four-lane crossing of the Port Washington Narrows, the non-
traditional adjustments would improve the futUlre PM peak hour LOS to LOS E on the
Manette and Warren Bridges, and to LOS Don Kitsap Way. Therefore, assuming that
these non-traditional travel demand adjustments would occur in the future with Scenario
6, all streets in the City of Bremerton would operate at LOS E conditions or better.
Transportation - Page 38
Table 6
Future Potential Travel Demand Reductions in Congested Corridors
Scenario 3 Scenario 6
Manette Kitsap Warren Bridge Manette Bridge Kitsap Way Kitsap Way Warren Bridge
Bridge Way (No HOV Lanes) (With HOV Lanes)5
Unadjusted 2014 Peak Hour Volume 2,795 4,717 5,443 2,162 4,807 3,873 4,338
2014 LOS (vie) F (1.40) E (0.98) F (1.33) F (1.08) F (1.00) E (0.94) GP Lanes F (1.08)
B (0.46) HOV Lanes
Peak Hour Volume Reductions
. Transit1 -100 -150 -75 -100 -150 -75 -75
. Peak Hour Spreading2 -145 -240 -280 -120 -245 -160 -235
. Passenger Ferry-{lntra-County)3 -65 -65 -135 -65 -65 -135 -135
Bicycle Use4 ',' -15 -25 -10 -25 -25 -25
. -30
Total Reduction -325 -480 -520 -295 -485 -395 -470
Adjusted 2014 Volume 2,470 4,237 4,923 1,867 4,322 3,478 3,868
Adjusted LOS (vie) F (1.24) D (0.88) F (1.20) E (0.93) D (0.90) D (0.82) GP Lanes E (0.94)
B (0.46) HOV Lanes
Assumptions:
1
2
3
Doubling of service frequency in all corridors (most of this service increase is planned by Kitsap Transit in the next 2-3 years).
Decrease in the K-factor (ratio of peak hour to total daily volume) from 10.00,-b to 9.5%.
Implement two routes with 160 passenger boats
A Silverdale/Chico/Tracyton/Downtown Bremerton
B Brownsville/lllahee/Pt. White (South Bainbridge)/Downtown Bremerton
Assumes one peak hour run per boat.
Bicycle Use Assumes mode shift of 0.5% from auto to bicycle.
Assumes that the two additional lanes on Kitsap Way would be signed and striped for HOV use and that a mode shift would occur such that the number of people moved in
an HOV lane would equal the number of people moved in an adjacent general purpose lane. This would involve a significant mode shift from single occupant vehicles (SOVs)
to carpools and transit.
4
5
Transportation - Page 39
4. PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
AND COSTS
This section of the report describes the transportation facility improvements and costs
needed to accommodate the future travel demand resulting from increased growth in the City
of Bremerton. In addition to the roadway facility improvements, transit, ferry, pedestrian,
bicycle and transportation demand management strategies are also identified in this section
of the plan.
A. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS:
The results of the future travel demand forecasts have highlighted the importance of the
Warren Ave./Wheaton Way, Kitsap Way, and Cambrian/Burwell corridors to the City of
Bremerton. The improvement options for each of these major travel corridors are
discussed below. In addition to these major travel corridors, other improvements in the
City are mentioned under the Operational and Safety improvements category.
(1) Warren Ave./Wheaton Corridor: The major issue related to the future of this
corridor is whether a third crossing of the Port Washington Narrows would need to be
constructed in the future. The results of the future traffic volume forecasts and level of
service analysis for Scenarios 3 and 6 highlight the operations in this corridor with and
without this new crossing. If the future growth in population and employment occurs
as assumed in these traffic forecasts, the third bridge crossing would be needed for
the Warren Ave./Wheaton Way to operate below the level of service standard of LOS
F (v/c = 1.08).
Since the identification of a specific location for this third bridge crossing location is
beyond the scope of this transportation plan (given the GMA deadline to have
comprehensive plans completed by the end of 1994 and the regional nature of the
project), any specific decision on the appropriate solution for this corridor will be
deferred until a cooperative city/county/state Wheaton Way /Brownsville Highway
Corridor Study from Burwell to Waaga Way is completed. This study would need to
be conducted under federal requirements for a Major Investment Study (MIS). The
MIS process would involve the identification of all potential options, including
transportation systems management (TSM) or transportation demand management
(TDM) strategies, to decrease the future travel demand in the Warren Ave./Wheaton
Way Corridor. The land use plans in the City and County that affect travel demand in
this corridor would also need to be evaluated as part of the MIS. This MIS and
associated environmental analysis would require approximately two years to complete.
Therefore, the CAC has recently suggested that City staff proceed with this MIS
process as soon as possible. Refer to the Financing and Implementation Plan section
for further discussion on the relationship between this MIS process and the GMA's
concurrency requirements.
Referring back to the previous discussion on level of service standards and
concurrency, once the level of service standard for a particular roadway is exceeded,
Transportation - Page 40
the City of Bremerton would have six years to improve the facility to be in compliance
with the level of service standard. Since the process for identifying, evaluating,
selecting and ultimately constructing improvements in this corridor would likely require
more than six years to complete, the MIS study process needs to begin well before
the level of service standard is exceeded in the Warren Ave.jWheaton Way Corridor.
Otherwise, a development moratorium could occur in this area.
(2) Kitsap Way: The situation on Kitsap Way is analogous to the Warren Ave.jWheaton
Way Corridor, except the improvement options may be more limited on Kitsap Way.
The improvements options for ensuring that the LOS E standard (vjc = 1.00) is not
exceeded in this corridor are:
· Widening Kitsap Way with the added lanes open to all the traffic. (The LOS
analysis indicates that 7 lanes on Kitsap Way in the year 2014 would result in LOS
E or better conditions on Kitsap Way. This would be in compliance with the LOS
standard established for this corridor).
· Widening Kitsap Way with the added lanes reserved for HOV or transit use only.
· Improving a parallel route to the east into downtown Bremerton. An improved
connection between SR 3 and downtown Bremerton could shift some of the future
volume growth on Kitsap Way to other corridors.
Similar to the Warren Ave.jWheaton Way corridor, a comprehensive evaluation of this
corridor should be conducted prior to recommending a preferred improvement
strategy.
(3) Cambrian/Burwell Corridor: The Bremerton-Gorst project is a series of
improvements to SR 3, SR 304 and certain City of Bremerton streets to facilitate
increased mobility and safety, and improve access between the regional highway
system and downtown Bremerton. Within the City, improvements include a realigned
arterial route adjacent to the western expansion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
and an expanded Kitsap Transit Base Facility connecting to Callow Avenue south of
Burwell Street. Improvements into the downtown and connection to the proposed
Bremerton Transportation Plaza at the ferry terminal will be provided from an improved
four lane Burwell Street (with removal of existing on-street parking) or alternatively, by
a proposed Burwellj6th one-way couplet system.
Alternatives that were reviewed as part of this study included potential new corridor
routes between Gorst and Bremerton via the Loxie EagansjSR 3 interchange to the
north. However, operational problems, environmental impacts and community
opposition resulted in these alternatives being dropped from further consideration.
Required environmental review for the project at the state and federal level is
anticipated to be complete in 1995, with construction of the various sections to follow
between 1996 and the year 2000.
(4) Operational. Safety. and Other Improvements: In addition to the major corridor
improvements discussed above, there are a number of smaller-scale improvements
that would be needed to improve traffic operations and safety. Replacement of the
Manette Bridge is also included in this category. These improvements include:
Transportation - Page 41
. Widening of Sheridan Road, Sylvan Way, and Riddell Road on their approaches to
Wheaton Way. These improvements are needed to provide additional capacity at
the Wheaton Way intersection and for access to adjacent property. (This would
involve widening these street approaches for a distance of 1000-3000 feet to
accommodate turning movements for access to adjacent property).
. Widening of Kitsap Way to 7 lanes in the SR 3 interchange vicinity. This project,
which is currently in design, would improve traffic operations in this area.
. Installation of a new traffic signal at the Kitsap Way /SR 3 northbound ramps
intersection and interconnect this new signal with existing signals at the SR 3
southbound ramps and Shorewood Drive intersections to provide coordinated
signal timing. (This is a WSDOT project scheduled for the 1995-1997 biennium.)
. Widening of Werner Road/Loxie Eagans Blvd. to 4/5 lanes between National Ave.
and Union Ave./Kean St., including traffic signals at the SR 3 ramps, Auto Center
Way/Oyster Bay Ave., and Kean St./Union Ave. intersections. A modification of
the access control in this area needs to be evaluated as part of this project.
. Improving the Warren Ave. southbound off-ramp to Callahan Drive. This project
will improve signalized intersection operations on Sheridan Road and improve
access to Harrison Hospital. The proposed funding for the project is from federal
"pre-ISTEA" funds dedicated to the City.
. Reconstruction of 11 th Street from Chester to Warren to provide an improved
roadway surface. This project is currently funded.
. Other miscellaneous channelization or traffic control improvements to reduce
accidents as warranted. As mentioned previously, intersections listed in Table 2
do not imply that the City of Bremerton has a responsibility for improving each of
these intersections. The intersections were identified to assist the City with
prioritizing improvements based on safety issues.
. Replacement of the Manette Bridge in its present location using State of
Washington bridge replacement funds.
B. TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS:
Future transit service and facility improvements in Bremerton are documented in the
Kitsap Transit Long-Range Plan, March 1994. This plan addresses short (1994-1999),
medium (2000-2008), and long-range (2009-2020) improvements. The plan addresses
transit service and routes, park-and-ride lots, HOV facilities, transfer centers, passenger
ferry services, paratransit, and ridesharing. The goals of the plan are summarized in
Table 7.
Transit service is and will continue to be important for the City of Bremerton to achieve its
transportation and land use vision identified in the. Comprehensive Plan. Transit
connections to the Bremerton Ferry Terminal and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard are two of
the obvious examples that emphasize the importance of transit service in the City of
Transportation - Page 42
Brerrierton. In both of these examples, a limited supply of long-term parking has created
the demand for alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle (SOV).
Key elements of the Kitsap Transit Plan that relate to the City of Bremerton's
transportation plan are summarized below.
. Doubling of transit service of existing regular service routes in the City of Bremerton.
This would decrease headways from 60 to 30 minutes on these routes. This service
increase will be implemented within the next 2-3 years.
. Establishing a ring of primary park-and-ride lots that will serve as remote transit
terminals. Two of these lots in the City of Bremerton are identified in the plan: an
expansion of the existing McWilliams park-and-ride lot and a new lot located in the
vicinity of the SR 3jKitsap Way interchange.
. Expansion and restructuring of paratransit service for elderly patrons and people with
disabilities.
. Implementing HOV priority facilities initially in the Gorst-Bremerton Corridor and then
outward from the Bremerton ferry terminal.
. Encouraging additional non-motorized vehicle travel by integrating special facilities
and features into transit such as: bicycle racks on buses and secure bicycle parking
facilities at transit terminals.
While transit service within Bremerton is the responsibility of Kitsap Transit, the City needs
to work closely with Kitsap Transit since most of their future service and facility
improvements will affect the City's transportation system. This spirit of cooperation has
already been well established through the implementation of the parking management
program in the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard vicinity and the transit signal priority system
on Kitsap Way.
C. FERRY SERVICE AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS:
Future improvements to ferry service and facilities are anticipated in three areas:
. Terminal and service improvements on the Washington State Ferry (WSF) system.
. Improvements to the privately-operated Horluck passenger ferry
. New passenger-ferry service between downtown Bremerton and other Kitsap County
locations such as Silverdale, Brownsville and South Bainbridge Island.
Each of these improvements is described in more detail below.
Transportation - Page 43
Table 7
Kitsap Transit - Short-, Medium-, and Long-Range Goals
SHORT -RANGE GOALS (1994-199)
. Double ridership by the year 2000.
. Relieve rush hour congestion and parking needs, particularly at
terminals and employment centers. Improve commuter mode split
by 20% at these sites.
. Provide a basic system of accessible transportation service for the
transportation disadvantaged, especially for those of limited mobility.
. Reinforce plans for land use development within the Kitsap
community.
. Help improve environmental quality, especially air and water quality.
. Help maximize investment in existing transportation facilities and
minimize long-term investments in new facilities.
. Implement the state-mandated TOM program for Kitsap County in
such a way as to (1) insure that local major employers reach the SOV
commute-trip reduction goals, and (2) to effectively assist the region
in meeting overall TOM goals.
MEDIUM-RANGE GOALS (2000-2008)
. Reduce the rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled within Kitsap
County to below the level of the rate of population increase.
LONG-RANGE GOALS (2009-2020)
. Utilize transit facilities and service, particularly the high capacity and
high occupancy vehicle segments, to assist in local government
planning and management of the physical development of Kitsap
County .
WSF recently participated in a long-range plan for the Bremerton ferry terminal in
cooperation with the City of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit, and Kitsap County. Key features of
the plan included: a multi-level bus and commuter parking structure, tenant space for
mixed-use development, new vehicle access and egress locations, and an expanded
terminal waiting area to accommodate up to 800 people.
In addition, WSF plans to increase passenger-ferry service in the future to provide
minimum crossing times of 35 minutes and peak hour headways that are less than 45
minutes. This planned passenger-ferry service increase would include the Bremerton-
Seattle route. This service increase was assumed to be in place in the transportation
model.
Transportation - Page 44
The privately-operated passenger-ferry operating between downtown Bremerton and Port
Orchard is the last of the historic mosquito fleet operating in Kitsap County. This service
is identified in the Kitsap County Transportation Plan as a vital link between the south and
central portions of the County. In order to maintain the viability of this service, Kitsap
Transit has focused on two strategies:
. Indirect operating assistance. through the integration of fares into the overall fare
.structure of the Kitsap Transit system.
. Capital assistance to improve landside terminal facilities and vessels to modern
standards and to make them fully accessible under Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements.
The third category of ferry system improvements would be to implement new passenger-
ferry service, similar to the Horluck passenger ferry, between downtown Bremerton and
other Kitsap County destinations. Two possible new routes would include:
. Dyes Inlet route serving Silverdale, Chico, Tracyton, and downtown Bremerton.
. Bainbridge Island/East Bremerton route serving Brownsville, lIIahee, Point White, and
Downtown Bremerton
The potential traffic volume reduction associated with these new passenger-ferry routes
were previously summarized in Table 6. A 160-passenger vessel with one scheduled run
during the peak hour was assumed for this analysis.
D. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS:
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are becoming increasingly important to compliment other
elements of the transportation system. For Bremerton, the trips that have the greatest
potential for shifting to a non-motorized travel mode include: trips to and from transit and
ferry terminals and short trips for shopping, errands, and other purposes. Improving
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is also critical to advance this form of transportation.
Bremerton currently has a reasonably complete network of pedestrian and bicycle
. facilities, especially in the downtown area where sidewalks exist on all major streets. With
the density increase assumed for downtown, these pedestrians and bicycle facilities will
be important to accommodate trips to and from the ferry terminal and short trips to
yarious downtown destinations including PSNS. The existing bicycle routes shown on
Figure 8 provide a complete network of bicycle facilities for traveling between major
destinations within Bremerton.
The first category of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide access to transit and
ferry terminals can improve the viability and increase the usage of both transit and non-
motorized travel modes. The two transit transfer stations located at the Wheaton
Way /Sylvan Way intersection and on Auto Center Way south of Kitsap Way and the
combined transit transfer station/ferry terminal in downtown Bremerton need to be made
fully accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians. Improvements that can enhance pedestrian
and bicycle access to these terminals include: secure and weather-protected bicycle
Transportation - Page 45
storage and waiting areas, crosswalks and signal timing that give pedestrians equal
advantage at intersections, and exclusive bicycle access lanes and wide sidewalks that
connect to major residential and retail areas in the surrounding community.
The goal of the second category of pedestr:ian and bicycle facilities would be to provide a
safe and convenient environment for bicycling and walking. Providing safe and
convenient local facilities offer great potential for substituting bicycling and walking for
short, intra-community vehicle trips. Facility improvements in this category would include
safety improvements at crosswalks in central areas, access to and across principal
arterials, and removal of barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Implementation of non-motorized connections to transit and ferry terminals and
enhancement of the local pedestrian and bicycle facility network can be achieved without
new and expensive exclusive facilities. Bremerton will take an "opportunistic" approach
to enhance the bicycling and walking environment by considering non-motorized
improvements as part of regular maintenance or capital improvement projects. For
example, the City should encourage and promote the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities as part of the ferry terminal redevelopment project. Other low-cost opportunities
to provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities may occur through other private
development projects. The City should also support public information and education
campaigns to encourage more pedestrian and bicycle and improve the awareness of
safety issues and concerns.
E. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES:
All communities in the Puget Sound region, including the City of Bremerton, have
inadequate funds to continue to expand roadways for single-occupant vehicles. Since the
region can no longer rely exclusively on "building our way out" of congestion problems,
transportation demand management (TOM) strategies have received increasing attention
during the last 10 to 15 years. The goal of any TOM strategy is to reduce the amount of
vehicle travel on roadways and ferries. This. can be accomplished by:
· Shifting single-occupant vehicle trips to carpools, transit, or non-motorized travel
modes.
· Eliminating trips entirely-telecommuting and home-shopping are common examples
of trip elimination.
· Shortening trip lengths and "trip-chaining"-combining a series of multi-purpose trips
into a longer chain of trips can improve efficiency and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Most TOM programs need to be initiated at the state or regional level since most trips
cross many jurisdictional boundaries. There are, however, programs that can be initiated
at the local level that can enhance and support these larger statewide and regional
programs.
The full-range of TOM strategies have been grouped into five categories: transportation
pricing, employer-based strategies, land use strategies, telecommunications, and capital
Transportation - Page 46
facilities that support TOM. Historically, TOM strategies have focused solely on the work
trip; more recently, however, TOM has been broadened to cover all trip types since work
trips account for only 20 to 30% of all trips made in the region. Specific TOM activities in
each of the five categories are described in more detail below.
(1) Transportation Pricing: . As part of the puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC)
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update, a variety of transportation pricing
strategies are being evaluated and considered for inclusion in the regional plan.
These strategies are intended to provide a market-oriented user-based pricing system
that eliminates the current pricing structure that favors the single-occupant vehicle at
the expense of other travel modes. These include:
. Automated Tolling - Use of anonymous "smart cards" to charge drivers for road
use on all limited access freeways and major arterials. This system uses an
electronic transponder attached to each vehicle and detectors to charge vehicles
for road use. Similar to telephone service pricing, higher fees could be charged
for traveling during peak times of the day.
. Parking Charges - A property tax on parking stalls or region-wide regulation of all
parking rates.
. Restructuring of Annual Vehicle Registration Fees - These fees would be based
on vehicle miles traveled instead of the current system based on vehicle value.
. Additional Fuel Taxes - A significant increase in the fuel tax that would affect all
motor vehicles.
All of these strategies would need to be implemented on a statewide or regional basis. At
the local level, the City of Bremerton could support those strategies in statewide or
regional legislative forums. TOM strategies in this category can influence all trip types
including work trips.
(2) Employer-Based Strategies: This is the category of TOM strategies that comes to
mind most often because of the Statewide Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
requirements that affect employers with more than 100 employees. Work trips are the
only trip type affected by employer-based strategies and programs.
(3) Land-Use Strategies: Concentrating population and employment growth in centers,
as well as providing a mix of land use types, can be effective TOM strategy. In
Bremerton, the increased population and employment density in the downtown area
assumed in Scenarios 2 through 6 could be considered a TOM strategy.
(4) Telecommunications: This category encompasses the broad range of
telecommunications strategies that can reduce or eliminate certain types of trips. This
goes beyond telecommuting which focuses solely on the work trip. While the trip
reduction potential of these strategies are currently difficult to quantify, their potential
for reducing or eliminating certain trip types is nearly unlimited.
Transportation - Page 47
(5) Capital Facilities that Support TOM: Transportation facilities that support the other
TOM strategies by providing alternative travel options are included in this category.
These include transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and HOV facilities. While these facilities are
also identified in other sections of the transportation plan, they are repeated in the
TOM element because of their importance in helping to reduce overall travel demand
in the City of Bremerton.
Since much of the direct work on TOM strategies needs to occur at the state and regional
level, the most effective way for the City of Bremerton to be involved in TOM activities are:
· Support of statewide and regional TOM initiatives and programs.
· Implement a local public awareness and education program designed to promote the
TOM strategies outlined above.
· Support and implement capital facility improvements that support TOM such as transit,
HOV, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements.
· Cooperate with Kitsap Transit on implementation of the State's CTR program.
F. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES:
Transportation systems management or TSM refer to strategies that improve facility
operations, traffic flow, or safety without adding lanes to increase capacity. TSM
strategies are generally low-cost improvements since they do not involve major
construction of new or expanded capital facilities. The following lists some of the more
common TSM strategies that have been used in Bremerton and other jurisdictions in the
Puget Sound region.
· One-way couplets - Changing the operation of two parallel two-way streets to one-
way operation can improve capacity and traffic flow within the same street width.
· Parking prohibitions/restrictions - Prohibiting on-street parking or restricting on-
street parking during peak traffic flow hours can improve capacity without widening
streets. This strategy can be controversial, "however, particularly in business districts
where no parking alternatives exist.
· Access control - Left turn restrictions or consolidating driveways to individual
businesses can improve facility operations and safety. Closing or restricting access
driveways improves through traffic movement; however, this strategy can be
controversial due to potential side street traffic increases.
· Traffic signal timing coordination - Interconnecting a series of traffic signals can
improve traffic flow progression through an arterial corridor. This strategy is
particularly useful in areas with closely spaced signalized intersections such as
freeway interchanges.
These and other TSM strategies will be evaluated as part of all planned transportation
improvement projects in Bremerton.
Transportation - Page 48
G. COST ESTIMATES:
Planning-level cost estimates were prepared for the major facility improvements identified
previously for Scenarios 3 and 6. The cost estimates for Scenario 6 are identical to
Scenario 3, except for the addition of the new bridge crossing the Port Washington
Narrows and associated improvements. Costs for funding the transit, ferry, and TDM
elements, of the plan are not included since these improvements would be funded by
WSDOT, WSF, or Kitsap Transit. The cost of completing the Wheaton Way MIS is
included for both Scenarios 3 and 6.
Table 8 summarizes the planning-level cost estimates. In addition to the total cost of
each project, an estimated breakdown of the City of Bremerton's share for each project is
provided. The "other" portion of the costs for these improvements would come from
federal, state, county, transit agency, and private sources. All cost estimates were
prepared in 1994 dollars.
Transportation - Page 49
Table 8
Planning-level Cost Estimates for Scenarios 3 and 6
Project City Other Total
- $210,000 $840,000 $1,050,000
1. Kitsap Way - 7 lanes (11th to SR 3)
2. Replace Manette Bridge 0 13,000,000 13,000,000
3. Bremerton-Gorst Improvements 800,000 7,800,000 8,600,000
4. Kitsap Way - 5 lanes at SR 3 Interchange 20,000 480,000 500,000
5. Werner Road - 5 lanes (Union Ave. to National 80,000 720,000 800,000
Ave.) -
6. Riddell Road . 375,000 375,000 750,000
7. Sylvan Way 375,000 375,000 750,000
8. Sheridan Road 335,000 335,000 670,000
9. Wheaton Way MIS 200,000 400,000 600,000
10. Miscellaneous (Safety, Operations, Non-motorized, 3,000,000 0 3,000,000
TOM)
TOTAL COST (Scenario 3) $5,395,000 $24,325,000 $29,720,000
11. Construct New Bridge 4,550,000 40,950,000 45,500,000
TOTAL COST (Scenario 6) $9,945,000 $65,275,000 $75,220,000
ASSUMPTIONS:
(1 ) Since some of this section currently has 7 lanes, widening would be needed for approximately half of the
entire section. A 20% City /80% Other funding split was assumed.
(2) The entire cost of this project would be funded with state bridge replacement funds.
(3) The City share for this project has been established as part of ongoing planning efforts.
(4) This project will be funded almost entirely by federallSTEA and State Transportation Improvement Board
funds.
(5) The cost estimate assumes the addition of three new traffic signals in addition to widening Werner Road.
The City share was assumed to be 1()oA, of the total cost since the improvements are mostly in Kitsap
County.
(6),(7), Assumes that property developers in these corridors would fund approximately half of these
and (8) projects.
(9) This is the estimated cost for the Wheaton Way MIS.
(10) This category was developed to provide the City with $150,00 per year of discretionary funds for
miscellaneous operations, safety, non-motorized and TOM improvements.
(11 ) Planning-level cost estimates include costs to mitigate and improve the arterial corridors on either side of
the bridge and to provide a new arterial connection between Pine Road and Central Valley Road as
identified in the Kitsap County Transportation Plan, April 1991.
Transportation - Page 50
5. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The GMA requires a financial element to be included as part of the transportation element of
the comprehensive plan. The financial plan needs to include a comparison of estimated
transportation improvement costs against the potential revenue generated from existing and
future sources. Future revenues may include new local sources such as parking taxes or
development impact fees, revenues from state and federal fuel taxes, and grants from federal,
state, or county agencies.
A key requirement of the GMA is that the estimated transportation improvement revenues
must be sufficient to fund the improvements identified in the plan. If revenues fall short of
anticipated costs, the City must identify additional funding sources. If additional funding
sources cannot be identified, or are not desired, the level of service standard or land use
assumptions contained in the plan must be adjusted to maintain a balance between costs
and revenues.
A. EXISTING AND PROJECTED REVENUE:
The City of Bremerton currently relies on a combination of local and other sources to fund
transportation improvements. During the 5-year period from 1989 to 1993, the City of
Bremerton expended $5.4 million on transportation improvements or an annual average of
$1.08 million. Of this annual average amount, approximately one-third, or $357,000, was
from City sources. The remaining $723,000 per year was obtained from a variety of
federal and state sources. These historical funding patterns were used to estimate future
revenues from both City and other sources over the life of the plan.
For the City of Bremerton, an annual revenue amount of $300,000 was assumed to fund
transportation improvements. This would amount to $6,000,000 over the 20-year life of
the plan in 1994 dollars. This estimate of $300,000 per year is conservatively low since
the average annual revenues during the last five years have been approximately 20%
higher.
For other funding sources, the $723,000 annual amount was assumed to continue into
the future at the same rate. This would generate an additional $14.5 million over the 20-
year life of the plan. Funding sources in this "other" category include:
(1) Federal Funds: For local agencies, most of the potential for federal transportation
funding is from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). For local agencies, STP funding is available for
eligible projects in the following categories: regional competition, statewide
competition, transportation enhancements and safety (hazard elimination and railroad
grade crossings).
(2) Urban Arterial Trust Account: These are statewide competitive grants allocated
through the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for projects on city streets and
arterials within urban areas.
Transportation - Page 51
(3) Transportation Improvement Account: These grants are also administered through
the TIB with minimum percentages to certain areas. Emphasis is placed on projects
that are multimodal, multijurisdictional, and provide congestion relief caused by
economic development or growth.
B. IMPROVEMENT COSTS/REVENUE COMPAIRISON:
The transportation improvement costs summarized previously were compared to the
potential revenues over the 20-year timeframe for implementing the transportation. Table
9 summarizes the surplus or deficit in revenues for Scenarios 3 and 6.
Table 9
Cost/Revenue Comparison for Scenarios 3 and 6
Scenario 31 Scenario 6
City Other Total City Other Total
Total Improvement $5,395,000 $24,325,000 $29,720,000 $9,945,000 $65,275,000 $75,220,000
Costs
Estimated Revenue $6,000,000 $27,5oo,~ $33,500,000 $6,000,000 $27,5oo,~ $33,500,000
Surplus or (Deficit) $605,000 $3,175,000 $3,780,000 ($3,945,000) ($37,775,000) ($41,720,000)
Improvement costs for Scenario 3 include the cost of the Wheaton Way MIS.
2
The estimated .other" revenue includes $14,500,000 based on historical trends plus an additional $13,000,000
in state bridge replacement funds for the Manette Bridge.
As shown above, there is an overall revenue surplus for Scenario 3 and a revenue deficit
for Scenario 6. For Scenario 3, the City's estimated revenue over the next 20 years
exceeds the estimated costs by $605,000. This would result in an additional $30,000 per
year for miscellaneous operations, safety, non-motorized, or TDM projects. There is also
a $3,175,000 revenue surplus identified in the other category, assuming that the
$13,000,000 Manette Bridge replacement project would be funded entirely from state
bridge replacement funds. This is different source of funding that would not affect the
City's ability to obtain ISTEA or TIB funding for other projects. Therefore, there is
reasonable certainty that the City of Bremerton would be able to obtain the $24,325,000
needed from other sources to fund all of the improvements identified in Scenario 3. The
$3,175,000 surplus of other revenue is based on historical trends. This amount would not
be available, unless a project is approved through regional, state, or federal competitive
process.
For Scenario 6, the deficit between costs and revenues increases substantially to a total
of $41,720,000, primarily because of the $45,500,000 cost to construct a new bridge
crossing the Port Washington Narrows and associated arterial street improvements. This
project will be evaluated in more detail as part of the MIS for the Wheaton Way (SR-303)
corridor before it is included in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Therefore, the new bridge crossing project is not included in the transportation
element at this time.
Transportation - Page 52
As recommended by the CAC, the feasibility of the Warren Ave. project will be examined
in more detail as part of the MIS described earlier in the plan. If the preferred alternative
from this MIS process contains a third bridge, a reasonably certain source of funding will
also need to be identified. The project and identified funding sources would need to be
added to the transportation plan in the future if the MIS process results in a
recommendation to proceed with a third bridge crossing.
C. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION:
Scenario 3 with the added requirement to initiate a cooperative City jCounty jState
Wheaton Way jBrownsville Highway Corridor Study (SR-303) from Burwell to Waaga Way
(this is the same as the MIS study of a third bridge crossing mentioned above) is
recommended for adoption as the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. As shown in Table 9, the estimated revenue for Scenario 3 with the MIS for a third
bridge crossing exceeds the estimated total improvement costs. Therefore, the
transportation element complies with the GMA requirement to have transportation
revenues exceed transportation improvement costs over a 20-year timeframe. If the
Wheaton Way jBrownsville Highway Corridor Study results in a recommendation to
proceed with design and construction of a third bridge crossing, the transportation
element will be amended to include this project. A similar study is recommended for the
Kitsap Way corridor; however, the costs for improving this corridor to seven lanes are
included in the costs shown in Table 9.
One of the requirements of a MIS is to consider "all reasonable alternatives for
addressing identified transportation problems, including appropriate demand and systems
management options." Some of the guiding principles for developing the alternatives to
be analyzed in the MIS are:
. Both physical and operating characteristics should be identified for each strategy.
Institutional factors, alternative operational strategies, land use, pricing, parking
policies, and funding strategies may also be important elements of the definition of
alternatives.
. The alternatives should be designed from the start in a fashion that avoids or
minimizes adverse social, economic, and environmental consequences.
Based on these guiding principles, the MIS for the Wheaton Way jBrownsville Highway
Corridor would need to include alternatives that address demand management, including
land use that affects travel demand in the corridor, as well as physical improvements such
as adding a third bridge crossing. This is an important consideration for the City of
Bremerton since land use development in the Kitsap County portion of this corridor has
been a significant contributor to the capacity deficiencies in the City portion of this
corridor. The MIS study process would provide a forum for WSDOT, Kitsap County,
Kitsap Transit, and the City of Bremerton to address these land use issues in a
cooperative manner. Alternative operational strategies that could be examined in the MIS
would be to reserve the new bridge for transit or high-occupancy vehicle use only.
Transportation - Page 53
The other important aspects of the transportation plan related to concurrency and
implementation are the level of service standards and timing for improvements to be
made. The level of service standards recommended for adoption as part of the
transportation plan are:
· LOS E or better on Kitsap Way from 11 th Street to SR 3 and on the Manette Bridge.
· LOS F with a maximum volume/capacity ratio of 1.08 in the Warren Ave./Wheaton
Way corridor from 11 th Street to the northern city limit in East Bremerton.
. LOS D or better on all other arterial streets within the City.
The level of service for each facility would be based on the peak hour link level of service
using the methodology described earlier in the plan.
The level of service standards establish the maximum threshold of congestion on each
facility. This relates to the concurrency definition in the GMA that requires adequate
public facilities (operating better than the LOS standard) to be'available when the impacts
of development occur. "Concurrent with development" as applied to transportation
means that "improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that
financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six
years." Therefore, any development within the City or County that would cause a LOS
standard to be exceeded could not be approved unless the financial commitment to
improve the deficiency are in place within the required six-year timeframe. Level of
service would need to be monitored annually to ensure that the LOS standards
established would not be exceeded.
To begin the plan implementation process, a transportation improvement program (TIP)
for the first six years was developed. As required by the GMA, estimated revenues and
expenditures need to balance. Table 10 summarizes the estimated transportation
revenues and expenditures for the first six years of the plan.
Transportation - Page 54
Table 10
Six-Year Funding and Projects (in thousands of dollars) - Transportation
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total
Arterial Street Fund Revenue $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $1,800
Projects (expenditures)
. Bremerton/Gorst $150 $150 $150 $150 - - .$600
. Kitsap Way at SR-3 $20 - - - - - $20
Interchange
. Werner Road $5 - - $40 35 - $80
. Wheaton Way MIS - . $50 $100 $50 - - $200
. Operational, Safety, and $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $150 $900
Other Improvements
Total $325 $350 $400 $390 $185 $150 $1,800
Surplus or Deficit -25 -50 -100 -90 +115 +150 0
Transportation -- Page 55
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
HOUSING ELEMENT
Prepared by:
G
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT G
HOUSING
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
2. GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL #4 -- HOUSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
B. KITSAP COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
C. THE VISION FOR BREMERTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
D. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
(1) Housing Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
(2) New Housing Development ......................... 9
(3) Affordable Housing .............................. 10
(4) Liveable Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
3. EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
A. EXISTING HOUSING STOCK ............................... 19
(1) Age of the Housing Stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
(2) Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Dwelling Units . . . .. 20
(3) Type of Dwelling Units ............................ 21
(4) Housing Affordability .............................. 23
(5) Condition of the Housing Stock ..................... 25
(6) Additions to Housing Stock Since 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
B. HOUSING RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. 26
4. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
A. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF EXISTING POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . ., 28
(1) Population Trends ............................... 28
(2) Household Type and Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
(3) Age Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
(4) Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. 34
B. PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
(1) New Household Formations ........................ 36
(2) Adjusted Projections of Housing Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
(3) Housing Type Mix ............................... 39
C. NEEDED PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES .................. 40
D. LAND AVAILABILITY ..................................... 40
E. HOUSING AFFORDABILlTY ................................ 42
(1) Kitsap County Needs Assessment and Affordability Plan ... 42
(2) Kitsap County Consolidated Plan .................... 42
(3) Kitsap County Housing Element ..................... 43
(4) Forecast of Affordable Housing Needs ................ 44
Tables
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-11
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
G-16
G-17
G-18
G-19
G-20
List of Tables
Page
Housing Strategies ............................................ 15
Age of Housing in Bremerton and Kitsap County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Single Family Owner- and Renter-Occupied Units: 1990 ................ 20
Housing Units by Type: 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Housing Units in Structure: 1980 & 1993 ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Median Home Prices: 1988-1992 ................................. 23
Monthly Rent in Renter-Occupied Housing Units: 1990 ................. 24
Housing Condition (Buildings) ...... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Housing Unit Change Since 1990 Census ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Emergency and Transitional Housing Facilities: Bremerton .............. 27
Historical Population Growth: 1940-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
City of Bremerton Population Estimate ............................. 30
Change in Household Types: 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Population and Household Size: 1990-2014 ......................... 33
Income: 1990 ............................................... 34
Projection of Bremerton Households by Income Group: 1990-2014 ........ 36
Projected Housing Unit Needs: 1994-2014 .......................... 39
Housing Unit Types: 1994-2014 .................................. 40
Residential Land Availability (Units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
New Affordable Low Income Housing Needed by 2000 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
List of Figures
Figures Page
G-1 Population Forecast: 1990-2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT G
HOUSING
" ,.. n'... .....
" ',"',". ", ,.... ........,..,' ',' .......,.,.,...-,
, . ....... ....... .......
,""'" ......"... .......'.... .. ,". "",' " .... ..........,....
Ht~ . ..'NfB(?JouC1]ON>
This Housing Element ha$ been developed in accordance with. the Growth Management Act
(GMA) to address the housing needs of the City of Bremerton. It represents the community's
policy plan for the next 20 years. The GMA requires:
A housing element recognizing the vitality and character of established
residential neighborhoods that:
(a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs;
(b) Includes a statement of goals, policies and objectives for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing;
(c) Identifies sufficient larid for housing, including, but not limited to,
government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families,
manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes
and foster care facilities; and
(d) Makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of
all economic segments of the community.
The Housing Element has also been developed in accordance with adopted Kitsap County-
wide Planning Policy, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure
consistency throughout the comprehensive plan.
The Housing Element specifically considers the condition of the existing housing stock; the
cause, scope, and nature of any housing problems; and the provision of a variety of housing
types to match the lifestyle and economic needs of the community. This element examines
special housing needs, such as low-and moderate-income family housing, foster care
facilities, group homes, manufactured homes, government-supported housing, and
historically significant housing.
Housing - Page 1
The Housing Element includes the following sections:
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOALS, POLICIES, AND STRATEGIES
3. EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS
4. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
Additional background information is compiled in Appendix G of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City's development regulations (zoning, building codes, etc.) establish how the
development and construction of housing and other development will take place. The
Housing Element establishes both long-term and short-term policies to meet the community's
housing needs and achieve community goals. The Housing Plan in this element will guide
decision making to achieve community goals as articulated in the Vision for Bremerton
(Element B).
Housing - Page 2
).............../..... .....................>/..</..........(/E)...<..;............:.AN.... .}S.........r<<RA.............;..<..T....e;>G>>..(I....E<>..8.....\). ..../. .
..2....... GO>A.r.s ..~nf..ICI. ......9. ....... n .. . ... .. ... ....... ....
...............< ....... ... ~........f)~L ...... . ...../.<..~.H../ ...) > .....<..) ..i...
This section discusses the plan for future housing in the City of Bremerton. The timing of
development and provision of services are key components of this planning process. In
addition to the discussion below, a Land Use Plan map, included in the Land Use Element,
to illustrate the various land uses and growth management strategies.
The analysis of existing conditions and projected needs in the previous section highlighted
the areas of concern and opportunities for Bremerton. The Vision for Bremerton (Element B),
along with the inventory and analysis contained in this element were used to create a plan.
The goals and policies within the plan provide guidelines and positive actions. The plan for
housing issues in the city of Bremerton are organized as follows:
· Housing Goals: Housing goals are statements about the community's desired future.
. They are ideals which may be difficult or impossible to attain, but they state the
direction the community wishes to head. Goals describe desired or intended
achievements. They describe concepts to be used in decision making.
· Housing Policies: Housing policies are specific statements to guide actions, and
imply commitment to these actions. They become the basis on which decisions will
be made. Policies specify what should be accomplished to reach the housing goals.
These policies either provide clear guidance for decision making when a situation
arises, or provide clear responsibilities that will be implemented. The
accomplishments under these policies can be used to measure progress toward the
goals.
· Housing Strategies: Housing strategies are statements of specific action the City will
take to implement housing policy and accomplish its housing goals.
A hierarchy of planning goals, policies and strategies follows, beginning with the Growth
Management Act Housing Goal and the Kitsap County-wide Affordable Housing Policy,
followed by Vision for. Bremerton goal statements, and culminating with local goals, policies
and strategies.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT GOAL #4 - HOUSING
The Growth Management Act Housing Goal provides the foundation for the Housing
Element goals and policies:
Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments
of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
Housing - Page 3
B. KITSAP COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Kitsap ,County-wide Planning Policy was adopted by the Kitsap County Board of
Commissioners in August 1992, as required by the Growth Management Act to be
used solely for establishing a county-wide framework from which county and city
comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. Element E of the County-wide
Planning Policy addresses Affordable Housing. The County-wide Affordable Housing
Planning Policies are hereby incorporated into this Housing Element.
Element E. Policies that Consider the Need for Affordable Housing and
parameters for its Distribution.
1. The following definition of affordable housing relates to the county-wide
planning policy:
The term "affordable housing" shall refer to a wide range of housing
types and costs to address existing and projected housing needs. For
the purpose of the county-wide planning policy and comprehensive land
use planning, the term affordable housing includes the following:
i. Below Market Rate Housing shall mean housing intended for low
and moderate income households. These income levels are
further defined as follows:
Low-income shall mean those households that have incomes
that are below 80 percent of the county-wide median.
Moderate-income shall mean those households that have
incomes that are within he range of 80-115 percent of the
county-wide median.
ii. Market Rate Housing shall mean housing intended for
households with incomes that are greater than 115% of the
county-wide median.
2. The following policies relate to the process for determining and fuffllling
housing needs, and the fair share distribution of affordable housing:
a. The County and the cities shall inventory the existing housing
stock consistent with the Growth Management Act and correlate
with current population and economic conditions, past trends,
and thirty year population and employment forecasts to
determine short and long range affordable housing needs.
b. Local housing inventories and projections shall be compiled
under the coordination of the Kitsap Regional Planning Council
to identify county-wide conditions and projected needs.
Housing - Page 4
c. Based on the percentage share of the existing and forecasted
county-wide population, projected county-wide below market
rate housing needs shall be determined for each jurisdiction in
order to disperse below market rate housing county-wide. Such
needs shall be the responsibility of the appropriate jurisdiction
and shall not be transferred to other jurisdictions without
approval of the Kitsap Regional Planning Council.
d. Each jurisdiction shall identify specific policies and
implementation strategies to provide a mix of housing types and
costs to achieve identified affordable housing goals. Affordable
housing strategies shall encourage preservation, rehabilitation
and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods as appropriate;
provide for a range of housing types such as multi-family, and
manufactured housing on individual lots and in manufactured
housing parks; promote housing design and siting compatible
with surrounding neighborhoods; and facilitate the development
of below market rate housing in a dispersed pattern so as not to
concentrate or geographically isolate low income housing in a
specific area or community.
e. Housing policies and programs shall address the provision of
diverse housing opportunities to accommodate the elderly,
physically challenged, mentally impaired, and other segments of
the population that have special needs.
f. Local governments, representatives of private sector interests
and neighborhood groups should work cooperatively to identify
and evaluate potential sites for affordable housing development
and redevelopment.
g. The County and the cities shall participate in housing authorities
established to facilitate the production of low-income housing.
Other means of supporting public housing agencies is
encouraged through public land donations, guarantees or other
provisions as appropriate.
h.. Agencies with education and housing expertise shall implement
early and continuous cooperative educational programs to
provide general information on affordable housing issues and
opportunities to the public including information intended to
counteract discriminatory attitudes including information
intended to counteract discriminatory attitudes and behavior
related to below market rate housing.
i. Mechanisms to help people purchase their own housing shall be
encouraged. Such mechanisms may include low interest loan
programs and "self-help" housing.
Housing - Page 5
3. The following policies relate to development standards and fees:
a. Local comprehensive plan policies and development regulations
shall encourage and not exclude below market rate housing.
b. Innovative regulatory strategies shall be developed and
implemented to provide incentives for the development of
affordable housing. Jurisdictions shall develop strategies which
provide a wide range of opportunities for promoting the
production of affordable housing through means such as lower
utility hook-up fees and rates, density incentives, smaller lot
sizes, zero lot line designs and a priority permit review and
approval process.
c. Policies and regulations shall encourage the production of
affordable housing. The County and the cities shall incorporate
a regular review of housing codes into affordable housing
implementation strategies to assure that protection of the public
health and safety remains the primary purpose for housing
standards.
d. Local governments are strongly encouraged to develop
strategies that make allowances to alleviate the affect of impact
fees on below market rate housing.
C. THE VISION FOR BREMERTON
The Vision for Bremerton (Element B) describes residential neighborhoods as they are
pictured twenty years from now:
Neighborhoods will continue to evolve, improve, and become more attractive,
comfortable, and desirable. They will provide a greater variety of housing
options, affordable to a larger share of the market, and will become stronger
and more stable as the proportion of owner-occupants gradually increases.
A. Bremerton will continue to provide homes for naval personnel and
workers from all sectors of the local economy, retirees, Seattle
commuters, and others.
B. We will continue to strive for a variety and a good balance of housing
opportunities for all economic and social segments of the community.
C. We will see a greater emphasis on home ownership asa means of
achieving a higher degree of neighborhood maintenance and pride, and
to offer the American dream of home ownership to more Bremerton
residents.
Housing - Page 6
D. In order to achieve a higher level of home ownership, a greater
emphasis will be placed on the provision of small, private, affordable
single-family homes, both in new subdivisions and as "in-fill" within
existing neighborhoods. Condominiums. and other forms of ownership
will increase in popularity.
E. Historic preservation will playa greater role in Bremerton's future as
certain unique areas and structures are recognized for their historical
value.
F. Neighborhood quality, safety, stability, and affordability will be given
increased consideration in all community improvement programs.
G. Bremerton will support its neighborhoods through greater availability of
community services and improved maintenance of streets and other
public facilities.
D. HOUSING GOALS. POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
The Housing Goals, Policies and Strategies have been developed from the analysis of
the existing conditions and projected needs contained in the Existing Housing Needs
and the Future Housing Conditions sections of the Housing Element. They are
intended to:
. Establish local priorities for the use of resources;
· Communicate local priorities and preferences to providers and consumers of
housing;
· Stimulate housing development or redirect development which is occurring to
achieve local housing goals and address local needs;
· Establish standards for housing development and preservation which will
maintain the character and vitality of existing neighborhoods and the
community;
· Provide a framework for implementation plans for specific actions which will be
taken to address housing needs.
(1) HOUSING CONDITION
GOAL:
Preserve and enhance Bremerton's housing stock.
Discussion: Part of Bremerton's .charm is its older housing stock, half of which
was built before 1950. Many of these units are well maintained and in good
condition, and give character and a sense of stability to the city. However,
large numbers of these units will reach the end of their useful lives if not
Housing - P~ge 7
rehabilitated soon. While the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program has been
making good strides in helping lower income people upgrade their houses, it is
not likely to have the financial capability to assist all homeowners who need
help. Deteriorating commercial structures compound the problem, blighting
surrounding areas, discouraging- redevelopment, and holding down the City's
tax base. New strategies will be needed to turn the tide of deterioration into
opportunities for revitalization of the City.
Policies
1. Promote private and public efforts to provide adequate capital for
private and public rehabilitation housing projects at competitive or
favorable costs.
1.a. Facilitate rehabilitation of rental housing properties to improve
the condition of the rental housing stock.
1.b. Facilitate rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing based on the
credit-worthiness of the dwelling rather than credit-worthiness of
the homeowner.
2. Promote private and public efforts to preserve the existing housing
stock by maintaining sound units, rehabilitating substandard units, and
replacing severely deteriorated units.
2.a. Promote maintenance of housing that is now in standard
condition to prevent its deterioration to substandard condition.
2.b. Promote the rehabilitation of substandard structures when the
cost of rehabilitation is less than the cost of replacement
housing. This cost factor does not apply to housing designated
as having historical/architectural significance.
2.c. Promote replacement of substandard structures which have
excessive rehabilitation costs with new structures.
2.d. Require housing units to be maintained in a safe condition.
2.e. Require removal of unsafe housing and restoration of the site to
a safe condition.
3. Promote private commitments to improvement of the housing stock by
using public resources to remove or abate blighting influences within or
near residential areas.
3.a. Demolish and/or redevelop deteriorated commercial structures.
Give priority to those which contribute to the blight of residential
areas.
Housing - Page 8
3.b. Improve the visual quality of residential areas where needed.
3.c. Provide effective operation and maintenance of public services
and facilities.
3.d. Promote financial assistance for essential repairs to substandard
structures that provide housing for low and moderate income
persons. Support private sector low-interest loan programs for
such repairs, combined with public resources when available.
4. Promote rehabilitation and maintenance of existing multifamily rental
housing in appropriate zoning districts.
5. Promote efforts to .identify, rehabilitate and preserve homes having
historical/architectural significance. Give priority to such homes in City
rehabilitation programs.
(2) NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
GOAL:
Provide a variety of housing types and densities to meet
changing needs of Bremerton residents.
Discussion: Most of Bremerton's housing stock was developed to meet the
needs of households in days gone by. roday's housing needs are often vel}'
different. Encouraging the development of new housing within developed
areas presents a special challenge.
Policies
1. Promote private and public efforts to provide adequate capital for
private and public new housing projects at competitive or favorable
costs.
1.a. Support a Letter of Credit program to expedite housing project
start-up.
1.b. Adopt a City Community Re-lnvestment Act Plan which includes
development incentives.
2. Support the private sector's efforts to meet changing housing demands
and special housing needs.
3. Stimulate the production of new housing for all income, age, family type
and ethnic groups.
4. Encourage the provision of adequate housing to meet the needs of
short term residents, particularly for those in the lower income
categories.
Housing - Page 9
5. Promote housing opportunities that respond to the special needs of
students, the military, households headed by females, the elderly, and
the handicapped.
6. Support efforts to provide emergency and group housing.
7. Encourage the development of a full range of housing options for
seniors in proximity to services and amenities.
7.a. Consider allowing retirement housing complexes in all residential
zones subject to development standards ensuring compatibility
with surrounding neighborhoods.
7.b. Encourage programs which allow seniors to remain in their
homes as long as possible (e.g. home maintenance and repair,
home health care, reverse mortgage programs, meal programs.)
8. Provide for integration of special needs housing within the community.
8.a. Allow residential care facilities, including foster care facilities, in
all residential zones; Provided, that such facilities must comply
with development standards that will assure compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood.
(3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GOAL:
Provide Bremerton's fair share of affordable housing.
Discussion: The City provides a. significantly higher share of affordable
housing than most of the rest of Kitsap County. This unequal distribution
creates a disproportionate burden on Bremerton, which must finance city
services with a lower tax base. At the same time, the City recognizes that low
income families need housing with access to city services and facilities.
Policies
1. Promote access to safe and sanitary housing for all Bremerton
residents regardless of their economic capabilities or special needs.
2. Provide the City's fair share of the county-wide need for affordable
housing.
2.a. Work to shift the burden to provide affordable rental housing
away from Bremerton to other areas in the County which are
providing less than their fair share.
2.b. Accommodate a proportionate share of the total county-wide
need for below market rate housing. Promote the conversion of
Housing - Page 10
surplus below market rate housing units into affordable housing
for moderate and higher income households to reduce the City's
inventory of below market rate housing down to the county-wide
percentage by year 2014.1
3. Maintain the existing public housing stock in good condition, while
striving to increase the proportion of privately owned housing for lower
income households.
4. Promote home ownership by low jmoderate income households.
4.a. Support low jmoderate income home buyers subsidy programs.
4.b. Increase the City's share of affordable owner-occupied units
through conversion of rental units to owner-occupied units.
5.. Disperse affordable housing throughout the city to avoid concentrations
in any particular area.
6. Give priority to publicly assisted family housing in privately owned
developments which contain mixes of market-rate and below market
rate units; or, if entirely subsidized, in small, neighborhood scale
buildings.
7. Provide areas within existing neighborhoods for affordable housing
without negatively altering the existing neighborhood character.
7.a. Allow Accessory units associated with, and subordinate to,
existing or new single family dwellings in all residential zones.
7.b. Consider allowing residential infill development of vacant or
underdeveloped parcels at somewhat higher densities than
surrounding properties, with assurances that neighborhood
compatibility and fit will be maintained through appropriate and
flexible zoning and related techniques (e.g. development
standards and architectural controls).
8. Encourage higher-income people to move into lower income areas
without displacing lower-income people.
9. Encourage market rate housing developments which include units
designated for affordable housing.
1 Example: If the percentage of the City's below market rate housing supply were projected to
exceed the percentage of the year 2014 county-wide supply by 1,000 units, the City would encourage
upgrading of 1,000 below market rate units to affordable housing for moderate and higher income
households by year 2014.
Housing - Page 11
10. Encourage affordable housing for families in single family dwellings and
in small scale multi-unit buildings.
11. Locate publicly assisted housing in areas that will provide eligible
households with wider locational choices.
12. Maintain a moderate cost per resident to support desired levels of
public service.
12.a. Promote increased housing density to provide a broader
customer base.
(4) LIVEABLE NEIGHBORHOODS
GOAL:
Build strong, liveable neighborhoods where the American
Dream of home ownership is possible for a majority of
Bremerton residents
Discussion: Bremerton's low proportion of owner-occupants (only 39%) tends
to result in a minority of residents having a stake in maintaining the housing
stock and upgrading the neighborhoods. A high proportion of renters can
result in a high turnover of residents, which can undermine neighborhood
stability and discourage increased homeownership.
Policies
1. Define and monitor a housing inventory which is close to employment
and public transportation, is moderately priced, and uses
neighborhoods with unique characteristics as a method identity.
2. Maintain a leadership attitude which delivers responsive public actions
in assuring personal security, code enforcement, and other public
services.
2.a. Maintain a strong code enforcement program.
2.b. Establish programs to protect personal security.
2.b.i. Maintain effective crisis response.
2.b.ii. Improve neighborhood/police relations.
2.b.iii. Develop effective neighborhood crime defense
mechanisms.
2.b.iv. Design and implement improved police response
systems for "Iess'than crisis" situations.
2.c. Improve emergency preparedness.
Housing - Page 12
2.c.i. Document and publicize the existing emergency
preparedness system.
2.c.ii. Develop remedies to gaps in the existing emergency
preparedness system.
3. Use neighborhood plans to outline public and private projects for each
neighborhood.
3.a. Complete implementation of the Downtown Waterfront Urban
Renewal Plan and the Downtown/Waterfront Rehabilitation Task
Force (Leland Study) recommendations, with a focus on: new
multi-family structures; rehabilitated and new second story
dwellings; and single-family attached/townhouse dwellings.
3.b. Begin implementation of the Campus Evergreen Neighborhood
Plan, with a focus on: new multi-family structures (Smith Cove);
rehabilitation of single-family structures; and new small-lot single
family dwellings.
3.c.. Begin implementation of the West Hills Plan, with a focus on:
new single-family residential dwellirigs; rehabilitated single-family
residential structures; new single-family attached dwellings; and
new multi-family associated with commercial development along
Highway 3.
3.d. Commence the neighborhood planning process in the Sheridan/
Harrison Hospital neighborhood, with a focus on: new multi-
family senior housing structures; and rehabilitated single-family
dwellings.
4. Upgrade and maintain levels of public services.
4.a. Implement the City's sanitary sewer, water, and storm water
comprehensive plans.
4.b. Implement a six-year street plan and a street maintenance plan.
4.c. Implement the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
4.d. Identify and maintain acceptable response times for fire,
emergency medical, and police services.
5. Promote safe, attractive, liveable neighborhoods that will attract
homeowners. .
6. Increase opportunities for home ownership within the City. Promote
expanded home ownership opportunities for low and moderate inco.me
households.
Housing - Page 13
7. Phase the City's Capital Facilities Plan so as to strengthen and expand
opportunities for home ownership.
8. Encourage affordable residential development in locations where
development has been overlooked.
5. HOUSING PLANNING AND COORDINATION
GOAL:
Ensure coordinated, effective planning and management of
housing programs.
Discussion: It is critical to maximize the effectiveness of scarce public
resources in improving housing opportunities in Bremerton and throughout the
County.
Policies
1. Eliminate unnecessary regulatory impediments to the development of
affordable and special needs housing. consistent with the public health,
safety and welfare.
2. Improve certainty in development regulations to the extent consistent
with the public health, safety, and welfare.
3. Provide an expedited permit process.
4. Promote intergovernmental cooperation to achieve City housing goals.
4.a. Seek to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Kitsap
County to foster implementation of affordable housing goals.
5. Promote interagency cooperation to achieve City housing goals.
5.a. Seek cooperative relationships with other agencies to encourage
the development of affordable housing within the communities.
E. HOUSING STRATEGIES
The following strategies are recommended actions to help achieve Bremerton's
housing goals. Priority strategies are listed first, followed by other strategies that
should be considered. An "X. in the Goal columns indicates which of the five Housing
Goals each strategy will reinforce. (Table G-1)
Housing - Page 14
....')..U'::;~::I'~.~.:i~;':.;".y'
..... .. ... '.. .
,,-,.. ...... . .
...." . ....
........ .... ........
n' ..... . n' . ......... .
......... n.. ......
.,,,... .. .... .
....... .... ."..
... ... ....... . ,.
. . .. ......... ,.....
....... . .. . . .....
..., ..... ..
. .... . .... .......
.... . ......... ...
..., .. ,-, ..
...... ..... ....
...... ",. ...........
...... .......
.Sft_tegy> u.....
.. '" .
. - . .", . . ... .
. .... ".. ....... .... .....
... prid.rtty flolJ~!hgStratlgi.s .
x x
x
1. Revise Develooment Standards: Modify site planning/building design
requirements (setbacks, street widths, etc.) or allow performance based
standards to increase flexibility in housing development. Reduce minimum site
improvement standards (drainage, street, pavement, parking, etc.) to reflect
.actual projected usage and needs.
x
x
2. Streamline Permit Process: Identify opportunities for procedural reform to
further streamline City land use and development procedures.
x
x
3. Permit Mixed-Use Develooment: Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit
apartments and single-room occupancy (SRO) units in business districts;
cOnsider permitting employee housing in industrial park districts.
x X
X
4. Encouraqe Infill Develooment: Develop incentives to encourage "infill"
development of vacant sites in developed areas and redevelopment of existing
sites. Give priority to programs providing financial assistance to support infill
homeownership.
X X
X
5. Encouraqe Zero lot line Develooment: Continue to allow zero lot line
development (houses sited on lot lines to maximize useable space on the other
side) in planned developments (PUDs) and in most residential zones.
X
X
6. Encouraqe Cluster Subdivisions: Continue to allow clustered housing on
smaller lots in PUDs in exchange for a set aside of permanent open space.
X X
X
7. Encouraqe Small lot Develooment: Continue to allow small lots in appropriate
residential zones.
X
X
8. Encouraqe Planned Unit Develooments (PUDs): Continue to permit housing
PUDs to give increased flexibility in the design of residential projects in
exchange for higher density. Streamline the existing PUD process where
consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
X
X
9. Exemot Affordable Housinq from Imoact Fees: Assess impact fees for Market
Rate Housing; waive impact fees for Below Market Rate Housing. Support
higher impact fees in rural areas to provide an incentive for development of
housing in urban areas. .
.X
X
10. Require Certificate of Occuoancv For New Occuoants: Require renewal of a
Certificate of Occupancy when any unit becomes vacant to ensure compliance
with health and safety codes. (The fee would be set to pay for the program.)
Housing - Page 15
p1.<:..:2: ;..3\4\
X
. . . .. ...,
. ..... . ..... .
.. . ...... ... -, .
. ...... . n. ..
. ....... .".
........ . . ...
. . . . . . '.
...... . ....... .
....... .... ,.. .
..... ... ........
. . .... ... ..... .
. 'n n. . .......
.... ...... . ....... .
. .... . ......
...... . ......
. . ....... . .....,
0.... .. ......
,",. ......
i$trat~gy'i/
....,. ...... '"
...... . ........
. .. ..... .... ....... .. .n'
... . . .......... .. ....... ........... . ......
.. . . . .. n. .. ..... . .... ........... . n_
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . .
.?L.' . ./fabr..G!1/<>p.....
. .........dusftngSti'i\!'gJes.?. '.': :....
11. Revive Allevs: Encourage access to garages from' alleys to minimize auto
impacts on residential streets. Allow narrower streets, one-way streets and
smaller setbacks in new subdivisions which include alley access.
X
X
12. Develop Residential Desian Standards: Develop design standards for
renovations and new construction to help preserve neighborhood character.
Encourage useable front porches, open front yards, appropriate materials and
roof pitch and other features to give warmth and character to houses.
, , . 'n ..
.. .n...... ...........,..
... . -,-, .
. . .. ... ".H.. n' . .. .,_...,
'.' ()theI'FfoU~l'lg$tiategi"." .....
X
X
X
13. Expand Housina Rehabilitation,Proaram: Continue and expand the City's
successful low-income housing rehabilitation program to rehabilitate owner-
occupied housing units so as to increase the number of units rehabilitated.
(Do not use scarce public resources for rental units.) Focus ,efforts on areas
with higher than average numbers of deteriorating housing.
14. Strenathen Code Enforcement: Strengthen the City's pro-active Housing Code
Enforcement Program to increase the number of units that are brought up to
code or destroyed. Focus efforts on areas with higher than average numbers
of deteriorating housing and commercial structures.
X
X
X
X
X
X
15. Consider Code Compliance Incentives: Consider establishing a voluntary
program to inspect and identify housing with hazardous conditions and/or
substantial, deferred maintenance, with incentives to participate.
x
x
16. Encouraoe Preservation of Historic Homes: Establish a historic preservation
program to conduct an inventory of homes having historical/architectural
significance and to assist owners in taking advantage of financial incentive
. programs and grants for historic preservation.
X
17. Develop In-Home Services for Seniors and Frail Elderlv: Promote supportive
services to allow senior citizens to live in their own homes.
X
18. Establish Youth Shetters: Promote shetters and transitional housing for
homeless young people, including youth with drug and alcohol dependency
problems.
X
19. Suoport Housina for the Mentallv III: Support improved housing facilities and
supportive services for the chronically mentally ill to provide opportunities to
assist them to live normal lives in their communities.
Housing - Page 16
..n ... ..._ .. .. ....",... 'n....' . .... .
... . ...... .. ,.. .",..... p.. .... ..... ,., ............ .............. ....., .
.. .n".. . n. .. .......... .......,. ......... ....... ",... ....... ......... .....,... . .........
... n...... ....... ........ . ..... _" .... ...... ........ ...... ..
. ... .. ......... .............. ..... .... . ......,. ....... .. ... .
... . ...... ......... ,. ... ......", ....... ",. ...... .................. ........... ... ". .
'.' ..' '. . ......... '. ....... ................ ............... ... .........T. .....b.....l....~C:1.. ..................................... ....
. .}} ..........{.{ ../..<'.' .... ..\i..... ............... .a te..~)... ....> i.."" '. ................
n. ...... . ......... .. ...... . ......... ........ ... ...... . .
......... ..... ................../\ · Housing'''Sttategies\>> ..' ...}i .
........,......:>>:.;.>>>;.;.;.;.;...'.;-: ".. ',' ;'.':' ....;...:.. ........;...;..<.;........
. ..... . . .....
.. ......
...... .. . ........
. .. ... . ...
....... . ..........
..<~b~1
....3............4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
20. Increase Housina for Victims of Domestic Violence: Support efforts to provide
temporary shelter and transitional housing to victims of domestic violence.
x
21. Establish Affordable Housina Goals: Work with the Kitsap Regional Planning
Council to set long term housing goals by 1995 and work to meet them by the
year 2010 through the accomplishment of five year housing development
programs.
x
22. Coordinate Evaluation of Proaress: Support a Kitsap Regional Planning
Council evaluation of City and County progress toward meeting regionally
adopted fair share housing goals on a two year cycle beginning in 1997.
Support increasing land allocations for affordable housing in appropriate Urban
Growth Areas if jurisdictions are not meeting their goals after each two year
evaluation period.
23. Establish Voluntarv Inclusionarv Zonina: Provide development incentives to
allow specified privileges'(e.g. density bonuses) if a certain portion of units in
new housing developments are set aside to be affordable to low- and
moderate-income homebuyers. Require that these units remain. affordable for
a specified number of years by agreements entered into the chain of title by the
owners.
x
24. Deleaate Affordable Housina Responsibilitv: Rely on the Bremerton Housing
Authority and other non profit organizations for the provision of affordable
housing units. Require developers to cooperate with the Housing Authority by
agreement in order to provide for fair share housing needs to simplify
administration of any fair share housing conditions.
x
25. Expand the Use of Existina Proarams: Support a voucher program that allows
individuals and families to go to any number of available housing providers
who then bill the program based upon services provided.
26. Leveraae Future CDBG Fundina: Consider borrowing against some portion of-
the next five years of the City's allocation of the County's CDBG funds to
leverage other public and private funds for use in developing affordable and
special needs housing. .
X 27. Strenathen Neiahborhood Viabilitv: Continue to work with residents and
property owners to.develop neighborhood plans that identify opportunities to
improve living conditions.
Housing- Page 17
1.\23
.. ..... ......
..... .......", .
.... ...... ....
"n", . ..... ..
. .......... ..... ... .
... ......TableG;i1)>..
. ...
. ...JtousirigStraf,gie~..
........ ......
.. ,.........
.. . .........
. ., ..... .
.... .. ...
.... ..
.. ....
.... ... .
. .... .... ...
... ...
... ......
.. ",.,..
. .$tfat~gy ...
X 28. Increase Neiahborhood Safety: . Continue to work with residents to reduce
opportunities for crime in their neighborhoods. Support Neighborhood Watch,
Safe Streets, and other programs which empower people to take control of
their neighborhoods.
x
x
29. Increase Home Ownershio Oooortunities: Increase home ownership
opportunities available to low and moderate income families through a variety
of methods such as down payment subsidy, interest buy down, and self help
housing programs.
X 30. Use Housina Finance Commission Proarams: Provide assistance to first-time
home buyers to help them access State Housing Finance Commission
financing programs.
X 31. Work Closelv with Private Lenders: Continue to encourage local banks to
involve themselves in Community Reinvestment Programs.
X 32. Market Bremerton: Produce a marketing video that touts Bremerton as a
liveable city with affordable housing, convenient access to Seattle and the
Olympic peninsula, and a high quality of life.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
33. Reduce Reaulatorv Imoediments: Review land-use, zoning, and planning
policies to reduce impediments to the development of affordable and special
needs housing. Replace broad criteria with measurable standards where
possible.
x
34. Minimize Environmental Imoact Delavs: Revise environmental review
- procedures to establish stated levels of development that will receive a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and those that will be required to
complete an EIS, to allow developers to size or phase projects to minimize
delays.
x
35. Encouraae Innovative Develooment Techniaues: Consider establishing -
development incentives that make innovative techniques for affordable housing
at least "cost neutral".
x
36. Provide Fee Abatements for Affordable Private Develooments: Reduce or
eliminate impact and other fees in return for significant contributions to the
City's supply of low and moderate income housing.
Housing - Page 18
.......3.1...... ....i<ISTI.f4.G.....ROOS.,~G.......CQN.D.IJI.ONS.................................................
This inventory describes the condition of the existing housing stock and various housing
resources. The inventory is based on information and data drawn from several sources,
including the U.S. Census, the 1990 Housing Bremerton strategy, and the Kitsap County
1995-2000 Consolidated Plan.
A. EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Characteristics of the existing housing stock include the age, occupancy, type,
affordability, and condition.
(1) Age of the Housing Stock
Bremerton has a significantly higher proportion of older housing units than
Kitsap County. Nearly half (49%) of Bremerton's housing was built before
1950, while just one fourth (24%) of Kitsap County's housing was built before
that time. Over one fifth (22%) of the housing units in Bremerton were built
before 1940, compared with just over one tenth (13%) in the County as a
whole.
Correspondingly, Bremerton has a far lower proportion of newer housing than
Kitsap County. Under one tenth (9%) of the housing units in Bremerton were
built after 1979, compared with nearly one third (29%) in Kitsap County. (Table
G-2)
. ... .-, ... .
. . .....- .....-..,...... .......... "..
. . . ..... ....... . ....., ..
' .. -... , ..",
.. . ......., ,.. .. . ...
.. .....1. .bl G............. .... . .........
. .. , .. ..... .. .... ..., .
........... ..:.... ...................a e .;2............ ........ . ...........:. ........:....:......
...Age ofH6using ilfBremerton@nd I<Itaapcpunty(..........
. ,. .
. .. .
. " .
Year Structure 8uilt
. . .... ........... . .
. ......._ . ........ n. n. "'" .
. ... . .. .. .. .......... ......
..., .. . '.. ....,... ...."
. .. ....... . ... ..", ............,..
\.... ...Kilsap Co~my}.)i
(.Joits
Un.j.. .
. . ..
. . ..
. . .. .
..Percent ...
29.2%
1980 - March 1990
Total Units =
1,445
6,598
4,243
3,424
15,710
9.2%
42.0%
27.0%
21.8%
100.0%
21,619
34,502
1950 - 1980
1940 - 1949
8,662
46.SOk
11. 7%
12.5%
100.0%
1939 or earlier
9,255
74,038
Source: 1990 Census Summary Tape File 3A, Table G-25: Sample Data.
(a) Historically Significant Housing
A drive around town confirms that Bremerton contains a large number
of older homes. Some have been well maintained and restored --
Housing - Page 19
others need work. The Kitsap County Historical Society has furnished
plaques for some of these homes, but the City is unaware of any
inventory of historically significant housing that may have been
compiled. The City's low interest loan program has helped to
rehabilitate some of these homes.
(2) Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Dwelling Units
The proportion of owner-occupied housing units declined somewhat in both
Bremerton and Kitsap County between 1980 and 1990. There was a
corresponding increase in renter-occupied housing during the same period.
Owner-occupied housing in Bremerton decreased 9% (from 43% to 39% of all
occupied units). Owner-occupied units in Kitsap County declined 4% (from
67% to 64% of total occupied units). However the proportion of owner-
occupied housing in Bremerton is significantly lower than in Kitsap County as a
whole.
Renter-occupied housing units in BlI"emerton increased 7% (from 57% to 61%
of all occupied units) in 1990. Renter-occupied units in Kitsap County
increased 20% (from 30% to 36%). The proportion of renter-occupied housing
in Bremerton is significantly higher than in Kitsap County as a whole. (See
Appendix G)
(a) Single Family Units
A greater proportion of Bremerton's owner-occupied housing is single
family than is the case in Kitsap County as a whole. Over nine out of
ten (91%) Bremerton owner-occupied units are single family dwellings,
compared with more than eight of ten (84%) Kitsap County dwellings.
A slightly lower proportion of renter-occupied units are single family in
Bremerton (38%) than in KitsapCounty (43%) as a whole. (Table G-3)
. . - ... . ....
... n" . .... .' ..,
. ...........'.',.... ...................... ,',",'... .....-.-.....
........ . .... ...... . ....
... i~n8r~6~lipt.dUnita< ..
...... ......,'. ... ...........,.. ',.-.' ...... ,-.
.. . nO<' n. ,'.... .. ... .. ..
.. _.. n. ....".. ..... .....
" ." ... .. n' .. . .... ....... n.
n ... .. '.,.".. .... ... n.
... .B.."ter.~()c:c~pi~Ori.ts}.. .
.... ...n' ....... .. . . . n. n"
',' . ,-.' .".. . ;..;.....: . -, ,...,',., . :::::-.':.,' :.... '.: ::.... :::'. ,', "';.' ',' ":':':','.:
.....................................................~ikll'..r:i~~I;...6Wh~r-...~h\bW.~~:tlp~~.~i.id....l)nit~;...~.99~............................
... ...... .... .. On . ....... .. ...
.. . 'I' . ".. ...... . ..... ... ... ........ ... ....
. ,". -..:,' .", ::>'::':" . ...:. ":".>:._ ....:: :.;-;...... ....;. ..c. . ":'. ..;...... "." :.;:......... ...... ........... .....
. .. ..>>$ingl4t .. ... ....<Petcent\... T oiil . .. .Sirt~Je . .Perpeijl .. ..
.J=ilmIIY<... · .... ...........>.. .. .. ........... .\F.mity<< .
Bremerton
5,751
5,250.
37,381
91.3%
83.9%
8,967
24,737
3,396
10,632
37.9%
43.0%
Kitsap County
44,530
Source: 1990 Census Summary Tape File 3A, Table G-10.
Housing...; Page 20
(b) Vacancy Rates
The 1990 Census reported that 6% of Bremerton's housing units were
vacant, of which 3% were for rent and 1 % was for sale. Another 1 %
was rented or sold but not occupied. (See Appendix G)
According to the Fall 1994 Kitsap County Real Estate Trends Report, the
county-wide apartment vacancy rate fluctuated from 1.8% in September
1992 to 5.5% in September 1994. This county-wide rate is strongly
influenced by the arrival and departure of ships and their crews at the
PSNS. This is evident particularly in West Bremerton where the
vacancy rate dropped dramatically from 13.9% in March 1994 to 3.0%
in September 1994. As of September 1994 the overall apartment
vacancy rate in Bremerton (5.8%) is somewhat higher than the county
as a whole (5.3%). At the same time there were no three bedroom
apartment vacancies in West Bremerton.2
A market equilibrium vacancy rate is commonly estimated to be 5%.
(3) Type of Dwelling Units
The number of housing units within the city was estimated at 15,930 in April
1993. Of these, nearly two thirds (59%) are in one-unit structures and over one
third (39%) are in multi-unit structures. The remaining (3%) are manufactured
homes, trailers, or other special housing units (boats, etc.).3 (Table G-4)
Single-family
Multifamily
Manufactured/Other
Total Units =
...
#: '" of T 0181 .. . ::It.;.
8,229 55% 9,190
6,525 44% 6,124
173 1% 379
14,927 1 ()()Ok 15,693
Type
. ... . n" . . . .
..., . . ,
.. . , . .,
..n ..
" .... '" .. ,
.. '. . ..'n'< . .... ....../TableG;;4 . ...... '. .......
.. ..HousinO:Units l)ytype:198O-1~90 .' .
1980..
59%
39%
2%
100%
Sources:
1980/1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF 1A; Puget Sound Regional Council;
Kitsap Regional Planning Council.
2Source: Draft Kitsap County 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan, November 1995.
3rhe Census uses the term "mobile home or trailer" to refer to mobile homes to which no
permanent rooms have been added. The Census does not distinguish between 'mobile homes' and
.manufactured homes. (see Comprehensive Plan Glossary).
Housing - Page 21
Since 1980 the number of single housing units has increased 3% (from 55% to
58%), while the amount of two-unit housing dropped 1%. The proportion of
three- and four-unit housing stayed the same (7%), while the amount of
housing containing five or more units increased 5% (from 17% to 22%). The
amount of mobile homes, trailers and other housing types more than doubled
(from 1% to 2.5%). (Table G-5)
Other
. . ..
n>1980 Oiiits.
8,229
1,685
1,117
2,554
173
14,960
.. ........ Pel'cent
, .. . .n', ..
.. .n ...
. ....... .
. ..... .... . ..
.. .j gg4>l.Irilta
...., ........ .
" .. ......., ......... .". . . .. ",".
.. .. . .. .. .
.. ...~. ...-. ....... .. . . ...
.. n....n... .... .. TableG~5. .....> ..
. n ... HOU.n,g ..UnitsloStruC14r~;~98Q&199~
5+ Units
7.5
17.1
9,368
1,555
1,168
3,577
407
16,075
58.3
9.7
7.3
22.3
2.5
100.0
1-Unit
2-Units
3 & 4 Units
55.0
11.3
Total
1.2
100.0
Sources:
1980 Census of Population and Housing; 1993 Washington State Office of Financial
Management estimate updated by Bremerton Planning.
(a) Group Housing
Of 3,750 persons living in group quarters in Bremerton in 1990, 83%
(3,114) lived in military quarters. An additional 17% (636) lived in
institutions: 14.5% in nursing homes (544); 1.5% other institutions (58);
and 0.9% in mental hospitals. Another 1 % lived in other noninstitutional
quarters (39), and 0.1% were visible in street locales (4).
(b) Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing is allowed on individual lots in four of
Bremerton's eight residential zones, provided the units meet federal
HUD construction standards as well as special zoning ordinance
standards for width, roof pitch, foundations, exterior appearance, floor
height, and floor area. Manufactured housing which does not meet
zoning standards may be located in older manufactured home
developments (often referred to as "mobile home parks") where these
substandard units are "grandfathered". New manufactured homes
developments are allowed as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) in five
residential zones. There are four manufactured housing developments
in the City, three of which allow single-wide units.
Housing - Page 22
According to the 1990 Census, about two thirds (64%) of Bremerton's
216 manufactured housing units are located inside manufactured home
developments.4 Many of the remaining one third would have been
installed on individual lots prior to adoption of zoning restrictions or
prior to annexation.5 The 1993 Land Use Inventory found 132
manufactured units in developments.
(4) Housing Affordability
(a) Sinale Familv Housing Costs
The lowest single family home costs in Kitsap County are in Bremerton;
the highest costs are in Central Kitsap/Silverdale and in Bainbridge
Island. (Table G-6)
. , "..
.. . .., H.... n"
.. . .... .... ....,.
. . d.. ".."..
..... ....... ........ table.G-6 .......\........
. , ." . '" .....
.. "" ...".,......
~tdianHqme Pri9":1$$~~~~
West Bremerton $40,000 $45,000 $54,000 $63,550 $74,300 85.8%
East Bremerton $57,000 $63,000 $71,600 $80,000 $89,250 56.6%
Central Kitsap $75,500 $78,495 $85,950 $105,000 $115,000 52.3%
Kitsap County $72,500 $79,500 $88,700 $105,000 $115,900 59.go~
Source: Table 9, Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan; from Multiple Listing
Service in Kitsap County Real Estate Trends Report, Richards & Associates, Spring 1993.
The contrast in single family home costs partly reflects a difference in
the kind of homes sold in each area. Many home sales in Central
Kitsap are of new homes, while most sales in Bremerton are of used
homes. Used homes are often converted into rentals, which makes
fewer houses available to first-time, low and moderate income buyers.
(See Appendix G)
4"Manufactured housing" - housing built to the federal HUD code rather than the UBC - is
allowed on any residential lot in town on which a "conventional" or "stick built" single family house can
be built. Other mobile homes and travel trailers are only permitted in mobile home parks. (See
"manufactured housing" in Comprehensive Plan Glossary.)
5rhe 1990 Census counted 216 "mobile homes/trailers" in the City. A 1990 City survey counted
138 units in manufactured homes developments. Because newer manufactured homes are built to
federal HUD standards, it is unlikely that census takers would identify them as "mobile homes", (See
the Comprehensive Plan Glossary for a definition of "manufactured home".)
Housing - Page 23
(b) Value of Owner-Occupied Housing
The average value of owner-occupied housing units in 1990 was
significantly lower in Bremerton ($73,338) than in Kitsap County as a
whole ($108,622). The average price asked for vacant-for-sale housing
was 59% lower in Bremerton ($62,477) than in Kitsap ($99,571).
(c) Monthly Rent
The average monthly rent in 1990 was 21 % lower in Bremerton than in
Kitsap County as a whole. Rent averaged $323 in Brel"l1erton compared
with $391 in Kitsap County. The average rent asked for vacant-for-rent
housing was 30% lower in Bremerton ($325) than in Kitsap ($421).
(Table G-7)
.... ..... ". .. .... '" ...... , .. ..... n. ........
. . ...., . . . "., n_ , ,,,..,. n. ........
n. .... ........... " ..,....., .... . .. ...... .. ..,.. .."
.. ..... .......... .. . ........ . .... . ..... ..... ....
.. ..... .....~t.tdn .. .. .kiylapCotin~.... ()\piff.,.nAA..)t
...-...... ... ....... .. ..... n.', ...
. ........... n. ...... n' . ........ .... .. ..... n. . ..
,.. .... ...... .......... '. .. ..... ......., n... .
n..'.... .... , . . ....... ..... _.... ".", ......
.......... ......... n. . .,-, , .......... ..... ... .. ....... n. .
.?n>. .../n Tal:m- G-7/nHi ........ ............... ..... ..
..... ....Mqrith.IY>Rentin~'rite.r.~OccOPjt!dtlqusiriglJ"~~;199()
Lower X,
$246 $290 $44 17.SOk
$329 $380 $51 15.5%
$393 $477 $84 21.4%
$323 $391 $68 21.1%
Median
Upper X
Average
Source: 1990 Census of Population Housing, Tables H32-H37.
(d) Overcrowded Housing
Bremerton has more overcrowded housing than Kitsap County or its
other cities. In 1990 about 5% of Bremerton's housing had more than 1
person per room, compared with 3% in Kitsap County as a whole.
(e) Criteria for Affordable Housing
As a rule of thumb, housing is considered "affordable" if a household
spends no more than 30% of its monthly income for total housing cost
(including costs such as taxes, insurance, and utilities). It is difficult to
obtain a mortgage if projected monthly housing costs exceed 30% of
the family income. About one third of Bremerton (35%) and Kitsap
County (34%) renters exceeded the 30% threshold. Of households with
incomes under $10,000,70% in Bremerton and 72% in Kitsap were
paying more than 30% of gross income.
Housing - Page 24
(5) Condition of the Housing Stock
Kitsap County Assessor's records attest that nearly one fifth (17.3%) of
Bremerton's occupied single family housing is rated as being in fair, poor or
very poor condition. Of the City's one- to four-unit housing structures, 15%
(rated "fair") have only minor deficiencies. However, 2%, ("poor") have
substantial deficiencies (e.g. cracked foundation or need new roof), while 0.3%
are abandoned or of questionable habitability. (Table G-B)
, _H..
. .. ...... ...,. ..... - ..
.... . ...'...-......',.... .....-.'... . '."
......, . . ..... ....
.. . -" .. -. . .
.. .. . . . ".11. ........b.I.. G. ..*8. ...... ... . ... ...
. .. . ......
.. ..... .....
...:.'.':.:.,::.'.:... ::: .a. e: :.::::::..,::.>::...... ....,.::\.
.: ....:.:H()U~ngCOrtditiOrl($q!(~J"gsj :::::.. ..
.... .. .. ..... .... on..
.,....... . .......... " ..... .. ..... . . ........
_','.n .... ..... .. .... .. ...... . . .......
..::+~~....:.:.::... ::...::: ...: :.:.GOOd: . ... :......:..:.::::.A~.g..:.:...:.....:....:..:.. \> .:..Fait::>
......:;.;:::::.I~~...:.....
Single Family 673 6,169 1,222
Duplex 29 498 119
Triplex 0 6 6
Fourplex 0 21 5
Total Buildings = 702 6,694 1,352
Percent = 8% 75% 15%
188
26
8,278
5 ~2
o 13
o
194
o
27
26
8,969
2%
0%
100%
Source: Kitsap County Assessor's Office, 12/94.
(6) Additions to Housing Stock Since 1990
The City had 15,693 housing units in 1990. Between 1990-1994, 369 net new
housing units were added to the City's housing stock (after subtracting
demolitions), for a total of 16,062 housing units. (Table G-9)
" '.. .... .
.. , . .,
, ..., ..
>... .. . table G-9. . ......:. . :....
,. ..., .. ,..
. .. ... n'" ...
.....Housing Ul1itetlange Since 1 g9bC.risus
. .
.. . ... ". "
.. . ., . . ,
. . ..,,, "'.. . .... ...
. J990..>< ... 1990-19sMUu1900;;1994 n U..1994 N8tl~1994 New .. 1~~i994 ....
Ho 8'ng U.".it.. ...:....:. .... .......... ..Unlt. 8. .. ............. .. New Unitsu . .M......O....bii. Ho.m.. .....:/:. :.. :. . ...An... ..n.. ex. ed:. ..
..:.......... .....~un. it's...:.:..:....::.:. :.:.:.:.:.
AdCledu .....n.mOlished .uSpeciar units . Qnits<
15,693
283
-94
189
15
178
16,075
Sources: Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) (4/94); City of Bremerton Building Department
(4/94); Bremerton Planning.
Housing - Page 25
B. HOUSING RESOURCES
The Bremerton Housing Authority (BHA) is responsible for the development and
management of housing under various state and federal subsidy programs. BHA also
operates 604 of the 730 public housing units in Kitsap County. There are
approximately 3,800 households on housing assistance waiting lists in Kitsap County.
The City also has various ordinances relating to the construction and upkeep of
housing. For example, the City has developed a pro-active code enforcement
program. This program has been very successful within the limits of scarce staff and
financial resources.
(1) Public Housing
There are 604 households living in the BHA's public housing units. Of these,
287 are elderly, disabled or handicapped households. The largest public
housing project in Bremerton is West Park, which has 555 units. In addition
there are 27 units for the elderly at Searle Street, and 21 units for families at
Tara Heights. No losses from the public housing inventory are anticipated at
this time.
(2) Section 8 Existing Units Subsidy Program
The BHA receives 988 HUD Section 8 housing certificates and vouchers.
These are distributed to households with incomes at or below 50% of the City's
median income. About 500 of the voucher and certificate holders live in units
outside of the Bremerton city limits but within a 5 mile radius of the city. BHA
cites the large number of substandard units in Bremerton as the reason so
many Section 8 holders have to rent outside of the city. The substandard units
cannot pass HUD's Housing Quality Standards.
(3) Section 8 New Construction
Another 265 Bremerton households live in Section 8 New Construction units,
and 38 households live in the Pinewood Manor Section 202 facility. Several of
these projects are privately owned and operated. The contracts on two
Section 8 projects in Bremerton -- Charter House and The Firs -- expired in
1993. The remaining five contracts will expire between 1996 and 2003. These
units could potentially be taken out of the assisted housing inventory. The City
has no information that would suggest any of the owners will choose to opt-out
of the contract by not renewing.
The Tamarack Apartments in Bremerton have a federally-subsidized mortgage
and are thus restricted in the level of rents they may charge. If the owners
ever choose to prepay their mortgage, they will be free to charge any level of
rent they choose.
Housing - Page 26
(4) Emergency and Transitional Housing
The need for emergency and transitional housing is a county-wide need. The
Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan states that
recent figures for the number of households and individuals turned away from
Kitsap County emergency shelters indicate that at least 160 additional adult
and family shelter beds are currently needed. The Plan recognizes that the
number turned away does not count everyone actually in need. In particular,
the Plan states that these figures underestimate the shelter needs of youth who
seek help from friends rather than shelters. (Table G-10)
(a) Emergency Shelters
There currently are approximately 100 emergency shelter beds in Kitsap
County facilities for the homeless, of which about half are in Bremerton.
(b) Transitional Housing
The purpose of transitional housing is to give families time to attend to
financial and other needs before moving into permanent housing.
KCAP provides 14 units of such housing in Kitsap County, of which two
units are in Bremerton.
Kitsap Community Action Program (KCAP)
KCAP
Single men
Families
11
9
S1. Vincent de Paul
Salvation Army
Women and small children
8
Families
2
" " "
' ",.
" .. , '" .
Tr8ns!Uon81Iiousin~f(21o 24 month " 818yS) ."
KCAP
Source: Kitsap County 1995-2000 Consolidated Plan, November 1994 draft.
Housing - Page 27
......4~................EotURE.....HQUSING......NEE6s
This section of the Housing Element provides an assessment of housing needs in Bremerton,
including both present needs and needs anticipated as a result of planned growth over the
twenty year planning period. It presents a demographic profile of the existing population. It
includes an evaluation of the extent to which the existing and projected market can provide
housing at various costs and for various income levels. It contains. an estimate of the present
and future extent of households which require assistance to obtain housing they can afford.
It also identifies existing programs and policies to promote adequate housing for households
which cannot afford housing in the existing market and evaluation of their effectiveness.
A. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF EXISTING POPULATiON
This section contains an analysis of City population and demographic trends. It is
based on information collected in a more detailed City of Bremerton Community
Profile, contained in comprehensive plan Appendix G. This analysis is important for a
broad understanding of the community and to anticipate future needs. Population
and household size are key factorsi.Jsed to estimate the number of new housing units
which will be needed during the next twenty year period. Income and age information
help identify the types of housing which will be in demand.
(1) Population Trends
(a) The Past 50 Years
Bremerton's population grew from 15,134 to 38,142 between 1940 and
1990 - an average increase of 9~5% every decade. However, this does
not tell the whole story. Between 1940 and 1945 the population .
exploded by 169% (from 26,966 to 72,500) due to World War II activity
at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). By 1950 it had plummeted
by 62% (to 27,678), from which it steadily increased over the next 40
years to 1990.
Approximately one third of the County's total population lived in
Bremerton between 1940 and 1970. Since 1970 the City has accounted
for a shrinking percentage of the County's population. The City's
growth rate has correspondingly dropped. Between 1960-1970
Bremerton's population increased by 22%. However, between 1970-
1980 the City grew by only 3%. Between 1980-1990, Bremerton's
population grew by just 5%, while Kitsap County's population grew
35%.
Since 1990 Bremerton's population has fluctuated, from a high of
38,990 in 1992, to a low of 35,023 in August 1993. The most recent
estimates put Bremerton at 35,920 on April 1, 1994, adjusted to 39,556
on November 30, 1994 to reflect population annexed (444) and recent
military population counts (3,192). (Table G-11)
Housing - Page 28
.... ... ,. ...,
......... ....,... ..... ......... .. .....
......... ... -.... .. .... ....... .. .. .....
................Ht~~~~~j...~~;~:I~~~1~C~~~~~j.~;~.................
........ .. ....
. . ..... ...,..,..,.
.. .... . .. ........
.j94Q/Hiso/...... ...
........... ......
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
$ince>i990... ..
1991
1992
1993
1994
2/28/95 Adjusted Pop.
15,134 34.1%
27,678 12,544 36.6%
26,681 -997 31.7%
35,307 8,626 34.7%
36,208 901 24.6%
20.1%
37,040 -1,102 18.9%
38,990 1,950 19.00fc:,
36,380 -2,610 17.3%
35,920 -460 16.9%
40,801 +4,881 n/a
Sources: Washington State Office of Financial Management
U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1980, 1990
(b) Source of Population Changes
A trend is emerging for Bremerton to attract new residents who find
they can live in Bremerton and commute to Seattle more cheaply than
they can live in the Seattle area. This has been reflected by a slow but
steady gain in civilian population over the last several years, as
measured by new housing construction and annexations.
However, fluctuations in military populations are by far the greatest
influence on Bremerton's population. Bremerton's population can go
up or down by 5,000 people overnight with the arrival or departure of a
large aircraft carrier at PSNS. Even though Bremerton gained civilian
population in 1994, its overall population dropped due to a
corresponding decrease in Navy population. (Because of this pattern,
Bremerton's estimated population is adjusted quarterly to account for
fluctuations in naval personnel.)
Housing - Page 29
(e) Proiected Population Chanaes
Several forecasts have been made projecting Bremerton's year 2010
population growth:
· Continuation of the 1980-1990 year growth rate (5.3%)
· Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) "Existing Plans"
. PSRC "2010 Vision 2 (22 Centers)"
. PSRC "2010 Vision 1 (14 Centers)"
. Adopted Kitsap County-wide Planning Policies
42,325
44,959
48,764
49,305
58, 142
The adopted Kitsap County-wide Planning Policies established a
"working population forecast" for the County of 91,254 new people by
year 2010 (280,985 total population). Of this growth, 20,000 (19%) was
allocated to Bremerton (58,142 total population). The Kitsap County
Regional Planning Council (KPRC) recently approved a revision
allocating 20,000 population to Bremerton by year 2014. The forecast
of Bremerton's housing needs is based on this allocation in order to be
consistent with the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. (Table G-12)
.... .... ...
. ..n.. .... ....,
. . . 'n ...... .. . .... ...
.. .. ....... . . ". .... .......
.. ". ...... .. "...... . . ...
. . b .G.. ...... . ...... ..... .......... ..............
. . ..... ... ".., .,. ......
... '..... ....... .... ....
:::::.. ....:.):Ta Ie. -12::::::...:/:::. :.:>....::'. .::.:.:(.. ::::..}:::. .
.. . . .... . . ..., . . ...... .... ... . .. .
... . . ......... . ..... ..,........
.. C!lY:of Breme~oneOpula1!9il Es,!!m~le(< ...:.:::.. . .
. .... ... .......
.... . ......... ...........
' .......,. . n. .....
. ....., .. .... ..... .....
.. ......... '..,..
.." ............ ....,...
.1990:.. ..:<1994....... :<.<2000.......
. ... . n'
Population
Change
Percent Change
38,142
38,142
o
0%
41 ,552
3,410
SOA>
46,292
4,740
11%
58,142
11 ,850
26%
Sources: Years 1990-2000 - Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) "Existing Growth with Urban Study Area"
forecast (3/93).
Years 1994, 2000-2014 - Kitsap Regional Planning Council (KRPC) forecast (5/94)
The allocation of 20,000 of Kitsap County's expected population growth
to Bremerton anticipates a major change in "business as usual". The
population projection anticipates that strong Growth Management
policies will direct the majority of future growth to areas where urban
services and facilities already exist or can be efficiently provided.
Therefore the City's growth rate is projected to remain fairly low for the
first six years of the planning period -- 1.3% per year per the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC) "Existing Growth without Urban Study
Area" forecast. After year 2000 the City's growth rate is expected to
increase dramatically as the effects of growth management begin to be
seen.
Housing - Page 30
The Population Forecast chart on the following page shows the
projected population growth curve -- a gradual increase from 1990 to
2000, then a sharp rise reflecting the impact of strong growth
management policies. (Figure G-1)
(2) Household Tvpe and Size
(a) Household Type
While the total number of households in the City increased by 5%
between 1980-1990, the number of households consisting of unrelated
persons increased by 15%. Although the number of family households
increased slightly (2%), the proportion of family households actually
dropped (from 61% to 60%) during that time. (See Table G-13)
The total number of family households increased by only 2% between
1980 - 1990. However, there was a 10% increase in single parent
families and a 12% increase in female headed families. (See Appendix
G)
.. ..
... . ..
..." ."
.. .... .....
.... ..
...,..:....:1~:.:'..
Family Households
Nonfamily Households
Total Households =
8,637
5,430
14,067
8,785
5,933
14,718
148
503
651
2%
9%
5%
Notes: Family households = 2 or more related persons. Nonfamily households = single person or unrelated
persons.
Source: Census of Population and Housing: 1980, 1990.
(b) Household Size
Bremerton experienced virtually no change in the average size of
households between 1980 and 1990 (from 2.31 to 2.34 persons per
household). Still, the household size is smaller in Bremerton than in
Kitsap County (2.6 pph), where the household size declined slightly
between 1980-1990 (from 2.8 to 2.6 pph). (See Appendix G)
Housing - Page 31
55
z 50
0 ..
~ "
c:
:.'l
::l ::3
0
ll. .c:
0 I- 45
ll.
40
Population Forecast: 1990-2014
City of Bremertori, Washington
60
35
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
YEAR
I_ PSRCIKRPy Forecast I
Years 1990-2000: Puget Sound Regional Planning Council.Existing Plans. Scenario (10/93)
Years 2000-2014: Kitsap Regional Planning Council allocation (5194)
Figure G-1 - Population Forecast: 1990-2014
(c) Future Trends
Trends for the decreasing size of households are expected to continue.
Bremerton's average household size in year 2010 is expected to be 2.2
persons per household (PPH), based on Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) forecasts. The estimated average household size for year 2000
(2.27 PPH) is mid way between the actual 1990 household size (2.34
PPH) and the projected 2010 household size.
Housing - Page 32
Approximately 10,000 new households are expected in the City by year
2014. For the purpose of this Housing Element, all of Bremerton's
20.,000 new people are expected to live in .households., rather than
"group quarters.. (In 1990 nearly 10% of Bremerton's population lived
in group quarters, a high number that reflected the City's large navy
population.) (Table G-14)
...., ' . ..... . . . .... ,-.,. ... .. .
, .... . n'"'' . .... . ....... . ........ .... ....... ..... ........ ...
. .. .... .....,.. ... .. ..... . n.. ..n.n ..... ...... ...... .....,.. . ..
. ....... .... .......... .... . ........, ... .. .. --...... .... ......,., ..... .. ........, ... .
....... ... .......... .. .. ............ ..... ....... .......... .. ......, ..
....... ...... .... .. ...... . n.. ...._......... . ".. ..... .. .. ..... ....
.<\>}>><>.... .<?... ... .....181:)1eO-14/ .... .>?i)> ......q...... .
.,.... p-,- ........."....... ........... . ..................... ..
. ..>.... ...Pppqliitlon.6~ttotl$ehoj~~~e;'~Qt:~Q1~.
. .......,.. . ,...... . ....,. .... ...... ......
......... . .. .. ...... ... ..... .. ..... .... . .
. ....... .... .. ...... ... ,.. .. n. ...... .... .,... ...... ..
. ........., . .. n". n. ........ ,. .. ...
...1990>( . 2000>..... ............N.wn>~014 .. .?New.. ..Tot1ifNeW.<
T etal Population 38,142 41,552 3,410 58,142 16,590 20,000
. Population in Group 3,750 3,750 0 3,750 0 0
Quarters
. Population in Households 34,392 37,802 3,410 54,392 16,590 20,000
Total Households . 14,718 16,876 2,158 24,724 7,848 10,006
Average Household Size = 2.34 2.24 2.20
Sources: 2014 - Kitsap COllnty-wide Planning Policies, as amended.
2000 - Puget Sound Regional Council "Existing Plans" Forecast (10/93), adjusted for Bremerton City.
(3) Age Composition
Bremerton has a relatively young population, with 50% under age 30,
compared to 44% for Kitsap County as a whole. It also has a greater
proportion of seniors (over 65) and potentially frail elderly (75 and over) who
may need special services. The age structure of the population is important
because different age groups tend to demand different types of housing and
supportive services.
The proportion of children under 18 is lower in the City (24%) than in the
County (28%). Still, between 1980-1990 there was an increase in the
proportion of children under 15 (from 19% to 21 %) and persons age 35-44 (up
49%). This shows a trend of more young families locating in the city for
affordable housing.
The proportion of persons age 20 to 29 is much higher in the City (26%) than
in Kitsap County as a whole (16%). This probably reflects Bremerton's high
military population and its lower housing costs.
Housing - Page 33
The proportion of seniors is also greater in the City (14%) than in the County
as a whole (11%). The population of the city is aging, with an increasing
number of persons over 75. The elderly require special consideration in
planning housing, transit, and social services. At the same time, a larger
retired population will contribute transfer'payment dollars, but will not require
employment opportunities. The decline in young persons is probably related
to fluctuations in naval personnel.
These figures also reflect national trend$: the aging of the "baby boom" (ages
25-44 in 1990); the emergence of the "baby boomlet" - the children of baby
boomers (ages 0-15); and the increase in Iqngevity (ages 75 + ). (See Appendix
G)
(4) Household Income
The median household income in Bremerton was $22,610 in 1990. This was
9% less than the median household income in Kitsap County. However,
median family income was 9% higher in Bremerton, and per capita income was
34% higher than in the County as a whole. Even though Bremerton household
incomes are relatively low, its higher proportion of single or unrelated person
households gives it a higher income per person. (Half of the
households/families have a higher income than the median, and half have a
lower income.) (Table G-15)
.. n.. .
. , . .
...TableG-t~ ... ...
. I .... . ".1..9..9"0" ..
... ncol11e: ........ .. .. ... ......
.. .. 'n' ....,
.... . ..., . .... n. ........... .... .
.. .. ...... . ..... ....n n. n' . ...... n. .... ..... .
. ......... ,.. ... ,....,. .. 'n ..... .. ......
..... ......kit~~p eo~r.w . ...Brem~on }. .... .biff.~nce} . ...... .jit.i-CjhF/.... ....
:::::):';::: \ .:..:~~~j~~:;O'=~'.~~~~~;;'::,:,-:-::
Median Household Income
$24,740
$24,296
$8,493
$22,610
$26,423
$11,418
-2,130
2,127
2,925
-SOA,
9%
34%
Median Family Income
Per Capita Income
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing - Summary Tape File 3.
Income levels are an indication of the buying power of future households and
are important in determining the type of housing needed for the projected
population. Income levels affect the type of housing, the size of units, and the
size of lots to plan for.
The proportion of households in low, moderate and upper income groups is a
basis for projecting numbers of housing units that need to be affordable to
different income groups. The income categories used in this analysis are used
in various federal and state assistance programs (listed below). All references
to "low income" in this analysis include the "very low. and .extremely low"
categories -- all incomes below 80% of the median income for Kitsap County.
Housing - Page 34
. Extremely Low -- at/below 30% of median
. Very Low -- between 31% - 50% of median
. Low -- between 51 % - 80% of median
. Moderate -- between 81% - 95% of median
. Middle -- between 96% - 120% of median
. High -- Greater than 120% of median
The following discussions contrast low income persons and low income
households in the City with those in Central Kitsap and- in the County as a
whole. "Low income" refers to incomes less than 80% of the County median
income.
(a) Low Income Persons
Overall, an estimated 49% (16,450) of the people in Bremerton
households in 1990 were considered low income. In contrast, about
34% (57,141) of persons living in households in Kitsap County as a
whole, and 22% (6,590) of Central Kitsap persons in households were
considered low income.6 (See Appendix G)
(b) low Income Households
Half (7,341) of the households in Bremerton were estimated as low
income in 1990. In contrast, 34% (23,762) of the households in the
County, and 22% (2,517) of the households in Central Kitsap were
below 80% of median income in 1990.7 (See Append!x G)
These household figures are the basis for projecting numbers of
housing units that need to be affordable to different income groups.
The number and percent of low income households differs from the
number and percent of low income population because household
sizes vary among income groups and areas of the County.
(c) . Proiections of Households by Income Groups
. .
If 1990 income distribution were to remain constant, the City would
have over 13,000 low income households by year 2014. This would be
an increase of nearly 6,000 low income households over the next 20
years. This projection assumes a decreasing family size (Table G-14),
but does not take into account possible changes in age distribution,
family type, or other variables. (Table G-16) .
6Source: Table 6, Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan.
7Figure 2, Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan, p. 9.
Housing - Page 35
Low Income (80% of median 7,341 50% 9,275 12,137 13,214
and less)
Moderate Income (81% to 3,348 23% 4,267 5,583 6,078
120% of median)
Upper Income (over 120% of 4,048 27% 5,009 6,554 7,136
median)
Total = 14,737 1 ()()O~ 18,551 24,274 26,428
Source: 1990 - Figure 2, Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan
2000-2014 - Bremerton Planning
B. PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
This section projects the amount and type of housing that will be needed by 2000 and
2014 -- years 6 and 20 of the planning period -- based on trends in population size,
household type, and other factors identified in the preceding section.
(1) New Household Formations
The City will need housing for 10,006 new households in the next 20 years.
(Table G-13)
. By year 2000 there will be 2,1.58 new households -- an average increase
of 360 households per year over the next six years.
· Between 2000-2014 there will be 7,848 new households -- an average
increase of 561 households per year over 14 years.
(2) Adiusted Projections of Housing Needs
Roughly speaking, each projected new. household creates a need for one
additional housing unit -- 10,006 new households will need 10,006 new
housing units. However, this estimate needs to be adjusted to take into
account the existing housing unit supply, vacancy rates, and housing
conditions. (Table G-15)
Housing - Page 36
(a) Housing Unit Supply
As of 1994, Bremerton had 16,075 housing units for 14,718 households
-- a surplus of 1,357 units.8 (Table G-4) Therefore the City will need
8,649 new housing units by year 2014.
. By year 2000, the City will need 801 new units.
. By 2014, the City will need an additional 7,848 units.
(b) Vacancy Rate
A healthy housing market requires about a 5% surplus of housing in
order to provide reasonable housing choices.9 Therefore, the number
of new housing units needed should be increased by 5%. To maintain
a 5% vacancy rate by year 2014, an additional 432 units will be needed.
. 40 units will be needed by year 2000.
. An additional 392 units will be needed by 2014.
(c) Replacement or Rehabilitation
The Kitsap County Assessor's Office has rated the condition of 230
(2%) of Bremerton's single family, duplex, triplex and fourplex buildings
as "very poor" (abandoned or of questionable habitability) or "poor"
(substantial deficiencies). (Table G-7) This backlog of substandard
housing will need to be replaced or rehabilitated in the next 20 years.
In addition to these existing substandard units, additional units can be
expected to become substandard each year. A rule of thumb is that,
based on typical survival rates of existing housing stock, 2% of units at
least 25 years old will become substandard each year.1O The estimate
of units to be replaced or rehabilitated is based on the following
assumptions:
Bin 1990 there were 14,718 households in Bremerton. Since 1990 the number of households has
ranged above and below the 1990 figure. Therefore, the number of households in 1990 is used for
planning purposes, consistent with the Kitsap Regional Planning Council population forecast, which
uses the 1990 population for 1994. (Table G-13)
9The 1994 surplus of 1,357 units represents a vacancy rate of 9.2%. This is consistent with the
1 ()Ok vacancy rate found by a State Office of Financial M'anagement (OFM) survey in April 1994.
10Small Communities Guide to Comprehensive Planning, Washington State Department of
Community Development, June 1993, pg. 147.
Housing - Page 37
· A backlog of 194 units rated "poor" or "very poor" must be
rehabilitated or replaced in the next 20 years -- an average of 10
per year.
· An additional 240 hou'sing units are expected to become
substandard each year (2% of 11,990 units built before 1970).11
Therefore, the replacement or rehabilitation of 250 units per year will
eliminate the current backlog of substandard housing and address the
units becoming substandard between 1994 and 2014.
· Of the 250 substandard units, 31 (12.2%) are expected to be
unfeasible to rehabilitate, and therefore require replacement
each year -- a total of 620 units over 20 years.12
(d) Projected Housing Unit Needs
The City will need 8,837 net new housing units by year 2014 after
adjusting for the existing housing unit supply, vacancy rates, and
housing conditions. (Note that, while there will be 10,006 new
households, fewer new housing units will be needed because of the
current surplus of housing.) (Table G-t7)
· A total of 947 new units will be needed by year 2000 -- 158 units
per year for six years.
· An additional 7,890 units will be needed by year 2014 -- 564
units per year for 14 years.
11 Source: 1980 U.S. Census of Population and Housing (figures not available from 1990 census).
12This forecast assumes continuation of the existing proportion (12.2%) of all substandard units
(230 units) rated as 'very poor". 'Substandard units' are those classified as 'poor" or 'very poor" by
the Kitsap County Assessor.
Housing - Page 38
.. ." ...... .......
.... ...... .......
..... ...............
...... . ........ .....
...... ...... .. ....
...... . ..... .........
......... ......2000.......... .......
.... ... ..
...... ..... ...
... ........ ...
... ....... ..
:-:-::"':-::::::::::" . ..:.:....
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ...... ..
.. ..
....1~~~14.. .
16,075
24,724
... .j:~~g~;,g~~1'~@Ji;il:;~~:
16,075
16,876
7,848
- Vacancy Rate Units (x 5%) -68 40 392 432
- Replacement Units (31/year) nja -186 -434 -620
Total SurplusjDeficit (Units) = 1,289 -947 -7,890 -8,837
UnitsjYear = nja -158 -564 -442
Source: Bremerton Planning
(3) Housing Type Mix
A gradual trend away from single family homes and towards multi-family housing can
be expected in the future as older single family areas are converted to multi-family
use, housing costs rise, and the population ages. While an increase in manufactured
housing is anticipated, most units are expected to meet City requirements for location
on individual lots.
This forecast assumes a 5% increase in multifamily units (from 39% to 44%) a
corresponding decrease in single family units (from 59% to 54%), and 1% (no change)
in manufactured homes in developments by year 2014.13 (Table G-3)
. Of the 8,837 new units needed by year 2014, the City will need 4,772 single
family units, 3,888 multi-family units, and 88 manufactured homes in
developments. (Table G-17)
13Manufactured housing which meets certain zoning ordinance standards is allowed on individual
lots in four residential zones. Other manufactured housing is permitted in Manufactured Home
Developments. (See "manufactured home" in Comprehensive Plan Glossary.
Housing - Page 39
.... .... ,
... .......... ... ...
. .... ........,.
...... ..."......
...... .... >< Multi~lamlly ...
. ..
.. . ..... .. ....... ...
... ". .. ....... ....
... ...".. ..... ..... .. . ......
........ ..." ... .... ......
i..l1!nUfa~ut$dH()m..i<..
.......... <in l)eYejopmEtn~".
88
. .. . .....,. ..
.... .. ..." .... .... . ... .
............., .............. .".
........ .., ., ..... ....", . ...
. . ..... ....,. .... . .
.. .......>... .Tabl.(t.1S...... ...i>.......
. .... . .,... .. .......
.....Q~:#j.ingUni(j'.ypeS:j99~2d14..
Units
4,772
54%
3,888
Percent
44%
1%
Source: Bremerton Planning.
C. NEEDED PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
New residential units will need water, sanitary disposal, solid waste disposal,
transportation, electric, gas and telecommunications services. In addition, existing
facilities such as schools, fire protection and. police protection will need to be
evaluated to ensure that they can handle the additional demand.
The condition and capacity of public facilities and services is detailed in the
Transportation Element and the Capital Facilities Element. The analysis of the
capacity of public facilities and services has been adjusted to reflect the anticipated
changes in housing. The schedule for financing such services is in the Capital
Facilities Element.
D. LAND AVAILABILITY
This analysis examines all of the land that is available for residential land uses under
the current zoning and development ordinances. . This provides an estimate of the
City's ability to meet its housing needs.
(1) Available Residential Land
The 1994 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Inventory and Build-out
Analysis identified 2,906 acres of residentially zoned land within the City. Of
this total, 1,566 acres (54%) is in residential use and 1,340 acres (46%) is
vacant or underutilized -- developed at less than permitted densities.
(2) Build~Out Capacity of Residential Land
Over three fourths (76%) of the available land is zoned for single family use;
5% for duplex use; 17% for multi-family use; and 0.9% for manufactured home
developments.
There is also an undetermined capacity for residential development in several
non-residential zones in which the number of units may be determined through
design standards rather than density limits. We have estimated what we feel to
Housing - Page 40
be a reasonable amount of residential development within those areas during
the 20-year planning period. Since these are primarily commercial zones,
residential will not be the "highest and best use" in most cases, and the
estimates are not intended to reflect the maximum residential potential within
these zones.
In addition, there is an undetermined capacity for manufactured home
developments, since these developments are allowed in five of the City's eight
residential zones as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).
If developed at currently permitted densities, Bremerton can accommodate
13,162 new housing units -- 8,432 units on vacant land and an additional 3,500
units in non-residential zones and targeted redevelopment areas.
. For purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton has a residential
capacity of 12,679 units, consisting of 6,999 single family units, 5,640
multi-family units, and a maximum of 40 manufactured homes in
developments. (Additional manufactured homes developments can be
permitted as PUDs.) (Table G-19)
(3) Additional Residential Land Use Needs
The available residential land is more than adequate to meet the projected
housing need for single family and multi-family units. Although it falls short of
the manufactured home development needs by 48 units, this need can be met
under zoning ordinance provisions which allow manufactured home
developments in four residential zones as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).
(Table G-19)
. .- ..
.. . . ." .
. ".. ......., ",. . . .
. ,.... ... , ,.. ........ ..
. .. .... ....
... T" b' ..1.......0 19..... .. .... .
. ..... ........ .. ....... Cl..ef . ~/<<'. ..... .
. Fl~idential4\~cfAvail~billty (UnitS) ........
. ,. .... " .. . .
.. ...n , ... . .
... .,.." . ...... ..,
,., .... , .
. 'Mi.dti~farriily .' '.' ManiJf!~ure<ftlorne. . . Total
.in 04ih,elopmenta
Capacity
Demand
Surplus/Deficit =
6,999
4,772
2;227
5,640
3,888
1,752
40
88
12,679
8,748
3,931
n/a*
* NOTE: Since manufactured home developments are allowed as PUDs in five of the City's residential zones,
they will be able to make use of the surplus capacity of residential land.
Source: Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis, Bremerton Planning,
1994.
Housing - Page 41
E. HOUSING AFFORDABILlTY
The issue of housing affordability is a county-wide issue. The availability of affordable
housing is a draw to lower income households. A lack of affordable housing can
force people to live farther from their jobs than they might otherwise like. In
Bremerton's case, the availability of a large stock office affordable housing has
resulted in disproportionately larger numbers of low income people living in the City.
In contrast, Bainbridge Island, where housing prices are much higher, has a much
lower proportion of low income people. (However, it should be noted that Bremerton
might have even more lower income households if more of its housing stock qualified
for Bremerton Housing Authority HUD certificates and vouchers.)
(1) Kitsap County Needs Assessment and Affordability Plan
The Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment and Affordability Plan
identifies several affordable housing strategies, including:
1. Establish Housing Goals: Each jurisdiction should consider working
with the Kitsap Regional Planning Council to set long term housing
goals by 1995 and work to meet them by the year 2010 through the
accomplishment of five year housing development programs. . . Our
analysis of housing needs for 2010 presented two extreme options for
determining 'fair shares.' One is working toward a uniform Dercentage
of low income housing throughGut the County and cities and the other is
maintaining the current percentages in each area. . . The latter continue
the present inequality of housing burdens and opportunities among
Kitsap communities while uniform percentage option ignores
capabilities of many low income families, These families often make
use of public and private social services but do not have dependable
automobiles to reach service agencies and businesses. Thus any
goals for distributing low-income housing more 'fairly,' should respect
these families need for access to services and facilities in the cities. 14
(2) Kitsap County Consolidated Plan
The Kitsap County Consolidated Plan has been developed to satisfy federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements for
participating in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
programs. The Consolidated Plan addresses three statutory goals, principally
for low- and very low", and extremely low income residents:
1. Provide decent housing
2. Provide a suitable living environment
3. Expand economic opportunities
14Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan, pg. 69.
Housing - Page 42
The plan includes: an assessment of housing and homeless needs for the next
five years; an analysis of Kitsap County's housing market; a discussion of the
County's strategies, priority needs, and objectives for housing and community
development activities; and an action plan that describes the activities Kitsap
County will undertake to address priority needs during the next program year.
The Consolidated Plan complements existing local planning policies which are
under development in the County and all of the County's municipal
jurisdictions as required by the State Growth Management Act.
The plan lists the five general priority needs:
1. Increase the availability and afford ability of safe and decent rental
housing for households earning 80 percent of median income or less.
2. Increase the supply of housing units available to homeowners through
rehabilitation of substandard units and construction of new units. Assist
first-time homebuyers to become owners.
3. Support a continuum of housing and related services for homeless
people, and forestall further homelessness through prevention activities.
4. Promote a continuum of housing and related services for people with
special needs such as frail elderly and persons disabled by sickness or
injury.
5. Provide support, for non-housing activities, to communities and non-
profit organizations for economic development, public facilities, public
services, and planning activities which primarily benefit low income
persons.
(3) Kitsap County Housing Element
The adopted Kitsap County Housing Element estimates additional. housing
needs by year 2014 using straight-line projections from the Kitsap Regional
Planning Council's countywide population forecast. The County forecast
assumes no change in average household size, even though the trend has
been downward for several decades. The Housing Element warns that "these
projections are therefore slightly conservative since shrinking households
would generate housing needs greater than the figures projected". The
Element concludes:
Overall, approximately 36,000 new housing units will be needed for the
year 2014. Of this amount, approximately 23,000 will need to be owner-
occupied, and approximately 13,000 will be renter occupied. Single
family residences will be the bulk of the new units, with almost 25,000;
multi-family will need approximately 7,000 units, and mobile units will
need almost 5,000. . .
Housing - Page 43
Approximately 12,500 units of the 36,000 total units for the year 2014
will need to be for low income households. If these housing units were
added in proportion to where low income families currently live, most of
it would be located in Bremerton, Port Orchard and Poulsbo.
Conversely, if these units. were shared equally at the current county-
wide proportion of low income families, 34 percent everywhere, most of
the units would go into the unincorporated areas of the county and
Bainbridge Island. In this scenario, Bremerton, Port Orchard and
Poulsbo would actually lose low income households and housing.
These two scenarios differ because unincorporated Kitsap and
Bainbridge Island have lower proportions of low-income households
than the county as a whole.15
Consequently, the Kitsap County Housing Element includes the following
policies:
14. Allow and make provisions for its fair share of projected special
needs and low and moderate income housing. The Housing
Needs Assessment and Affordability Plan has identified areas in
unincorporated Kitsap which should receive a higher percentage
of low and moderate income households. 16
24. Participate in and support Kitsap Regional Planning Council
process to identify and adoption of [sic] regional fair share
- housing goals. Participate and support evaluation of these
adopted fair share housing goals.
(4) Forecast of Affordable Housing Needs
The Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan
projects the need for affordable housing by year 2000 under two scenarios:
'current percentages" and "uniform percentage" (described above in section
(1). Under the first scenario, Bremerton would need 2,050 additional affordable
low income units; under the second, the City would have a surplus of 894 units
-- a spread of 2,944 units. (Table G-20)
15Kitsap County Draft Comprehensive Plan, Part III, Housing Element, September 1994, pg. 21.
16rhis statement appears to refer to the Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment and
AHordability Plan statement: ....North and Central Kitsap and Bainbridge Island have lower proportions
of low-income households than the county as a whole.. (- Pg. 37)
Housing - Page 44
. ... . .... .. .. .... . .... .. ... ..............
...... .......... . ..... ... ... . .... ..... ... ..... .. ..
.......... .. .... ... . ............ ..... ...... .................. ............. . ..
.......... ... ........ . ............. ..... . ......... ........ . ..... . .. ...... . ...
... ...... ... . ...... . ...... .............. ........ ............ .
.... ... ...... .. ....... .. ........ ... ....... . ..... .... ......... ....... .... .......
.n}. . ............. ..ii<.. ......>T.bJ.f(l.;20 . ..C .)i . . i.. ...<<}...
. .... ..~_Aff9r~'~~~9,ilric~rheft9.9$iij9fJ.~idt;,Y>~09><...
.. ...... ......... .. .... . ......... ....... .... ..... ......
.. .... ..... . ...... . .. ......... ..... ...... ...... ... ............. .
. ................. . ............. . .... . ... . ........ . ....... ...............
. . ,..... .. .... ..... ...... .. ... . .. ......... ... ....... ..... ....... .. ...
..... .. ~~~. ... . ..<4iW(~()f. . <..... ~!r.iI. (E}1"'~ .\ ...... <.ppp~(()y.<
>m:~~'U:)~~~~) .>....... 1~<>fnC'lcnarl /~<~.::,!:i~n
Current Percentage
Uniform Percentage
Difference =
2,050
-894
2,944
935
870
65
1,130
4,139
-3,009
4,115
4,115
o
Source: Kitsap County 1993 Housing Needs Assessment & Affordability Plan, pp. 37-38.
The first scenario would unfairly perpetuate the existing disproportionate
concentration of low income housing in Bremerton. The second would call for
upgrading of 894 units to moderate or upper income housing over the next six
years -- an average of 149 units per year.
While it stops short of endorsing the "uniform percentage" scenario, draft
Kitsap County Housing Policy #14 appears to endorse the need for a higher
percentage of low and moderate income housing in the unincorporated parts
of North and Central Kitsap. Policy #24 indicates that the County will work
with the cities through the KRPC process to determine regional fair share
housing goals.
...
Housing - Page 45
...
Housing - Page 46
.~
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES
ELEMENT
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
H
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT H
CAPITAL FACiliTIES
Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
A. AUTHORITY ............................................ .. 1
B. OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . .. 1
C. DESCRiPTION............................................. 2
D. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
E. SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
F. PURPOSE AND INTENT ..................................... 6
G. DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENT PROCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
2. CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (CFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
A. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. LAW ENFORCEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
C. PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D. SANITARY SEWER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
E. SCHOOLS ............................................... 51
F. STORMWATER ............................................ 61
G. TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
H. WATER.................................................. 69
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
CFP-1 Types and Providers of Capital Facilities ............................... 9
EM-1 Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Emergency Medical Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
EM-2 Twenty Year Need: EMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
EM-3 Six-year Funding and Projects -- EMS ........................ . . . . . . .. 13
FP-1 Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Fire Protection ......................... 15
FP-2 Twenty Year Need: Fire Protection Apparatus .......................... 16
FP-3 Six-year Funding and Projects -- Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
LE-1 Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Law Enforcement ....................... 19
LE-2 Level of Service -- Law Enforcement Officers ........................... 21
LE-3 Future Need -- Law Enforcement Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
LE-4 Future Need: Law Enforcement Buildings ............................. 22
LE-5 Future Need: Law Enforcement Building Area .......................... 23
LE-6 Six-year Funding and Projects: City Hall/Fourth Street Building Improvements .. 25
LE-7 Six-year Capacity Balance Sheet: Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PK-1 Inventory of Local Parks ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
PK-2 Inventory of Regional Parks ....................................... 31
PK-3 Inventory of Open Space ......................................... 31
PK-4 Summary Inventory: All Park Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
PK-5 Level of Service (LOS): All Park Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
PK-6 Analysis of Local/Regional Park LOS ................................ 33
PK-7 Future Need: Parks ............................................. 34
PK-8 Year 2000 Recommended Level of Service: All Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
PK-9 Six-year Funding and Projects: Parks ................................ 37
PK-10 Six-year Capacity Balance Sheet: Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
SS-1 Inventory: Wastewater Treatment Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
SS-2 Bremerton Wastewater Treatment System Service Area Capacity ............ 41
SS-3 Comparison of City/County Estimates of Sanitary Sewer Service Area Population 43
SS-4 Comparison of City/County Estimates of Wastewater Treatment Plant Demand . . 44
SS-5 Future Need: Sanitary Sewer ...................................... 46
SS-6 Six-year Funding and Projects: Sanitary Sewer ......................... 48
SS-7 Capacity Balance Sheet Sanitary Sewer .............................. 49
SC-1 Inventory of Existing Facilities -- Bremerton School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
SC-2 Bremerton School District Capacity (Summary) ......... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
SC-3 Level of Service -- Bremerton School District ........................... 54
SC-4 Bremerton School District Population & School Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
SC-5 Enrollment Projections ........................................... 55
SC-6 Projected Facility Needs and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES
ELEMENT
Part 1 of 2: Capital Facilities Plan
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT H
CAPITAL FACiliTIES
Part 1 of 2: Capital Facilities Plan
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
A. AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
B. OVERVIEW OF CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
C. DESCRIPTION ................................................ 2
D. BACKGROUND ............................................... 4
E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
F. SCOPE...................................................... 6
G. PURPOSE AND INTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
H. DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENT PROCESS ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
2. PLANNING FRAMEWORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GOAL .................. . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
B. VISION 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
C. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
3. GOALS AND POLICIES ............................................. 13
A. GOAL...................................................... 14
B. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
C. FUNDING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
D. PROGRAMMING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES ......................... 18
E. MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL FACILITIES ........................... 21
4. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
A. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
B. FUNDING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C. PROGRAMMING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES ......................... 29
D. MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL FACILITIES ........................... 30
E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION ..... 30
F. CAPITAL FACILITIES LOCATION AND DESIGN ....................... 31
G. URBAN GROWTH AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
H. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SUMMARY ........................ 31
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
CF-1 Capital Facility Level of Service Standards - Long Term .................... 15
CF-2 Capital Facilities Plan Implementation Strategies Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
· Strategies...................................................... 27
· Plan/Program Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT H
CAPITAL FACiliTIES
Part 1 of 2 -- Capital Facilities Plan
. . .
'" .. .". .
'1.~II\JTROPl..1CfION"" .'
This Capital Facilities Plan document is the first of two documents that make up the CAPITAL
FACILITIES 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 Facilities Program make up the capital facilities element
requireq 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 OF CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT is organized into two documents, which contain
the following sections:
Part I - Capital Facilities Plan
1. INTRODUCTION -- Includes authority, overview, description,
background, GMA requirements, scope, purpose and intent, and
development and amendment process.
2. PLANNING FRAMEWORK -- Lists applicable GMA goals and
regional policies with which the CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
must be consistent.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 1
3. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN -- A long-range policy plan
containing guidelines for capital improvements.
Part II - Capital Facilities Program (CFP)
1. INTRODUCTION -- Includes authority, overview, description,
background, GMA requirements, scope, purpose and intent, and
development and amendment process.
2. CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM -- 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.
. 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.
. 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.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 2
Relationship Among Capital Facilities Element's Policy
Plan, Capital Facilities Program, and City Budget
April
through
July:
. .....
.. .
. . .
Ay.~t.
. . ... .... n.. ..
n_""__" n. . n. ..
". .. ....-..--.
o .. ... ....
un..__ .......
.. n. . ..... .
....... ... n_ .. .
u.. n_ ....... .... ..
. n...... n' .. . .
, . "...
..... . . . .. --..
.. ..........
n .. .........,
... .. ..... ".. ....
...... "se... .. ...b...........
. . .)\.ll.tem err)
Policy Plans
Land u. Plan
Programs
Budget
Capital
Fadllties
Plan
Agencies'
Capital
Improvement
Programs
. Invemariea
. Service Level
. Capacity
. Funding
. ConcurreDCY
. Surplus I Deficits
. Capital Budgeting
~
PIlb
WIII:Z
mo=iG
5cWOf
$d>oOII
Tnu&
UbrII1
!'ire fIlMS
Police
a-;.,
0.
TeJepbClle
w_
Se...,.
~Uon
.. L.m4 Ute .k
TrmIp<KUtIon
. MIllIimoda1
. i!.ImramIo1II:
. Pmltizl(
Road.
Trmwit
".3;... .
,".. .
..~..... ..
..........
Capital
Budget
(
)
Capital
Facilities
Program
Summary
City's
Operating
Budget
. Salaries
Project
Revenues "
Expendltures
Figure CFP-1 Capital Facilities Element Timeline
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 3
D. BACKGROUND
Making the most of limited financial resources for capital improvements is a challenge
faced by cities everywhere. In every municipality, many different proposed capital
improvement projects are competing for these funds. No community has enough
money for all the capital projects it would like to undertake. Elected officials want to
make cost effective decisions and at the same time ensure a high quality of life for the
citizens they represent. Officials are concerned about the efficient use of existing
capital infrastructure and achieving the optimum leverage from the investment of
public dollars for capital improvements. Capital facilities planning presents the
opportunity to evaluate community needs and financial resources together so that
community improvements can occur logically, within the jurisdiction's ability to pay for
these improvements.
Capital facilities planning and programming involves the scheduling of necessary
physical improvements for a community based on its needs, policies and priorities
and on its overall financial capability. Capital facilities planning is a tool to help
implement the overall objectives of the city. The strategic use of limited capital
facilities funds can implement land use plans, generate desired development, improve
neighborhoods, enhance livability, improve service delivery and maintain quality
infrastructure. Capital facilities planning provides the necessary link between
comprehensive planning and the allocation of capital dollars. It links fiscal planning
and budgeting with land use planning, transportation planning, economic
development, environmental protection, community housing improvement plans, and
infrastructure development and improvement. In aging cities, planning for capital
facilities also needs to include the replacement of older capital stock and the
scheduling of facility maintenance.
Historically, comprehensive plans have contained discussions of the costs and
financing required to implement the plan's public works proposals. The concept of
programming capital improvements developed out of the need to finance
improvements by borrowing. While many communities have adopted both
comprehensive plans and capital improvement programs, they have not commonly
been linked in a formal way.
Now the GMA has changed the way comprehensive planning will be done in
Washington. The capital facilities, transportation and utilities elements reinforce the
requirement that comprehensive plans prepared according to the GMA be realistic
and able to be implemented. Requirements for setting level of service (LOS)
standards, inventories and forecasts of existing and needed capital facilities, six-year
financing plans, and concurrency all require a more complex level of planning than
most communities have previously undertaken.
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.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 4
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 (eIP) - 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 Plan 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 Capital Facilities Program in that it covers only capital
projects receiving City funding.
E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS
The CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT must identify public facilities that will be required
during the six years following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan (1995 through
2000). The plan must include the location and cost of the facilities and the sources of
revenue that will be used to fund the facilities, and it must be financially feasible.
Dependable revenue sources must equal or exceed anticipated costs. If the costs
exceed the revenue, the City must reduce its level of service or otherwise reduce
costs, or the Land Use Element must be modified to bring development into balance
with available or affordable facilities.
The GMA requires the capital facilities element to include at least the following:
· Inventory -- An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public
entities, showing the locations and capacities of such facilities.
· Future Needs -- A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities.
· Proposed Facilities -- The proposed locations and capacities of
expanded or new capital facilities.
· Six Year Financial Plan -- At least a six-year plan that will finance such
capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly
identifies sources of public money for such purposes.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 5 .'
· Reassessment of Land Use Element -- A requirement to reassess the
land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing
needs, and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan
element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are
coordinated and consistent.
The GMA requires that public facilities needed to support development shall be
available at the same time as ("concurrent with") the impacts of such development.
Concurrency management procedures must be developed to ensure that sufficient
public facility capacity is available for each proposed development, or that
development applications are denied when public facilities are not adequate to serve
them.
The GMA also requires that each comprehensive plan include a process of identifying
and siting essential public facilities.
Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to
site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional
transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste
handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities,
mental health facilities and group homes...No local comprehensive plan may
preclude the siting of essential public facilities. [RCW 36.70A.200]
F. SCOPE
The scope of the Capital Facilities Plan 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
Comprehensive Plan Glossary defines "capital facilities", "capital improvement project",
and related terms.
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).
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 6
For the purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan, capital facilities include all public
facilities and services, including utilities, that are demanded of a government to carry
out its functions or to provide service to its citizens. The goal, policies, strategies and
activities of this plan are applicable to all capital facilities. Examples of capital facilities
are: roads; public buildings; schools; parks; power, water and sewer systems; fire
stations; libraries; and correction facilities. The entire collection of a jurisdiction's
public facilities is sometimes referred to as its infrastructure. Capital improvements is
a term used to refer to major capital expenditures needed to purchase, construct,
replace, repair or rehabilitate such public facilities.
The Capital Facilities Plan covers all public capital facilities, including federal, state,
and City of Bremerton owned facilities as well- as those owned by the Bremerton
School District, Port of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit, and Washington State Ferries. It
also applies to facilities and services owned by non-public entities that provide a
public service such as solid waste facilities, power, natural gas and
telecommunications.
G. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of the long-range Capital Facilities Plan is to provide a comprehensive
overview and set policy direction for capital improvements. The plan is intended to be
used as a guide for making decisions that will ensure the adequate provision of
facilities and services by local government and utility providers to meet anticipated
needs, including meeting new demands caused by new growth and development.
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
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 7
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.
· 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 nelp
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.
H. 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
finally adopted in April 1995.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 8
The Capital Facilities Plan should be periodically reviewed concerning its content.
Changing conditions and needs may result in amendments. Proposed amendments
may include modifications, additions or deletions to the policies or implementation
strategies.
Proposed amendments to the plan 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 proposal, hold a public hearing
for public comments, make modifications if necessary, and adopt the proposed
amendments as part of the Capital Facilities Plan. Revisions to the Capital Facilities
Plan may occur, at most, once a year and must be considered concurrently with any
other amendments proposed to the Bremerton Comprehensive Plan.
The excellent City of Tacoma June 1993 Capital Facilities Plan is
acknowledged as a primary resource in the preparation of this CAPITAL
FACILITIES ELEMENT.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 9
Hi. <.<>>>.....................N<il...>f\J......:.>....G/.......::<:.........:....RA.i\..>EW.........:.......<..::::e>< .. . . . ..
".2... . ..f.,1I.jA.. N ..F M .... RK
..... . , . .
~~ . ~.: . ... .
:::;' . .,. ':", :::::. ... -,';' ','. . . ,', ;., '
.....'. ............. ..,... ,
. .. .....,.. ..... ..... ." ..... .......
....., . . ,... ..... .... ." .. .... ......
.... ..... ... . ...... ... "' ....... .. n... n. . ......
. ......... . ..... ..... ... ... ....... '" .........
... ... ........ . .......... .. . ..,....... .....
.;.....<.-... <...::.......... ....<;.<;:.:.:::. .... ';',,:' ';:::.:,:,::.:;:.>: ," ;:.... ....;...;;.;.:::;:.;......:.,'.
. . ... . ............ ......... . . . ......... ..
. n. .... ....... ................. ......
.~~R~i6.hiiJ~.'imd.C64rl.fy(;ciotdii/fit;JfJ
The CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT must address the necessary state, regional and county
coordination. These provide the framework for the Capital Facilities Plan and Program.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GOAL
The Growth Management Act's Public Facilities and Services Planning Goal is to:
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing
current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
B. VISION 2020
Vision 2020 is the regional long-range growth and transportation strategy for the
central Puget Sound region. It was adopted in 1990 by the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC), a collective organization of the local jurisdictions in King, Kitsap,
Pierce and Snohomish counties. It was updated in 1993 to incorporate multicounty
planning policies in compliance with the Growth Management Act, to reflect current
countywide planning efforts and to establish an integrated regional vision. Vision 2020
provides the framework for countrywide planning policies and local comprehensive
planning efforts mandated by the Growth Management Act.
The Vision 2020 plan supports a new order of more compact, people-oriented living
and working places, thereby reversing trends that have created increased numbers of
low-density, auto-dependent communities. The vision is for diverse, economically
healthy, and environmentally sensitive communities that offer affordable housing for all
economic segments of the population and are connected and served by a high-
quality, efficient transportation system that emphasizes the movement of people rather
than automobiles.
The growth strategy of Vision 2020 identifies four types of central places toward which
growth will be directed. The City of Bremerton has declared its desire to be classified
as one of these centers: the "metropolitan center". Designation as a metropolitan
center will require Bremerton to commit to higher employment and residential
densities to support the regional rapid transit/passenger ferry system.
Vision 2020 calls for cities and counties to commit to both the land use patterns that
can achieve the compact centers concept and a reordering of transportation
investment priorities
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 10
The multicounty policies for Contiguous and Orderly Development and the Provision
of Services are intended to give first priority to the provision of services and facilities in
areas where growth is to be directed. They include:
RF-3 Phase development of public facilities and services to achieve the
adopted regional vision.
RC-1 Coordinate regional facilities planning, financing and phasing in a
manner which supports land use plans and the adopted regional vision.
RC-2 Ensure that the type and level of services accommodate the adopted
regional growth forecasts while supporting land use policies and the
adopted regional vision.
RC-3 Give high priority to protecting and enhancing the natural environment
and the public health of residents when providing services and facilities.
RC-4 In coordinating growth management for urban development with natural
resource planning, promote urban development solutions that conserve
water, energy, and land resources and protect air quality.
RC-5 Integrate land use and transportation planning with healthy and human
services planning to promote service delivery at affordable costs.
C. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICIES
The Kitsap COL/nty-wide Planning Policy contains policies relating to the provision of
urban facilities and services, as listed below.
1. Urban Growth Areas
Provision of Urban Services: Based on an over-view of experience State-wide,
the Legislature concluded, "it is appropriate that urban services be provided by
cities." Based on our experience here in Kitsap County with the services
provided by the County, Fire Districts, Regional Library, Public Utility District,
Ports, Water and Sewer Districts, we have found that in some cases it is also
appropriate that urban services be provided by other entities in addition to
cities.
Citizens Should Decide: Urban governmental services should be provided by
the governmental entities that can, as determined by the affected residents,
provide those services in the most responsive manner at the lowest cost.
Citizens should also be given the opportunity to review whether the
consolidation of many of these services at a local or regional level might not
lead to even more cost-effective and responsive service.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 11
2. Capital Facilities.
The GMA requires counties and cities to coordinate the siting of county-wide and
state-wide capital facilities to mitigate potential adverse impacts from the location and
development of these facilities. The Washington State Office of Financial
Management is responsible for identifying and maintaining a list of essential state
public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years.
The County-wide Planning Policies includes policies for siting public capital facilities
that are of a county-wide or state-wide nature. The policies include the following
requirements:
C.1.a. The County and the cities shall inventory existing capital facilities and
identify needed facility expansion and construction.
C. 1.b. From local inventory and analysis the Kitsap Regional Planning Council
shall develop and maintain a list of public capital facilities needed to
serve Kitsap county as a whole. These include, but are not limited to,
solid and hazardous waste handling facilities and disposal sites, water
and wastewater treatment facilities, regional water supply intertie
facilities, regional education institutions, airports, local correctional
facilities, in-patient facilities including hospitals and those for substance
abuse and mental health, group homes and regional park and
recreation facilities.
C.2.a. When a public facility of a county-Wide or state-wide nature is proposed
in Kitsap County, the Kitsap Regional Planning Council shall appoint a
Facility Analysis and Site Evaluation Advisory Committee composed of
citizen members selected by the member jurisdictions to represent a
broad range of interest groups to evaluate proposed public facility
siting. [Minimum evaluation guidelines are included.]
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 12
......a.t.............G0Ars.....~f\J.D.......I?~tICI.ES........................................................................................................... ....
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).
A Capital Facilities Goal states the general intent of the plan. Intent statements and
policies provide guidelines and direction to achieve the City's Capital Facilities Goal and
direct future development of capital facilities and services.
,~~:~~~~r?:~~!ci:~~!e!~~~~~!~~i~~t~~&1!~t~~~~~!~~1~A!11jib::;
Intent statements consist of general discussion of issues and concerns that are
addressed more formally in policies. The statement of intent provides an overall
The Capital Facilities Plan addresses seven major policy areas:
. Adequate Public Facilities and Services
· Funding for Capital Facilities
. Programming for Capital Facilities
· Maintenance of Capital Facilities
· Economic Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
· Capital Facilities Location and Design
. Urban Growth Area
These seven policy areas have been approached from several directions. They must address
the necessary state, regional and county coordination, they must address the capital facilities
requirements of the Growth Management Act, and they must relate to other planning areas
such as land use, transportation and utilities. They must also carry forward the capital
improvement requirements of the City of Bremerton.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 13
A. .GOAL
In accordance with the community's desire for quality capital improvements, it is the
goal of the City of Bremerton to:
Provide high quality, well maintained physical systems and facilities that
serve the needs of the community, are available at the time of
development to serve new growth, and are equitably distributed.
B. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to provide adequate public facilities and
services for both existing and new development. These facilities and services will be
designed to meet the capital facility needs of the community and to support
Bremerton's land use and development policies.
The City recognizes that the provision of facilities and services is necessary in a
community to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community. Bremerton
intends to provide the facilities and services necessary to meet community needs.
These facilities and services are: potable water; sanitary sewer; storm-water
management; law enforcement; fire protection; emergency medical service; roads;
parks; and schools. Bremerton intends to provide these facilities and services
concurrent with development impacts or within a reasonable time of such impacts.
The City intends to monitor the level of service provided for such facilities and
services on a regular basis to ensure they are adequate and that appropriate levels of
capital resources are expended.
Bremerton also intends periodically to review and monitor other facilities and services
which play an important role in the quality of life for its citizens, and to make
expenditures as needed. These facilities include: municipal buildings and parking
facilities, port facilities, libraries; public assembly buildings. While these facilities are
needed and desired in a community, the services they provide are not directly tied to
existing population or growth. Level of service standards for such facilities are helpful
as a management tool, but do not necessarily indicate the adequacy of the service or
when additional capital investment is needed.
Bremerton intends to allow essential public facilities to locate within.the city as
appropriate. Certain types of the above-mentioned facilities are difficult to site
because of their nature, but are still essential to the city, county, region or state.
Many of these facilities are ones that serve an area or population larger than the city
itself. In siting such facilities, the surrounding land uses, land use compatibility, the
capital facility needs of the community and region, and financial considerations should
all be reviewed.
In the long term, approximately 20 years, Bremerton intends to achieve the level of
service standards set forth in the following table. (Table CF-1)
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 14
::>'I@~9fl1C~Pl~If'~9i,iiY~iv~i6.(~.&lpl~~~~~r~.~~ijriitltffl
i..9'~ija!~;hil~itj~}<..> ..... ..((,viigi$i~~i~irid~~~...ttos)\i.'.'. .......;
Emergency Medical Services 4.0 minute response time for BLS
8.0 minute response time for ALS
Fire 5.0 minute response time
Law Enforcement 280 sq.ft. per officer - 0.0143 officers per capita)
Parks - Local 1.7 acres per 1,000 persons - 0.0017 acres per
capita)
Parks - Regional 13.9 acres per 1,000 persons - 0.0139 acres per
capita
Parks - Open Space 1.4 acres per 1,000 persons - 0.0014 acres per
capita
Sanitary Sewer 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
Storm Water Management year, hour design storm *
Schools - Elementary (K-5th) nla
Schools - Middle (6th-8th) 1 school per 1,000 students
Schools - High (9th-12th) 1 school per 1,250 students
Streets - Wheaton Way /Warren Ave. Corridor LOS F with volumelcapacity (v Ic) ratio threshold
of 1.06
Streets - Kitsap Way Corridor & Manette Bridge LOS E or better (vlc less than or equal to 1.00)
Streets - Other Arterials LOS D or better (vlc less than or equal to 0.9)
Water 100 GPCD (gallons per capitar per day)
* NOTE: The City is in the process of developing a Stormwater Management Plan. A Stormwater
Management LOS will be established after the City adopts the Stormwater Management
Plan.
However, the City may establish other levels of service in the interim. When
designating level of service standards, Bremerton will consider the public health and
safety, community goals and desires, funding resources available and possible
phasing of standards to achieve the desired level of service. Because adopted level
of service standards affect the amount of growth and development, the quality of
public facilities and services, and the amount of taxes and impact fees, the City will
establish reasonable standards that allow orderly growth and development and that
are within the City's financial capacity.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 15
Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
1. Public Facilities: Maintain level of service standards for each type of public
facility and provide capital improvements needed to achieve and maintain the
standards for existing and future populations.
2. Concurrency: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development will be adequate to serve the development at the time
the development is available for occupancy or use, or within a reasonable time
as approved by the City, without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards.
3. Concurrent Provision of Services: Approve development only if adequate
public facilities or services needed to serve the development are available at
the time the demand for the facility or service is created or within a reasonable
time as approved by the City.
4. Level of Service: Require new development to maintain the adopted level of
service standard for any needed public facility or service. A development will
have the option to pay the development's share of the cost to maintain the
adopted LOS.
5. Service Levels and Costs: Continue to develop and maintain City services that
ensure optimum service levels at reasonable costs to both existing and newly
annexed areas.
6. Needs for Annexation Areas: Anticipate utility and other public service needs
of possible future annexation areas through long-range planning, and when
feasible develop utility capacities to meet these needs.
7. Growth Rate: Foster orderly, desirable growth in appropriate locations at a rate
consistent with citizen desires and the provision of adequate services and
facilities.
8. Concentrated Development: Promote the development of compact
concentrated areas throughout the urban area to discourage sprawl, facilitate
economical and efficient provision of utilities, public facilities and services, and
expand transportation options to the public.
9. Sanitary Sewer Service Area: Extend the sanitary sewer service area only if the
new area pays the costs of added capacity.
10. Regional Sewer Service: Encourage the formation of a regional METRO utility
to provide sanitary sewer service to the Bremerton-Silverdale Urban Growth
Area over the long term.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 16
11. Adopted LOS Standards: The City will use the LOS standards listed in Table
CF-1 in reviewing the impacts of new development and redevelopment upon
public facility provision.
12. Concurrency Management System: Subsequent to the adoption of the
comprehensive plan, the City and/or developers will provide for the availability
of public facilities and services needed to support development concurrent with
the impacts of such development. The following facilities shall meet adopted
Level of Service standards and be consistent with the Concurrency
Management System: transportation, sewer, and water facilities. (See Element
K -lmDlementation. Consistencv and Concurrencv. Pg. 14, Section B., Policy
1)
13. Subsystem LOS Standards: Develop subsystem standards as needed to
measure separately how subsystems are performing.
13.a. Develop LOS subsystem park standards to determine whether specific
neighborhoods are well served.
14. Reassessment of Land Use Element -- Periodically reassess the Land Use
Element and other plan elements in light of the evolving capital facilities plan.
14.a. If the probable funding for capital facilities at any time is insufficient to
meet existing needs, the plan elements will be reassessed. The
process will include reassessment of:
i. the Land Use Element;
ii. projected funding capacities;
iii. levels of service.
14.b. Take appropriate action to ensure the internal consistency of the Land
Use and Capital Facilities elements as a result of such reassessment.
14.c. Pending applications for development will not be affected during such
time as reassessment is being undertaken unless an emergency is
declared by the City Council.
C. FUNDING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to provide funding for adequate public facilities
and services for existing development and new growth. Bremerton will review its
entire financial picture on a regular basis to ensure that knowledgeable and
appropriate expenditures are made to meet the capital facility needs of the
community. The City will review existing revenue sources and develop potential new
sources to fund capital facilities needed for new growth, community revitalization and
economic development, and for the maintenance of existing facilities. As new funding
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 17
sources are established, Bremerton will research those sources and assess the
feasibility of using them to fund capital facilities.
Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
1. Funding: Pursue all available funding sources for the development of capital
improvement projects in order to optimally use limited City resources.
2. Rehabilitation: Increase the tax base by encouraging and supporting the
rehabilitation and improvement of dilapidated and deteriorated areas of the
City.
D. PROGRAMMING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to coordinate the selecting and budgeting of all
capital projects and to review, update and modify capital projects on a regular basis in
order to ensure the provision of adequate publiC facilities and services. The City will
systematically review the community's capital facility needs and financial capacity, and
to help make appropriate and informed decisions regarding capital facility projects. In
reviewing capital facility needs, the needs of the county, region and state will also be
considered. This systematic review must be consistent and contain all identified
funded and unfunded capital projects.
The City has limited resources to allocate among the several capital facility planning
areas. By establishing the level of service standards for each of the capital facility
planning areas and adjusting the available revenues, the City establishes the relative
priorities among the types of facilities. Priorities also need to be considered and set
for different capital improvements or projects within any given type of facility or
service. These decisions will be made each time the City performs its capital facility
programming. In general, revenues should be allocated in accordance with the
following priority listing:
1. Repair, remodeling, renovation or replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities
that contribute to achieving or maintaining standards for established levels of
service.
2. New or expanded facilities that reduce -or eliminate deficiencies in levels of
service for existing demand.
3. New facilities and improvements to existing facilities that eliminate public
hazards not otherwise eliminated by facility improvements prioritized under 1 or
2 above.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 18
4. New or expanded facilities that provide the adopted levels of service for new
development and redevelopment during the next six fiscal years. If the
planned capacity of facilities is insufficient to serve all applicants for
development permits, the projects should be scheduled to serve development
in the following priority:
a. previously approved permits for redevelopment;
b. previously approved permits for new development;
c. new permits for redevelopment;
d. new permits for new development.
5. New facilities and improvements to existing facilities that significantly reduce
the operating cost of providing a service or facility or otherwise mitigate
impacts of facilitie.s on future operating budgets.
6. New facilities that exceed the adopted level of service standards for new
growth by either providing excess capacity that is needed beyond the next six
years or by providing higher quality facilities than usual city design
specifications for the facility.
7. When applicable: facilities not described by 1 through 6 above, but which the
City is obligated to complete by a written agreement executed prior to the
adoption of this plan.
Improvements that provide level of service standards beyond the adopted level may
be constructed. However, such improvements must not make improvements needed
to achieve or maintain the adopted level of service standard financially infeasible and
must be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element.
This review of capital projects and their funding should be performed at least annually
as part of the City's budget process (1) to ensure an ongoing review of capital needs
and (2) so that capital and operating budgets can be considered together. Allocations
for capital improvements have frequently been reduced or eliminated in times of fiscal
restraint because of operating costs. However capital improvements can no longer be
put on the back burner because of Bremerton's intent to provide adequate public
facilities and services to serve existing and new development and the Growth
Management Act's concurrency requirement.
In cases where actual revenue falls short of projected revenue, the City will review the
capital facilities programming effort and reassess the Land Use Element. These will
be adjusted to ensure that funding and needs are balanced by reducing the level of
service standard; increasing the use of another revenue source; decreasing the cost,
and therefore the quality, of the facility; decreasing the demand for the facility; or a
combination of these actions.
In the event that unexpected money becomes available through donations or grant
programs, the City may use such funds for capital improvements. Because all of the
projects in the Capital Facilities Program will already have a funding source, the City
will maintain a "Capital Improvement Priority Needs" list. This list will contain
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 19
unfunded capital improvement projects identified by the City Council, City
departments, citizens and other governmental agencies. The City will choose projects
for such unexpectedJunding from this Priority Needs list.
The capital facilities selection and budgeting process will require coordination among
City departments and other agencies which provide capital facilities and services, as
well as coordination with other jurisdictions on the regional level. Coordination will
also be required between the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. It is
especially important for the capital facilities element to be consistent with the land use,
transportation and utilities elements. The City intends to provide this necessary
coordination through the Capital Facilities Plan, the Capital Facilities Program, and the
use of joint planning.
Fiscal impacts is another issue concerning selection and budgeting of capital projects.
Bremerton intends to consider the fiscal impacts of major public projects or projects
involving the expansion of capacity or service areas when deciding what projects to
develop and budget.
Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
1. Needs Assessment: Annually evaluate existing public facilities and community
needs to determine necessary public improvements.
2. Plan Integration: Ensure that the Capital Improvement Program, the Annual
Capital Budget and all associated capital facilities documents are compatible
with the Growth Management Act.
3. Planning. Development and Coordination: Coordinate and cooperate with
federal, state, regional and local jurisdictions, private industry, businesses and
citizens in the planning and development of facilities affecting the community.
4. Uniformity of Regulations: Coordinate with the State, the puget Sound
Regional Council and Kitsap County in an effort to provide a set of
standardized codes and regulations relating to capital facilities and community
improvement.
5. Planning. Design and Development: Support and encourage efforts for the
cooperative planning, design and development of public facilities with other
government jurisdictions' and with the private sector to maximize efficiency,
reduce costs and minimize impacts on the environment.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 20
E. MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL FACiliTIES
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to maintain its capital facilities in order to
protect the public's investment in these facilities. One way to ensure such
maintenance is through a comprehensive maintenance program. Any comprehensive
maintenance program should contain an inventory of existing facilities including their
age, condition, extent of use, remaining useful life and maintenance history. This
complete assessment of existing capital items helps in determining future major
maintenance, repair and replacement needs, and is necessary to make good
investment decisions. In order to choose between maintenance, repair, replacement
or abandonment of an existing capital facility, it is necessary to know the condition
and the rate of deterioration and compare this with the costs and needs for a new
facility. Other advantages of routine preventative maintenance include the possible
reduction or postponement of replacement costs and the avoidance of unexpected
costs and emergency repairs.
The maintenance and replacement of existing capital improvements must be
considered first before planning for major investments in new facilities. The expected
use, demand and future growth of the city needs to be compared to see jf the current
capital facilities can meet the needs of the future. Bremerton intends to consider the
maintenance, rehabilitation or reuse of existing facilities as one way to meet the
capital needs of the population.
The City will consider requests for maintenance and repair of capital investments and
requests for new capital facilities concurrently, because maintenance or possible
upgrade of existing facilities may be a viable method of meeting the community's
needs. Evaluating both maintenance needs and requests for new facilities at the
same time gives the City the entire capital needs picture. All the necessary
information to make selection and expenditure decisions will be available, and
decision makers can determine whether existing facilities can meet the community's
capital needs or whether new facilities will be necessary.
Finally, the City intends to consider the future maintenance and repair costs of new
capital items when making selection and expenditure decisions on new capital
facilities. It may be that a change in design or materials could result in future
maintenance savings. If the City cannot pay for subsequent operating and
maintenance costs of a facility, that facility should not be provided.
Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
1. Operational Efficiency: Encourage the development of capital improvement
projects which improve the city's operational efficiency or reduce costs by
increasing the capacity, use, and/or life expectancy of existing facilities.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 21
2. Cost/Benefit: Carefully evaluate potential benefits to be gained by the
development of proposed capital facilities with the City's ability to operate and
maintain such facilities.
3. Infrastructure: Develop and use programs to improve and maintain the
physical infrastructure of the City.
4. Rehabilitation and Renovation: Encourage the maintenance, rehabilitation, and
renovation of existing community facilities in order to maintain a high level of
quality service and to prevent the deterioration of facilities.
5. Adaptive Reuse of Existing Facilities: Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing
buildings as community facilities in recognition of scarce resources.
F. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to strategically use public funds to assist and
encourage private investment and development that will foster economic diversity and
viability and preserve quality neighborhoods. The City intends to allocate resources to
strengthen the economic base, diversify industrial and commercial enterprises,
increase employment opportunities, increase the income level of residents, and
enhance and revitalize its neighborhoods.
Economic development and neighborhood revitalization are both vital to a
community's health and well-being, and they are directly related to the quality of life of
the community's citizens. Capital improvements are one of the most direct ways that
officials can influence the development of our city and its neighborhoods. It is
perhaps the best method of transforming plans into reality. Therefore, linking
economic development with capital facilities planning is essential. Providing quality .
infrastructure is also crucial to a community's economic development and its
neighborhood quality. As funds for capital expenditures become increasingly scarce,
the City will be trying to achieve maximum leverage from its public investment.
Most of the city's infrastructure is in place and its capacities established. However,
the quality and type of infrastructure available is an important factor in a business's
decision on where to locate originally and on whether to expand at an existing
location or to move. It is also important to residents and potential residents. Because
a deteriorating infrastructure may well be an economic deterrent, it is desirable for the
City to maintain its facilities to both attract and retain private enterprise and residents.
Therefore, Bremerton intends to emphasize the role that infrastructure and capital
facilities play in the development of the city and the quality of its neighborhoods.
> Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 22
1. Economic Improvements: Stress projects which stimulate the economy by
. expanding employment opportunities, by strengthening the tax base or by
encouraging private investment opportunities.
2. Improved City Image: Stress the development of capital improvement projects
that promote tourism and convention trade.
3. Neighborhood Revitalization: Encourage capital improvements in areas in
need of neighborhood revitalization.
4. Conservation. Preservation. and Revitilization: Emphasize capital improvement
projects which promote the conservation, preservation or revitalization of
commercial, industrial, and residential areas of the city.
5. Business Community: Initiate and encourage initiation of programs to improve
and maintain the physical environment of the business community.
6. . Business Opportunities: Improve opportunities for new businesses and
commercial developments to locate in a well-balanced system of competitive
centers.
7. Services According to Area Needs: Recognize that the needs for public safety
services may vary with the characteristics of the different neighborhoods and
their residents, and provide services to neighborhoods at a level
commensurate with the needs of each.
G. CAPITAL FACILITIES LOCATION AND DESIGN
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to provide public facilities and services that are
equitably distributed throughout the community; that are located and designed to be
safe and convenient to the people they serve; that provide flexibility of use and
maximum efficiency; and that are compatible with adjacent uses and the environment.
Siting of future facilities will become increasingly difficult as the available supply of
land diminishes, and because in some cases public reaction to siting choices may be
negative. The Growth Management Act requires local comprehensive plans to include
a process for identifying and siting "essential public facilities" --.those facilities that are
typically difficult to site. The Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies include a process
and review criteria for the siting of facilities that are of a county-wide or state-wide
nature. Bremerton will coordinate with other jurisdictions in the region to site essential
capital facilities and will not exclude such facilities from its jurisdiction. The City will
also work with surrounding jurisdictions to identify lands useful for public purposes,
some of which would be appropriate for capital facilities.
Because capital facilities may serve the community for long periods and become a
part of the community, their design is important. The City intends to consider
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 23
aesthetics in the design of all public facilities subject to public view. Facilities should
be located and designed to create a minimum disturbance to the aesthetics, social
interactions and urban design of the community. Public projects should provide for
public access and should include elements for public use and enjoyment such as
landscaping, furniture, art and lighting, where appropriate. Landscaping should be
provided to beautify and screen areas and to improve compatibility with adjacent
development. Landscaping should be designed to provide variety similar to that
observed in the neighborhood with special consideration for drought tolerant plants to
conserve water and help ensure plant survival. Naturally occurring land forms and
ecosystems should be protected and enhanced where possible. Parking lots for
public facilities should be limited in area and visual impact.
Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
1. Siting of Facilities: Consider land use compatibility, capital facility needs, and
financial costs when siting essential public facilities.
2. Public Building Sites: Encourage the acquisition of building sites for public
and quasi-public purposes to be of sufficient size to meet future as well as
present needs.
3. Location and Design: Encourage community facilities to be located and
designed to obtain maximum flexibility, utility and multiple use.
4. Convenience. Safety and Access: Locate community facilities so as to be
convenient, safe, and close to the areas they serve, with access to arterial
streets and public transportation.
5. Design Function and Maintenance: Encourage the design of community
facility sites and structures in a manner which permits their intended functions
to be performed safely, efficiently and effectively, and which minimizes ongoing
maintenance costs.
6. Established Facilities: Permit expansion of established community facilities to
allow for their continued usefulness, where appropriate, provided the
neighborhood and area are not detrimentally affected.
7. Energy Conservation: Stress projects which are energy efficient or enhance
energy conservation efforts by the City and its residents.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 24
H. URBAN GROWTH AREA
Intent
It is the intent of the City of Bremerton to become the primary provider of capital
facilities and services within logical service areas in its Urban Growth Area (UGA) over
time.
Bremerton's urban growth area is to be an area surrounding the city that is
characterized by urban growth. The adopted Urban Growth Area (UGA) extends
roughly from the Bremerton Watershed to Silverdale.1 The Growth Management Act
states that "it is appropriate that urban government services be provided by cities".
The Kitsap County-wide Planning Policy states that "in some cases it is also
appropriate that urban services be provided by other entities in addition to
cities...Urban governmental services should be provided by the governmental entities
that can, as determined by the affected residents, provide those services in the most
responsive manner at the lowest cost. Citizens should also be given the opportunity
to review whether the consolidation of many of these services at a local or regional
level might not lead to even more cost-effective and responsive service".
At present Bremerton provides water and sewer services in portions of the urban
growth area outside the city. While the Bremerton Water Utility service area covers a
large part of the adjacent UGA, the Sewer Utility service area extends only slightly
beyond the city limits. These service areas are dependent upon facility capacity and
upon drainage basin locations. When providing facilities and services, Bremerton
provides the same level of service (LOS) standard in the urban growth area as it
provides within the City limits. The City encourages other service providers within
Bremerton's urban growth area to provide the same LOS standards that the City
provides. For those facilities and services provided by the city in its urban growth
area, Bremerton also performs the capital facility planning and programming through
this CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT.
The City intends to jointly plan the provision of capital facilities and services for its
urban growth area with Kitsap County, other jurisdictions and service providers. Such
joint planning may be accomplished through the use of interlocal agreements, or
"Urban Growth Management Agreements (UGMAs)". At the time of joint planning,
Bremerton intends to review the capital facilities in the joint planning area, the level of
service standards being provided, and any deficiencies or needed capital
improvements.
The City will work with the service providers and other jurisdictions to develop a
service provision transition plan, as appropriate. Such plan should identify capital
facilities and services to be included, and cover establishment of level of service
measurement methods; goal level of service standards with target dates to phase in
an increased level of service; and target dates to phase the transition of service from
1See related discussion in Land Use Element, Section D. Urban Growth Area Management.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 25
one provider to another. After annexation, Bremerton will strive to achieve the same
level of service standard in its urban growth area as it provides within the city.
Policies
The following policies are intended to assist in achieving the City's Capital Facilities
Goal.
1. Provision of Urban Services:
The City of Bremerton should be the primary provider of urban services within
its designated urban growth area.
2. Joint Planning: Coordinate planning with Kitsap County and other adjacent
jurisdictions for land use development, transportation, and services within
urban growth areas to ensure that development is orderly, compatible and
sufficiently served, and consistent with City plans.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 26
.)ll.liEijrt;k~~rili;sN....B+bXffEi'SI>E..........Ct....."... . <....).
1;.>oorrtllili.,v..'~'.J~'.luq I ~..I... ..P. . .Q). .. ..... .
The objectives for the provision of capital facilities and services that are outlined in the Capital
Facilities Plan cannot be achieved through goals and policies alone. Goals and policies
provide ongoing guidance, but action to achieve objectives can only be addressed through
strategies.
... ..... .... . .. . ..... ....... ..... . _,... n. .... . .
.. n.. . n.. n.. . n. ..... ...... ... .... ........... ....... ..... .
........... ........ ..... .. ...... .. ...... ... . ....... .... ...... ...... ..... ..........
............ ............ ........ ...... .. ......... ... ................. .. ...... . .... ........ ...... ........... .........
.................... ................... .. ....... ............... ....... .n .... ..... ......... ......... ......... n.
0" .......".. . ........ . ...... . ........... .... ..... ......... . .... ...... ...... ..... ......... ...........
n' .... ....... . ........ . ..... . .. ... . ...... .... ........... ......... . ......
. . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . , . . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. .... . ... . . . . . .
................... ............ ......... ............ .......... .... ..... .... .... ..... ............. .............
..................... ............. ....... ..... ...... ............... ................ ............. .......... .... ...... ........
..... ........... ........... .............................. ................... .... ..... ............. ............... ..... .. ...... .. .....
. . ............. . ..... .................. ....... .... ............. .......... ........... ...................... ........... .... ...
. . . ......... ........ . ............ . ............ ..... ............ ........ ............. . ..........
... . ........ . ................ ................ .. ....... ....... .... ....... . ......... ........................ .........
.... ...... .. ............ ..... .......... ...... . .................. ... . ......... .................... ......... ...... . . ..... .
... ........... ......... . ................... .... ................. .... ..... ....... .... ..................... . ..... ..... . ....
.... ............. ............ . ................ .................. ...... . .......... .................... ......... ..........
.. . ...... ......... .. . ..... ............... ........... ....... ............ .............................. .......
f~11~l~;~~~lii~~'~~~\~~t~~mie.i~~91l~i;~~~b~~~~~~u
.......... ............ .......... ....... . ...... ........".. .. .. . ..... ... . ............"................
.........t. . t.....u.u............. .. ... ......u.u.u............... ..... U. u.u... . . .. .. . .uu . .u.
.... . ........ ......... .... .
/!l. ra ~gyt.....:..:.........:..:....................,.... ..
...... . ......... .
. The strategies range from general to specific and respond to
both immediate and long-term needs.
. ..... .., .... . ...... ..... ..-,. . ....... . . . .. ....
....... ....... .. ..... ".. .. ............ ... ... ....".."..... ...... ....... ......
... ....... . .. ......... ........... ... ....... . ..... ".......... ....
. . ......... ... ... .. .... ... ..... ..... .. . ... ....
. .. ....... . .......... .... . ........ ......... ..... ... ... ...
. .......... ...... ........... ..........-....... .....".. ....... . ""....... . ......
. . ........ . .... .... ........ ... ........ n' ........... ...... .. .. ..... ........ .
t.>e\$ome r~cgmmerlQiid...strategj~~Q1~'II'~quJr~....~n.~*p~pditl.Jre
.....::.........................~hTe~~r~~~~~~.~~~r~~~t~b~98~~~~~~~~~~t~~~t~~~~6th.;...:...:............
>\pf9c:edUf~$o(muH!9ipalregulan6hS;>u. .. u.U uu. u.
.. ... .... . ...." . . ..... -.. ". .
...... ". .....". .......".
. Strategies do not lend themselves to a listing by order of
priority. They are all important enough to be implemented
concurrently, although emphasis may be placed on one or
more specific recommendations at a particular time.
The Capital Facilities Program gives more specific direction regarding implementation. Over
time, individual strategies or activities will be implemented through the six-year program. At
that time, the specific strategy or activity will be developed into an objective, and further detail
in the form of tasks will be provided.
The relationship between the vision, goals, policies, strategies and activities of the Capital
Facilities Plan and Capital Facilities Program is shown in the following diagram.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 27
Vision
II
..... , .....
. _H , " . .....
... ". , . .
.....~R~G~~~.........
... . ... ... . ....
".n ......
n' . . .......
... __.
----- . ...----. ,
_... n. _..__ _.
"... ____n. "
...... .... .... .
, -- ........ .
__ . . ..._n__
. .. . ..... _n-
o .. _._____.
. ..... _n____..
.. .... ......
, .. ...........
, . ----.
Goals
Policies
Strategies
Activities
Objectives I
Tasks
The strategies are directed toward the seven policy areas: Adequate Public Facilities and
Services; Funding for Capital Facilities; Programming for Capital Facilities; Maintenance of
Capital Facilities; Economic Development and Neighborhood Revitalization; Capital Facilities
Location and Design, and Urban Growth Area. They are set forth below with any
accompanying activities.
A. ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Strategy #A-1:
Develop, implement and administer a concurrency
management system to ensure provision of adequate public
- facilities and services.
Activities:
1. Maintain and update an inventory of all facilities, including the condition and
capacity of the facilities.
2. Review and update level of service standards.
3. Regularly review capital facility needs and adjust the concurrency management
system as necessary.
B. FUNDING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
Strategy #8-1:
Continue to research and update available options to finance
capital facility projects, improvements and maintenance and
seek additional revenue sources.
Activities:
1. Review existing sources of revenue available for funding of capital facilities.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 28
2. Identify potential new sources of revenue for funding of capital facilities.
Include such sources in the Capital Facilities Program.
3. Establish an interdepartmental finance team to develop and explore different
financial options to be used in capital facilities management and development.
4. Promote amendments to state law to provide additional or greater sources of
revenue for capital facilities.
5. Identify ways to reduce the costs of capital facilities and improvements by
utilizing new materials and technologies.
Strategy #8-2:
Establish a process to determine priorities for capital
investment.
1. Use the interdepartmental finance team to assist in establishing such a
process.
2. Define the scope and range of capital investments.
3. Review potential factors to use for determining priorities.
4. Establish capital facilities investment priorities.
C. PROGRAMMING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
Strategy #C-1:
Establish and use a process to review and determine the
selection and budgeting of all capital projects.
Activities:
1. Review and update all components of such process at least biennially,
including facility inventory, level of service standards, capital facility needs, and
financial capacity analysis.
2. Develop a project tracking system to monitor capital project development and
expenditure of funds on individual capital projects.
3. Develop a financial management system to monitor the expenditure of all
capital facility resources. Use the interdepartmental finance team to assist in
development of such system.
4. Develop procedures concerning analysis of fiscal impact of projects, including
the detail of analysis required and when it is required.
5. Establish a capital facilities technical team to coordinate planning between City
departments, outside agencies and special districts.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 29
6. Monitor the effect of capital expenditures on the Land Use Plan's growth and
development concepts.
Strategy #C-2:
Evaluate various methods of balancing proposed capital
projects and funding including lowering level of service
standards, increasing revenue, reducing demand and
creating service areas.
D. MAINTENANCE OF CAPITAL FACILlTIIES
Strategy #~ 1:
Research and prioritize various maintenance approaches.
Activities:
1. Identify maintenance options.
2. Prepare a cost/benefit analysis of the maintenance approaches.
3. Identify the consequences of deferred maintenance.
E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
Strategy #E-1:
Strengthen the link between capital facilities and services
planning and economic development planning.
Activities:
1. Address capital facility and infrastructure needs in the special area plans
recommended in the Land Use Element.
2. Address capital facility and infrastructure needs in economic development
plans.
3. Develop a process to identify and fund infrastructure improvements needed to
. meet the economic development goals of the City. Involve the business
community in these efforts.
4. Explore options to maximize the economic development and neighborhood
revitalization impacts of capital facility improvements and expenditures.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 30
F. CAPITAL FACILITIES LOCATION AND DESIGN
Strategy #F-1:
Review the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to ensure
adequate provisions to site essential public facilities and
county-wide and state-wide facilities are included, as
required by the Growth Management Act and the County-~
wide Planning Policies. Amend the code as necessary.
G. URBAN GROWTH AREA
Strategy #G-1:
Conduct joint planning with Kitsap County and other
jurisdictions within the county.
Activities:
1. Coordinate with Kitsap County and other jurisdictions on the implementation of
the County-wide Planning Policies.
2. Use interlocal agreements to resolve urban growth area issues.
3. Coordinate with Kitsap County and other jurisdictions on the identification of
lands for publiC purposes including prioritizing the need for such lands.
4. LOS Consistency: Coordinate LOS standards with neighboring jurisdictions as
needed to assure consistency.
Strategy #G-2:
Continue participation on all state, regional and local
planning bodies necessary to achieve coordination of growth
management goals and policies.
H. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SUMMARY
The following matrix summarizes the key recommended strategies and illustrates the
implementation responsibilities of various City departments. These responsibilities
generally tie into the following areas: legislative, administrative, regulatory, policy
development, planning programmatic, and study.
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 31
......,. .. ...,... ........ ... ........,. . ... . """"", .. , . .,
...., . ..... ,- ........... ........ ................. ..... ...... .. .... ..".,. ..... .... ... ,.. ...... . .... ... ""..
. . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . .. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . ........ . . . . . . . . .... . .. . .. . .. .... . . . .. .. . . .. ....
'. ...... .. ........... .. ...... ... ................. ....... ..... ... ."... .... n...... .. ..... ..... ... '. ........ ..... .. .....
.... ',. .......... ................. ........ ................... ..,........................... ," ........", '.. ........ ", . ............... .............. ..... ......... ..... "' ......... ..... ............... ............ ..... ...........
.. .,., ",'>",',','...>.. ., ."','."',,',.,',.. ,. '.., """'."'..'."',',.. ."""".""'""""'." .b.. ':C. . r= 2. Ca. "t.. ....I""F. "I"t" ,...>..> PI."'>...<.I ..,. ..1 . .... ...., .t.. t.'.... St. t'"'.......... S..... ... ."'<",,", .
Y(t~> ~\",[.. . .pl CliO. .8ell le$ Ci" rlJP eme,n 81.on, ra egles ummary>
Concurrency
Management
Financial Management
Options
Prioritize Capital
Investment
Capital Facilities
Programming
Balance Projects &
Funding
Prioritize Maintenance
Options
Maintenance Schedule
. ........ ... .., . ,.". ....,. . .. ..... . ,... . . ,. . .. .. ......,..... .. '''''..
. ........... ....... ..... . . .... .. ..., ................. .... .. ...... '. .... ........ ...... ,,,... ........... ..... ..... ..... .....
. . ........ ...... . . ..... ....... ...., n. ,,,.. .... .... ..... ......... '''. .... ... .....,... . ..... .. . ....... .... ..... no ..... .... ........
..... ........... . ..... ..... ...... . ........ .. ..... ..... . .".... . ....... . ,... .......... '. ........ ........ ..... ....... .,.. ...... ....
..... ......... ...... . ..... . ...... .... ,.............. ... .............. ., ...,. .. ......., ..., .....n.. ........ ... ..... .,
u.f"Q~#latj~!L .f ~ijmjnj#t~tlv. ii()R~#i"t9.y . . ............ ~9UcY). . .)~l~nnj~ij.i ./~rPg~aipmatj~f ... ....~'#dy \
u i..? Development.. ... ..... .
TREASURER
DCD-LRP
UTILITIES
PUBWORKS
PARKS
TREASURER
DCD-LRP
UTILITIES
PUBWORKS
PARKS
PUBWORKS
UTILITIES
PARKS
PUBWORKS
UTILITIES
PARKS
DCD-LRP
DCD-BLDG
UTILITIES
PUBWORKS
ATTORNEY
TREASURER
Capital Facilities Plan -- Page 32
TREASURER
DCD-LRP
UTILITIES
PUBWORKS
PARKS,
TREASURER
DCD-LRP
PUBWORKS
UTILITIES
PARKS
PUBWORKS
UTILITIES
PARKS
TREASURER
DCD-LRP
TREASURER
DCD-LRP
PUBWORKS
UTILITIES
PARKS
DCD
r}.l/.........~n ...,."... gF..2&Jpjt~'fjCiliti~SPI~ri.riip!ihlJr1t~ti~riStr~l~gies~orbm~rYn. ...
, .i> .. Tilb.e ..
.. .. . .... ... ..... 0... . . '. .. .. .' ". n. ...'".,' ,. '...,.".,."..,..... .. .......... . n. .... .. , .. . n. ....
.... ......-...,................... ,............ . ..... .... .... . d..... . ....... ....... ........ .. n. ... "' ..n . n.. ..... ....
",. ............ ....... .".... .... . . . d. ...... . ......... .... ... .......... .... .... . ... .. ........ .... ......n .....
., ... ....... ... .. - . ....... ..... ......... " .. n... . ...... ....... ...... ..... ........ ..........~~nr.
. .... ......."... -,-. -. . ." n. n. ...... .... .... o . .... .. ...... .... .. .... . ....... ... ..... ..... .. .... .....n ..........
{nri...:...~..~'~i#!/ ,#~gi~!afjv~ ...Adi'1:1inj~~tiv. R~#lat~ij.'.... ............ . .... . .........'pr~ijn!#Q .........'f':rogfinuT,~lp
.'..'.'...p..'Tn,.. ....",.. ,
....... ..
.. ...... ........ .. ..... .. .. .... ,.,}:,.....9.l.cY:.,..,...,,'..,.. "' ..... , .... ..... {n,.
Deveiopment .. ... .... . ....
Link with Economic DCD-LRP DCD-LRP
Development DCD-CS DCD-CS
Review Zoning Ord. DCD-LRP
Requirements DCD-BLDG
ATTORNEY
Joint Planning DCD-LRP
PUBWORKS
UTILITIES
PARKS
ATTORNEY
Coordination DCD-LRP
Departments:
ATTORNEY
City Attorney
TREASURER
City Treasurer
DCD-LRP
Department of Community Development - Long-range Planning
DCD-CS
Department of Community Development - Community Services
DeD-BLDG
Department of Community Development - Building
PUBWORKS
Public Works Department
ENGINEERG
Public Works Department - Engineering
UTILITIES
Public Works Department - Utilities
PARKS
Department of Parks & Recreation
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 33
. . .
Capital Facilities Plan - Page 34
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
CAPITAL FACILITIES
ELEMENT
Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: AprilS, 1995
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT H
CAPITAL FACiliTIES
CONTENTS
Part 1 of 2: Capital Facilities Plan
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. PLANNING FRAMEWORK .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
3. GOALS AND POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
4. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
. . .
Part 2 of 2: Capital Facilities Program
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. CAPITAL FACILITIES PROGRAM (CFP) ......................... 8
A. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ............. 10
B. LAW ENFORCEMENT ............................... 19
C. PARKS .......................................... 28
D. SANITARY SEWER ................................. 40
E. SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
F. STORMWATER .................................... 61
G. TRANSPORTATION ................................. 66
H. WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table
Page
SC-7 Six-year Funding and Projects: Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
SC-8 Capacity Balance Sheet: Elementary Schools ........................... 58
SC-9 Capacity Balance Sheet: Middle Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
SW-1 Inventory of Capital Facilities: Storm Water Holding Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
SW-2 Major Flood control Capital Improvement Projects and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 63
SW-3 Stormwater Facilities Small Project List ............................... 63
SW-4 Six-year Funding and Projects: Storm Water Management ................. 64
TR-1 Inventory -- Transportation Facilities .;........................... ~ . . . 66
TR-2 Existing Level of Service -- Transportation ............................. 67
TR-3 Six-year Funding and Projects -- Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
WA-1 Inventory of Capital Facilities: Water Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
WA-2 Existing and Potential Water Supply ................................. 75
WA-3 Future Need: Water ............................................. 75
WA-4 Six-year Funding and Projects: Water ................................ 78
WA-5 Capacity Balance Sheet: Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
LIST Of FIGURES
Figure
Page
CF-1 Capital Facilities Element Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
CF-2 Location of Police and Fire Facilities .................................. 19
CF-3 Bremerton Park Facilities .......................................... 39
CF-4 Bremerton Wastewater System Service Area ............................ 50
CF-5 Bremerton School District .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
CF-6 Bremerton Stormwater Drainage Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
CF-7 Bremerton Arterial System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
CF-8 Water Plan Service Area ........................................... 82
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT H
CAPITAL FACiliTIES
Part 2 of 2 -- Capital Facilities Program (CFP)
>i.....i@.....>}>..€)\H@(<.n...><)..>nn..>.....<..<\.
;<f....n . ..I'dTD ..n D1>1 nnTI ... N..nnn. .... ... .. .n. .
". ~)J~~~~~~?:.;:~:: .l~::.l~::n ';:~'.'.......' ....::~. . ::: ,'::J..:. "...:::~.;.;.;... . . ::::F:,:.:.,: .: :::.::<:': :.- ::.:>...;;.;.: ;.....: .
This Capital Facilities Program (CFP) document is the first of two documents that make up
the CAPITAL FACILITIES 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 Facilities 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 OF CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
The CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT is organized into two documents, which contain
the following sections:
. PART 1- CAPffAL FACIURES PLAN
1. INTRODUCTION -- Includes authority, overview, description,
background, GMA requirements, scope, purpose and intent, and
development and amendment process.
2. PLANNING FRAMEWORK -- Lists applicable GMA goals and
regional policies with which the CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT
must be consistent.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 1
3. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN -- A long-range policy plan
containing guidelines for capital improvements.
· PART 11- CAPITAL FACIUT/ES PROGRAM (CFPJ
1. INTRODUCTION -- Includes authority, overview, description,
background, GMA requirements, scope, purpose and intent, and
development and amendment process.
2. 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, g"oals 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 2
Relationship Among Capital Facilities Element's Policy
Plan, Capital Facilities Program, and City Budget
April
through
July:
Policy Plans
Land U. Plan
Programs
......
Capital
FadllUes
Plan
UtIIWes
Plan
.ADol,m
. Loco1/ Rep:ml
. 0001. a: PalIc1a
.1mpI
Agencies'
Capital
Improvement
Programs
. Inventories
. Service Level
. Capacity
. PUDding
. ConcurreDC)'
. Surplus I DcficiU
. Capital Budgeting
Itao6a
P8b
W"""
~
Scwa
$cbOOII
,......
J.jbra1
Pae / BloIS
Pal'"
. .... ...
':~:::::{::::~::::::\::}r::::I.: ..::::".:::. :.""
Budget ~
Capital I
Budget "t
Project
Revenues &
Expenditures
)
sr-;.,
Oaa
T~
w_
~
~uon
lloada
Tr-m
. Uad u.. a:
TnIIIJICl'lIIIal
. MII1~
. I'.miraaaIaIl
. PImdilIc
Capital
Facilities
Program
Summary
City's
Operating
Budget
. Salaries
. Malntainence
. Operation
. Capital Outlay
Figure CFP-1 Capital Facilities Element Timeline
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 3
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 ~acilities 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 Plan and other adopted City plans and programs. The
CIP only covers City of Bremerton programs.
· Annual Budget - The C.ity'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 Capital 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,
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 4
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.
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 FACIUTlES 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: city
administration; fire and police protection; 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-3 (page -> lists types, descriptions and providers of capital facilities
specifically addressed by the 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 1995 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 5
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 mayor may not include such things as 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.
. Coordinate and provide consistency among City plans for public
facilities, including transportation and utilities, and capital facilities plans
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 6
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 reviewed at least biennially concerning its
content. 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.
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 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) -,. Page 7
H .... . ........,....., .. ...... . . ." . ....., .... ...
.... ..... .. ..... ... ........ ..... .. ...... .......... .... . ..
... . ......... ......... ...... ............. . . .... ...... ....... ...., .. .
.... ... .. ,.. . . .............. ..... .. ........... ". . ...... ... ....... .... ...... ..
..... ...... . .... ...... . ... ................. ... ........ . ........ ........,. ..... ..
. ........... .. .....-........ .. .......... ,.., ............... ..... ..... ....... ....... ..
.2~CAeIIAJ.i<FAClgITIESF{ROG~M><(CFflr .
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 from 1995 to 2000.
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.
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
. Future Needs
· Levels of Service
. Need for Facility Capital Improvements
· Plans of Other Providers .
· Priorities for Capital Improvements
. Planned Capital Improvement Projects
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 8
'i:::iliiI;:::jm!!~.i'!i!~~ltaI:!;~lf~1r~Ilrlil'!~1iI~~II;;,:i!;l!iilA"""...
......... ....,..... ........ ..... ....., ......
,;,;,;,:,;,:,"::,",;,;,:,;';';'.:: ..;.;.....;...;.......;.....:.
f'.191!ltYTypip~~yi~!i. .
Fire and
Emergency .
Services
Law
Enforcement
Parks
Streets
Sanitary Sewer
Schools
Storm Water
Management
Water
City of
Bremerton Fire
Dept.
City of
Bremerton
Police Dept.
City of
Bremerton
Parks &
Recreation
Dept.
City of
Bremerton
Dept. of Public
Works &
Utilities
Bremerton
Municipal
Wastewater
Utility
Bremerton
School District
Bremerton
Municipal
Stormwater
Utility
Bremerton
Municipal
Water Utility
Provides facilities that support the provision
of fire and emergency services.
Provides facilities that support the provision
of law enforcement services.
Provides facilities for passive and active
recreational activities.
Provides streets, sidewalks, traffic controls,
and street lighting.
Provides facilities used in collection,
transmission, storage, treatment or
discharge of waterborne waste within most
developed portions of city and some
surrounding unincorporated areas.
Provides elementary and secondary facilities
for instruction in the several branches of
learning and study required by the Basic
Education Code of the State of Washington.
Provides facilities that collect and transport
stormwater runoff.
. Provides supply of potable water from
system of surface water and wells. Service
area includes developed portions of city and
surrounding unincorporated areas. Utility
also contracts to provide water to additional
areas (Tracyton, Rocky Point, PSNS, and
Port of Bremerton airport and industrial
park.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 9
...}~pjjli~'ijt.~1~6{i)))
. Land Use Element
· Parks & Recreation
Comprehensive Plan
. Transportation Element
· Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program
(TIP)
. Utilities Element
. Draft 1992 Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan
. Bremerton School
District Capital Facilities
Plan: In Support of the
School Impact Fee
Program, July 1992
. Ord. 4454
· Water System
Comprehensive Plan
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-1)
1. 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-1)
" . ",' ....... ....'.. ," . . .... .." ,", .... ..,
-, . .. P. " .. n..' ...... _"... ...... ...... ".
. " . n... .. .... .. .. . ......... . ..... .......
. .............. ... ........... ..)) ................ ....TableEMl1i...... .......HiLH??.
..... ........ ... ...... . . ..... ..... ,-. . .... .,... ....
...... n.. n. ... _H' ... . ....... ....... ...... ..... .....
............ f.......... f.E..' f;....:.:.F ":.'lif ..........:..e .......... ..........Med. :."lS ......:.......... :...:.......
.. nven ory 0 . XIS m9 }1.9.1 les.~H mergency .......... . 1CCi./ ..eI)'.Ices.)
Medic #2
Medic #3
... ..'
Reserve' Units .
Medic #2-A
City-wide (replacement for #2 & #3)
Total Reserve Units =
Total Units=
3
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
concentration of convalescent centers and retirement homes near the
hospital, and an economy in which people may tend to call for EMS to
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 10
avoid the expense of a doctor. About half of the calls are inside the
city. The current response time is about 3.3 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 (LOS)
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
= 3.3 minutes for BLS and ALS
. Proposed LOS = 4.0 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)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 11
Time Period
.. ., . ...
n'" .. .. n' " ....... ..,
..... ..........., ........ .. ,
.... ...... ...... ....... . ....,
.. .................<). ............T.~~le EM..2...
.. ..rVientyYe~r NeEij;f:nEM$u.. .
Demand (Population)
... .....
$ix~!!llr
1994*
.. ...
..... ... .... . ,
... ..... ..... ., ..
....twentY~Vear..Ne~ct/. .
2000-2014 (new)
Total as of 2014 =
38,142
3,410
41 ,552
3
o
3
1995-2000 (new)
Total as of 2000 =
1994-2014 (new)
* 1994 Population per KCAP population forecast.
Source: Bremerton Fire Department, 11 /94
16,590
58,142
20,000
4
(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 20 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 12
c. Six-Year Financing Plan - EMS
(1) Six-Year Need
The total need for year 2000 is three EMS units -- two active units and
one reserve unit. Because the City currently has three units, no
additional units will be required to meet the City's need for the next six
years. However, three units will need to be replaced within that time.
(This includes one unit scheduled to be replaced in 1994, which will not
be available until 1995.)
(2) Six-year Funding and Proiects
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects and
non-capacity projects for the next six years. The last portion of the
chart reflects the balancing of funding sources and money expended on
projects. Any surplus or deficit is indicated. (Table EM-3)
. . . ........:.:::.:..;.;.;..:;...;';... :':-.< ".;. ....:>>..:..... ',. :...:::::.:.:::;:;.::;..;......... .::;.- ....:.:;.:'.:;......:-....:::;:;:;:;.. ....;.;...;' "'';'..;.'.:\:'
. ........./. i......TableEM;3./............./>i....\ ....i...
. ...u$i)(iyearfqo~lqg~rid~roleCt$7~M$,( ..<i. ..... ................... .
.. ..., .... .. . . ...
n. ..... ....,.. n.. ............ ....... . .. .......,.... .....
. . ..., ..... ... . ............... ...... . . . ... ............ .... ......
n ....,.. ... .......... ...... .. . ........... . . . ......... . ....... .......... . ..........
/<F@dingS8Jjicl~{i.. .....199~ ....<J996<H1997 .....(1~ ...i1999i}. 2@}..tr()l~if.".
General Fund/EMS Levy /ALS
Billings
95
o
95
o
o
95
285.0
TOTAL SOURCES
95.0
0.0
95.0
0.0
0.0
95.0
285.0
. ...... ......., ..
" ........ ....... .....
. ptojeei.<<)<.
EMS Unit Replacement
95.0
~Iandr
0.0
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Sources: Bremerton Fire Department, 12/20/94; City Treasurer, 2/95
(3) Operating Costs
The following chart reflects the six-year operating costs for the projects
listed in the Six-year Funding and projects chart above. (Table EM-4)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 13
THIS CHART MAY BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE TIME TO
DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF PARKS FACIUTlES:
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
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 tower jboat 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)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 14
li'iFg~~!~;;~.'I:;ili"i~,lf~I~':liif~~~=_i~ll~;ii~l.t;lJ-'Wlwm
n:~Jl*j.~y~#ffi~<
Fire Station No. 1
817 Pacific
15,346
Drill Tower/Boat House (to be demolished)
5005 Kitsap Way
3027 Olympus Drive
14th & Sheldon Boulevard
Total Buildings =
9,389
Max Meigs Fire Station No. 2
Ted Tillet Fire Station No.3
7,640
J,500
........." .., H'
....,... ". .....
~i~ Appttt8tu.(....
Fire Trucks
. ....--. ..... ...
. ...... 'n . ... .. .......
H..... .. .. ............. ...........
..n ...... ... no ......... .............
.. .... .... ... ............ . .. ......
. ......:.::.:.:<\.SeWi&iAre.<:/
".. .....
p' ... .. .....
Ladder #1
All of City Limits
Total Fire Trucks =
Fire Engines
Engine #1
Engine #1-A (Reserve)
Engine #2
Downtown Bremerton to Callow Avenue
Same as Engine #1
Callow Avenue to West Bremerton City
Limits
Engine #2-A (Reserve)
Engine #3
Engine #3-A (Reserve
Same as Engine #2
East Bremerton to City Limits
Same as Engine #3
Total Fire Engines =
6
Support Vehicles
.. .. ....
...... -. ... ..
......... .. ... . .
S~eCial~y V.hicle~n ...
Marine-20 Fireboat
Total Support Vehicles =
Total Fire Apparatus =
o
o
'"
7
Rescue One
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets
City-wide
Total =
2
'" In addition to the above, the Department has six support vehicles that will cost under $15,000 to replace, but
no support vehicles costing more than $35,000 are planned.
Source: Bremerton Fire Department, 10/94
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 15
b. Forecast of Future Needs - Fire Protection
(1) Existing Demand
The City has three fire stations and four active fire apparatus serving
about 38,000 persons -- approximately one station per 12,667 people,
and one fire apparatus unit per 9,500 people. The current response
time is about 4.7 minutes. The City has a Class 3 insurance rating
based on manpower, water supply, etc.
(2) Level of Service (LOS)
The need for fire protection facilities is a function of response time and
call volumes. These in turn are dependent on the number and location
of fire stations, the number of fire apparatus units, and the number of
firefighters available. Until the City's monitoring system can be further
quantified, fire facilities needs can be estimated by monitoring response
times.
. Current LOS
= 4.7 minutes response time.
. Proposed LOS = 5.0 minutes response time.
. (3) Future Demand
The projected population growth within the service area is for
approximately 3,410 new people by year 2000, and an additional 16,590
new people by 2014. (Table FP-2)
. ....... ....
., ,.. .. n...
'n " .... ......... ..
. ...n... ............
) ....)nriie · Perl()d ..
. .
. .. . H.,. .n.... .. . ".. '" ,
..>./<..)(.......... .. ... .... ......<Tabl~FPi2......i(<....... ../................... .
. .. . .. '" .. ." ....... .. . .n .." ....... ....,. .
. ................<............... .............<nn.fw;rHyXet1rNe~d:Fife lPr6ie~ionAppar~tu$ .
. ....... ......
. ... ...... .........
. .". n' .... .....
....$ix~Ve.rNeeC:.i\..
1994*
1995-2000 (new)
Total as of 2000 =
T~'~ty~viiaf.N.~~/ ./ .
2000-2014 (new)
Total as of 2014 =
1994-2014 (new)
16,590
58,142
20,000
4
7
4
* 1994 population per adopted KRPC population forecast. Source: Bremerton Fire Department, 10/94
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 16
(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) Buildings
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.
c. Six-Year Financing Plan - Fire Protection
(1) Six-Year Need
The total need for year 2000 is three fire apparatus. Because the City
currently has six fire apparatus, no additional fire apparatus will be
required to meet the City's need for the next six years. (Table FP-2)
(2) Six-year Funding and Projects
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects and
non-capacity projects for the next six years. The last portion of the
chart reflects the balancing of funding sources and money expended on
projects. Any surplus or deficit is indicated. (Table FP-3)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 17
General Fund
'1[[sl~~li.irF~ndr~g'1'~~b~~~~~#~~';i9il\CtiQ~j:i:<;'i':i:'i,:,'ii..'
H.199~....1996>< .1~...1~.. .1~>. .2000i<J-bt~f/
0.0
Bond Issue (1991)
Bond Issue (New)
260.0
260.0
0.0
..... Projects.
Fire Apparatus Replacement
0.0
Replace Training Facility
260.0
260.0
TOTAL COSTS
0.0
260.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
260.0
>Salance
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
(3) Operating Costs
The following chart reflects the six-year operating costs for the projects
listed in the Six-year Funding and projects chart above. (Table FP-4)
THIS CHART MAY BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE TIME TO
DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF PARKS FACILITIES:
.. ....
. . "......... . . .... .. . ...., ..
. .. .................. .> .... ..<. ...<.. ... <icibleFPi4i../ .\n ..\\ ?
. . ..SI)(;OyearOp$ratingCost.;Flr~PrQ1~ptjdp .><. ......
.. . , . ... .. .. . .",. .. .... ..... .... ......
' .... .., n.......... .... ...... . _, ..., ....... n. .......
., . ., ....... .... ..... ........ . .... n. ... n. ..... .... n. .... d' .... ...........
.... .. ...." .. ..... .......... ...... n...... ..... .......... ., ....... ......... .......
.... -,,, ........ ......... .......... .... n. ..... ........ ... .. d' ...... .... ......
.:::...:;~; -.:.::.. . : ..1~~.;:~~......,.::. . '::'\\\1998::}r/;:::: . <}:?)i99$f:/..: ::f. '>?~~;~i\::.2OQQ~:~:;~:: .r;:;: ::~{(.;i~f/t(ijar)j':::<;/:::::
NjA NjA NjA NjA NjA NjA NjA
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 18
; :!/
.r:~ --1J.~ 1.........~ifQ-rP-
~:;l; ~'lIl~1!J1';:;:\L;;". ..~~,..:..o. "" !/~~;~....~~0rP-O
r..~..... /'. ~ .. t ..-... J ~'.".. 1 00'" ....
z. ~J, !~: 't~: :'~ ~l(l, ~ I~I:,,' ~ IVLiI' .~' ~ ......~~..
n ~ I 'I iil. . .'iif . ~ . L i , ~ il I . . ! "0-.
I -".'- .. - " ''!$!:I! 'Im,i . ijL.ll..JL .1!U1'~'~ i! a....
- '..">--- :.Ji'" ~tJd~ "':"-=~' J' I fH -;--t,. .. _.....,~ :... . It ...
-'..---.-.. 111,':' 11 11~IP.'I':: .~' ;~'B ."~' II'; .. ~-:: ' , 1:1a I ,,*,-,\Z ......
- t - . " I ~ 1.,11 I ~ ".. . .
- ',.. .llWII'no. It' H".n. ~'! !.. I ~~~ ~ ~ -.. ~~:: __ -~ ~ ... ",
~'~ =---""~,,,,, .". 'jl!.. ';1 . - ., .'-' ...- '-'~f ! ,
-~M\r',,"";JII! lil'~:~I:;,U~i'~~~I-~j~'r; 1
~.... ll'.\r '_ I. 1!'."hi'n n::1 .-' .-' .. .......-'~~. '
, ,I ~l I ._: ,:-':..' 1'j'II'l. '. '"'. :'.' ~,~ V. .~ ~.,.o~ . ~ ./
~"'''. =~ : f!!!f-?.r; ~, · r>"" "'~:l i~ ....
. ifr:'~;j,.1 ~~~ l ~ I"~- -Ii. I r. - j I' f " ! ',I ,,111~. ~ _ ~ !l...::................
_.,...ID~~,.q:Md. f.i1-1.:k'~ ~." !~Jty(;.,~- l-a~~:' '.
! ~IJ ~ i""~ 1;. II I~I ! ~~ ':.... ':" /,; II, II H.'. .I~I ~ .
'.m J ....... h il\'i ~ -i1!l1Ifi W';,N.4"1 E ' if
~i )"11 .., : -""j;@ ;II~":. }.", -::::., ..'~_. 'I' "\'!/JL.-., +-".l..;." --~.. =y= -- :~ ;~.
.. 'l' '11f! IJ ' ,..." "" ,.,,",
.. J J J- ; J , ~ Q: .t,:;]1 'J. ~!. ~ JJ@!-": Vi ~.'
. ....,. -I' . ,- ,_.' . "f '.. = w_
Ii' 'I,r;- ~ J ill:' (.o[ . . "'-':. lit '~"~l, ,- . ~ '.. ';, " I ":::. ~
.~;'~~:I n1'" ~ Y I _ ~.", ...!!, ~ " ~~'=. hi'HJ :>; 111 ;ilh~f _ " '.. ~;, ~ ;1';: ~
~fo 7. 3 ~ ir.\ - If, .., ",., 2'< 'is/').- J :. - ';~ " . '. 1 'I'; '. ~ ~ =
~~'-1. '.... \ ~~"-I~ ir .~, 3 il:it-'~ t!:f !'l' j ~;~.;. ...! J j i D
..-. ..... .' '-n~ '~.~'l- ~.' -'- =-. .... :t ~ _
) ;1 ....~" ........ ~ ~ -"n ... ".
i r; ,. Ar ..- -" r- . e ;:po, .''''' U'!' . tf. ";~ t
,~ -'" . -'i I" N. 0
. . ;!".i. , /t, .. /:.,..Jl' .... '.-"""", .' ,. ;:! .
I -~1'.g :k i' ,I. .if'./ .....-.-,...... . ." -,c;;,!!I'! l""''''''''''''.xl- 1==
~ -:~!;;( -'\.:,-" j' ._,.p ~.o;,,\ /~ - jI.'-.-': ...:..:-: .:.'. :;..:.. ,.':: '.-: .:'~ <'1 ~
'., '~Io<-:o' k, /~ - ., . --.. .... .. "
grnJ,rl=f:~ rvr- ~.. r<>~< (~:.. ..~.'. ~;. ~ ....:.'rn:~a .:....-'ro=, ~.'::<.~ i!;~
'\ ~.., -......::;:-......'"'f~.--r: ., - =1-.'... :. "'-1' =!.
= ~ il t;'" .:.. '-:." --,<:'j -;::: I .. ~ i~
1J -.~'i~ I!r.. ~ ~ d~)r -' ~ ~ ~ J~;;:.! ~ .,,:.,\\ f!;!_.. ; '1' . ~~
. 1( r<-. .I,lJ-'l: ,'::,~ .-_. :'.::'~ /lj \\:"""""1," !.-
. .,' . -il ....::... ~. .~ ;,;j&I:2'''' ~ -, I' I.J~ I, .
,~ . _=1 if :I~ li~~'-' I - -':::= ~p; ~ " .. l!i "'. i\! h . II>. ,._:
---I~ . 'Ill h -'Y .-. J. . ~~ OIl;.
i':~~t i'...:J-,~ i~::.~ -~t" '-1 !'Ir~~.~..<'~~~ ; - --: ~ _d1:'ltl::::'~_: ,":. 1~:
';,T ~~"--v--"- 0:- "C:"~.~.2i- p' '-7.1.-- ...E:~'
~ o~.. /~ /"....~.
. !~ ~. ~: It....~;.. .b(......- -..........
.. .. <" ... ,..~ ~ '" E >- t ~ . (~ -j ~
:;; J. ."'==" I ~ --- 0 ~ '-- ;';'''jjl! . Ji 1, .~. !i
IH l' i II It- 'I'~ ~, ~",.a~J"~ 1 ,.....-~-;i*:...:.. _ ~ ......~JI
!i 2 = , " Ii i" . '. I,. ~i . II. ~ .
II: ; J ~ ~ ;: ~. . 01 ~ Ion to --;;: ,II! ~
^ =~-: ;i.' ~ .. l. A'T - ~..:<.. 1'.._' .-'.. I jl=" ~~w~""'~""'~
".F ,'II e"" '''~ 1-' I /I'
I(fI ~..i:.{ ::.. '\ .-: J I.' ;;;..~I.,~ .. -.. E \ I
OIL ~"- 'j,;iS,~'~'":,,,,,,, . ..,,p-niC11' ~ "fl~--':. ~.... -. -"d j .
· 1"'1, ! I . ""'~!:::';-:9 r ~ -':',~, r:' . .ij' _...w ~_'P. J -- I . t--... ..........., ./
, (j 1'.1" ",-., '\. ' . ....., r.. ., ....... '.,--.' .. ~ - ,
-..- 'd. ;0 :1 .;' - "::'~i1 :~ -L1 " ..~ t\' ~
II, i;ii~ ~';']~~1t~)Jr~..." 9. ,k~.!-" ;P" ' _~~ ~~~~~~,
. ,5 I . "---'" .... '-.' .........__....w. "', :':' "~" ~ iR -=-'J" ~
- J .'-."":", .-' , II k ..:.......~ $l
~ ~ ~:~ ~I~ i~!.'~ I! ,,:: ~Q':'~:~1.:v/ on ~ ..~ J-
U l-,,", , ]. .__.: 'p.,i"l.tY t. .~ .. ....R\ ~ I
I . 1'~\'\ 'J _. j ~ t . ,j 3 , ' , '._.../
.I! ~ I ~ ".~n!id:.-.\'-....... !\~ '. _l..__lj'..... ... ~ 3 , r 1 ...... J. ~.
~ -r::;;;; J~ L - ~" /j IS ." 1I1l1..~ -J } ~ "
~ ~-----1"~/../}tr J1' '.~....- ~ ~~I-:'~"-" ,~AiF . ..~.;.,,! : IJ;J ~,
I ,1\ ~ XJ.iJ~ ~,... J -~. _I.~ .lara.no. wn' I~ l---'
. ....,..,,,,,,,.......,,,, "1/il;.... //..",; -..~..,."..,....,
~
C/J
CI)
(J) :e
CI) '0
:e tf
'0
tf ~
CI) w
.2 .........
o ~
a. u:
~a II
~
~
'\..
'\,
.,.
....,~,
'\=J;
".
==-
~
1==
~
...
I>l
~
~
~
Figure CF-2 Location of Police and Fire Department Facilities
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 19
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 Annual Budget but not in the Capital Facilities Element.)
The Police Department is currently spread out over three facilities in three different
locations. Administrative functions are concentrated in City Hall, convenient to the
Municipal Court. 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-1) (The City currently contracts with Kitsap
County for jail services.) (Table LE-1)
..".." , ."
". . "'"'' .
.. .. . ......."...".. .
.. . ...<FaClIItY'Name ..
"",,,,,.. " ""
. " "." ....'.',' 0,
r. ..... Loeatt6n< ........
239 4th Street
.. . . .
., n. .. n. . .. " . . .
"'" . ..... .... . . . - ,,,. .
..." .. ..... . n. . '." ",.""
.........., .. "..... . . .. ... . .. ... . .. .
. .............. . ..... . .... ....... ... . ~ ".Ib.. LE".1. ...... . . . ..
. .,-" ... ". ..... .. . . . . .. .
.,........"."" '. ." .. . . ... . ...
.<>>> .... ....... .>)8 e ~. .......i>.. . ......>
...<Inveritoryof ~xistjrig Facilities.. ~ t..awt:nf(:)rcel'nent
City Hall/Police
4846 Auto Center Way
7,085
3,700
450
5,400
Total = 16,635
West Precinct/Patrol Headquarters
West Precinct/Animal Control
Capital Hills Fire Station/Special Investigative Unit (SIU)
4846 Auto Center Way
3001 6th Street
Source: .Facilities Management Alternative Plans., Department of Public Works and Utilities, 2/14/94
2. Forecast of Future Needs - Law Enforcement
a. Existina Demand
The City has 62 law enforcement officers operating out of over 16,600 square
feet of buildings -- 268 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,
there is one officer per 615 persons.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 20
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.1
38,142
21,330
12,190
5,415
Officers / 1000
3.06
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.9
2.3
City
Seattle (1989)
Yakima
Washington average
Bremerton
Des Moines
Moses Lake
Poulsbo
Population
531 ,400
54,843
The Police Department feels that its current staffing level is too low, 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 low of
35,920 in April 1994. It has since climbed to 40,801 by February 1995 -- an
increase of 4,881 in less than a year. Police Department staffing levels need to
take into account these typical population fluctuations. The following table
contrasts 1990 and 1995 levels of service for officers with the Department's
preferred staffing level.
, Source: Level of SeNiee Standards: Measures tor Maintaining the Quality ot Community Ute, Municipal
Research Services Center of Washington, Report No. 31, September 1994.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 21
Officers .
.... ,. .. ..
... ....... ..... . . '.
. .. ... .,...... .".."..
.. .. '. ,... ".,...
bflicers per 1;OOOPQPulattioni
... . .-- - -- ..
.-.,- :.. '.-"', '".' -, .... ". ...... .... ,,"
.. . .. '"..., . . .
...............t~v~1....6f...servi.~~.....:a~~.~~~r~~~erit .Orii~eri.................. .
1990
58
Preferred *
70
1.5
1.6
1.8
1995 *
62
* Both 1995 and Preferred calculations assume an average population of 38,142, consistent with the adopted
Kitsap Regional Council (KRPC) population forecast.
Source: Bremerton Police Department, 12/94; City Treasurer, 2/95.
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 three 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.jofficer). 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 268 square feet per
officer. Without that facility and staff, the Adjusted Current LOS is 212 sq.ft.
per officer.
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 =
268 square feet per officer
. Adjusted Current LOS = 212 square feet per officer
. Proposed LOS =
250 square feet per officer
c. Future Demand
The projected population growth within the City is for 20,000 new people by
year 2014. At the current level of service, the City would need 95 officers by
year 2014 -- 33 additional officers. At the Police Department's preferred level
of service, the City would need 107 officers by year 2014 -- 37 additional
officers. (Table LE-3)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 22
~ll!!lill;l!i~;,!!!ll';1II~~~!!~!!~.II~;1m'lIllll1ltR!li,frE2-
................1.~6 .. ...........200tti.....~~.~ .............I~ijI~~wQ.tric~~i,~~Q1~i>/
1995 Officers
38,142
62
70
41,552
68
58,142
95
107
20,000
33
37
Population *
Preferred Officers
76
* 1994 population per adopted Kitsap Regional Planning Council (KRPC) forecast.
Source: Bremerton Police Department, 12/94; City Treasurer, 2/95.
d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements
To maintain existing staff levels to year 2014 at 250 sq.ft. per officer, the Police
Department would need 23,750 square feet -- an increase of 8,250 sq.ft. over
20 years. To maintain the Department's preferred level of service to 2014, it
would need 26,750 square feet -- an increase of 9,250 sq.ft. (Table LE-4)
. .. . . ...> ... ..................... ... . ... . ... ... . .. ............ ................................ .. .............................................. ..... .... ........ . ...... . .. ..... ..
~;:~ct~~?~ij~~~N~dt~~~~~~~~~i~~~~J~I~~~III~!lilllllllll~illll
.... "".. . . .. .... ...... .................
Sceriarl9 * . ..... ........ ..j9~~Abtual ." ., "1995 Need " .~dd6>/20141995-~~i#t6~~iii
1995 Officer LOS
16,635
16,635
15,500
17,500
17 ,000
19,000
23,750
26,750
8,250
9,250
Preferred Officer LOS
* Staff levels per Table LE-3 @ 250 sq.ft./officer.
The following table shows the future need for Police Department building area
by year 2000 and by year 2014 at the proposed LOS of 250 sq.ft. per officer.
The year 2000 need is based on continuation of the 1995 Officer LOS (1.6
officers per 1,000 population). The year 2014 need is based on a gradual
increase in staff levels after year 2000, with the goal of achieving the Preferred
Officer LOS (1.8 officersj1000) by year 2014. (Table LE-5)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 23
"."". ". .
. ........................................
. ...../>.. Tim.<P'ri~d/ .
Ilii!li.,':l!,;;i~;;~;~ii;i'tii!li~~fj,~~~;~Yt1:~~~r'fe~~iE!~il~i.i~Y~"i..' .
. .. "..".. . " .. ...... ...". ..
..... ".. "...... .. ". .......".... ""
... .......". " .. ...."......"..
. .. .>$quat'.. F.it<Reqllired @. ~5Cl!q;~;P!.t .......
.. .... .... .. .. > Officer < .< .
..... "".......
.... .."...
sQS;';.N~>//>>.. .
.. ....
. .. .". .
1994 *
1995-2000 (increase)
Total as of 2000 =
38,142
3,410
15,500
1,500
. .'" .......'............, . .....
. . ....,. -. .. .
.. ... ...." ..... ..... ..
n Twenty..YearN~~I;f>\
2000-2014 (increase)
Total as of 2014 =
Total 1994-2014 (increase) =
* 1994 & 2014 population per KCAP population forecast.
16,590
58,142
20,000
9,750
26,750
11 ,250
e. Plans of Other Providers
The Sheriff Facilities Plan of the Kitsap County Capital Facility Element bases
its estimated facilities needs on county population forecasts and the present
level of service of one commissioned deputy per 2,030 persons countywide or
one deputy per 1,421 persons for the unincorporated areas. It aims to
increase the number of officers per unit of population incrementally from year
2006 to year 2014 until the national standard of one officer per 1,000 people is
reached: one officer per 1 ,200 persons by year 2006, and one officer per 1 ,000
persons by year 2014. Based on this LOS, the County will need 118 officers
by year 2000, an increase of 13 officers from 1994. Facility needs are
projected to be 170 sq.ft. per deputy, an incremental expansion of existing
square footage (17,900 sq.ft.) to 36,040 sq.ft. in 2014.
1. Proposed Facilities
The City is in the process of developing 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:
1. Consolidation of Departments to improve communication; coordination;
and streamline department management goals and objectives; and
2. Economics resulting in less property to maintain; centralize
departmental needs; and reduce department managers lost-time due to
existing decentralized departments.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 24
One of the options under consideration includes selling the West Precinct
building and the Fourth Street City Permit Cente~, and re-Iocating displaced
City departments. Under this scenario, all police services would be
consolidated downtown, either at City Hall or in two floors of the Fourth Street
Building next door. In either case, there will need to be extensive remodeling
of the existing facilities to meet the varying needs of law enforcement. Current
work space per officer is very limited, and an expansion of this space will allow
for better service to the citizens of this community.
If two floors of the 245 Fourth Street Building are converted to Police
Department facilities, the Department would have approximately 19,500 gross
square feet (9,750 sq.ft.jfloor). This would provide a Building Area LOS of 287
sq.ft. per officer at the 1995 Officer LOS (or 257 sq.ft.jofficer at the Preferred
Officer LOS) by year 2000. However this space would be deficient by year
2014, when it would provide only 205 sq.ft.jofficer at the 1995 Officer LOS (or
182 sq.ft.jofficer at the Preferred Officer LOS).
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 2000 is estimated at 17,000 sq.ft. in one consolidated facility
designed for law enforcement needs. Remodeling of two floors (19,500 gross sq.ft.)
of the 245 Fourth Street Building, or comparable space in City Hall, is expected to
provide the necessary space for at least the next six years.
a. Six-year Funding and Projects
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects and non-
capacity projects for the next six years. The last portion of the chart reflects
the balancing of funding sources and money expended on projects. Any
surplus or deficit is indicated. (Table LE-6)
It should be noted that the following six-year financing plan shows the total
estimated cost to consolidate City offices in the Fourth Street Building and City
Hall. Therefore, this cost is not exclusively the cost of providing law
enforcement facilities.
2The City Permit Center, located at 286 Fourth Street, currently houses the Department of Community
Development and the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department will be moved to the Public Works and
Utilities Administration Center at 3027 Olympus Drive in spring 1995.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 25
"";""y~i~:~~inij~n~~r~~~~:d~~J~~~~~: ~.~n~ln~'Iji1~r~~.@~',.""
... . ......" ......... ...
..J995.. 1996 jgg7 >1sge .. .. 1999. . 2000 t~a(
... .
200 200.0
606 606.0
534 534.0
1 ,340.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 ,340.0
General Fund
Bond Issue (new)
Property Sale
TOTAL SOURCES
.. .
... Project~ ..
Balance ...
0.0
Notes: All amounts are times $1,000
Source: City Treasurer, 2/95
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 LE-7)
. ...... . .. ..."... ...... ... . .... n.....
. ......... ... ....... ............ .... ..... .. ....... .. .
...... .. .. .......... .......... '... ...... . .... n. .
. ......... . ...... ...... .... ..... .... ... .. ..... . n.
Sq:ft:C?~r,elJtiy<.... ..\...(N8t R.S8rvepdt...................
. . .t\~.lIable~.)<. ....t:)'fic:I&~cy(sq:a:)/ .......
1995 (Existing Need)
1995-2000
19,500
4,000
19,500
4,000
2,500
..... .. ...
.... . .....
Projecftt ..
Remodel Fourth Street Building/City Hall
. . .. . .
. . ....... ..
. " .... .... .......
... ..... .... ." ......
.. ... ........ .<<Sq:Ffildd~d
19,500
2,500
Total as of 2000 =
19,500
'" LOS = 250 sq.ft. per officer.
*'" Assumes availability of 2 floors of 245 Fourth Street Building or comparable space in City Hall.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 26
c. Operating Costs
The following chart reflects the six-year operating costs for the projects
listed in the Six-year Funding and projects chart above. (fable FP-4)
THIS CHART MAY BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE TIME TO
DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF PARKS FACIUTIES:
..iliii~~~~:~rlf~!~I\It'~mM~~I!::!i::!lllllj!jl!I\\"\\1!,iiii,'Ii.j
n. . . . .... . . ..... ,... ........ ... ...., , . ................... ......... ............... ......... ..... ..
. ... ... .... .. ..... ...." .... ... ......... ............................... . .............. ...... .......... n.... .. ......
.... ...... .. ... .. ... ........ ".. ..... ...... ......... ........ ........., ...................... ......... ... . .. . .
}}il99S....}.. ......)i998......).j991...... ... ...... ... . ..1998/ .i~H ........................~QQQ ....................[m~'./
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
NjA
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 27
c. Parks
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 capital facilities program draws upon several planning efforts. The program:
. Updates and replaces the City's Interim Capital Improvement Plan: Parks and
Recreation Facilities adopted in April 1992. The Interim CIP was adopted to allow the
expenditure of special funding sources authorized by the Growth Management Act
(GMA) for park purposes.
. Builds upon the April 1993 Draft Capital Facilities Plan Element: Parks and Recreation
Facilities developed by a joint Planning Commission/Parks Commission Capital
Facilities Plan Advisory Committee.
. Reflects preliminary recommendations of the draft Five Year Comprehensive Park &
Recreation Plan, which will update the plan adopted in 1989.
1. Inventory of Park lands
The following inventory lists local, regional, and open space park lands. Both the
number of developed and undeveloped park lands is given.
a. local Parks
To assist in analyzing service levels, local parks are divided into two
categories: neighborhood and community parks.
(1) Neighborhood Parks
A neighborhood park is a combination playground and park designed
primarily for non-supervised, non-organized recreation activities. In
addition to their recreation value, they 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.
(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
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 28
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 following table includes an inventory of local parks, listed as neighborhood
or community parks. Since not all local park lands are developed, both the
number of developed and undeveloped park acres are listed. (Table PK-1)
... ... ..."" P' ......... . . n. .. ....... ... ....... .. .. .... ....
... .......:..><.<::..::x...>:..<<<:::::::::::::::::<<::<:.............:.<::<::.:..:.... .... :......... ....::.:.::.::::c.:c....... c...c.....<..:.:../>...::::::.::::::.:.c.::.>..>>:.:.:<::<::<:>::::>:.:<::::>c>:::..>>:<;';:::>.<<::<:: . ....... .... ...:.:.)..... .
. c<c:::.:: ..: cC..>::::::::::::.::>.::..c:.:.:.c:.c:.:.::::::::.:::::.<::..c .:.... . ::: c:......... .. ....Tabf'fPI(..1. .:..<.::::<::.:.:.:.::....:.. ::::::..:::c......c c .:::c... c..::..:....}.//.::::...::::::.<:}:.: .. >:::;:. :=.::.:};;:::;::.: ...>
: :>/<:~ri~~rii8fY..:6flo~~e~~~'.:..:..:....:'..:. ...:/ .:)::>/(</... . :....::.::. ../
. .. . .
>:.>:..:...:... .:: ...: ..:.:.:.:...:. c.....ccc:.cc <<<.>:<<<<<. ~ :.)J . ..... . . . .. .... .
............/.M.:....~p#..:.:..:....r :":parkN~m.. .. Oeveloped. . UndeveloAAd ""Total
.. .. ........ ......... ............ . . ......... ..: .:/: ...}} .: ..: l.)i;~re~l<<(~~~~~).. :<Acr~~
.c...cc. .cc............. . .. ............. . ... ...........: :..<....::: : <.:....c.. .. >.>.::: .:>..:.. ..>.:......:\).........:..........::. .;::;:::.:.::::.::::... ... :.::. .. :.. . :.: :..c ... .c.:::.:>>>: :
ij~r.gij~rff~~park..\ . ,>.;< :<.?\>...... < ....})...::.:/ .\::... .:.:...:.. ..:.:: .:....;::
7 C.P. .Pat Carey Vista Tracyton Beach Road
1 Forest Ridge Park 6th/Summit Ave
3 Kiwanis Playfield 4th/5thJVeneta
5 Ninth Street Mini-park E. 9th/Shore Drive
6 Roto Vista Park 17thJWarren
9 Smith Playfield 1198 Elizabeth
10 SR-3 Park Arsenal & Kitsap Way
0.5
0.5
27.3
3.0
0.02
27.3
3.0
0.0
0.7
3.0
0.7
3.0
3.75
3.8
Total Neighborhood Park Acres =
/Comriiijriltypilfks.. : : .. ..(
12 Bataan Park Sylvan/Olympus Dr
13 Blueberry Park Sylvan Way
14 City Hall Park 4th & Washington
18 Jarstad Park Old Belfair Highway
20 Manette Playfield & 1140 Nipsic
Senior Center
24 Warren Avenue Playfield 11th & Warren
25 Wycoff Memorial Park Pacific Ave/1st St (CBD)
Total Community Park Acres =
37.27 0.00
/\ :.:... ..:.:.:'
...::.:..::.. : .).<:.:.:..:::::. ::"..:::.::..::. .:.
1.0
37.3
.......:.:.....
1.0
6.9 6.9
0.3 0.3
4.0 4.0
2.58 2.6
3.0 3.0
0.02 0.0
10.90 6.90 17.8
: ::.. ................. ............ ..: .....:: :T.~t;ri~~:fP.~kA6r~Q: :.. .......... : :: ~~Mt :: : :6.90:<
. . .........
...55;1<
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 29
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 serves the entire
region. The City's regional parks range from two to 190 acres.
The following table includes an inventory of the City's regional parks. The list
of regional parks includes "local 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 Bachman Park is a very small waterfront park in the Manette
neighborhood, it has become a prime regional sailboarding site. These parks
are listed as a subcategory of regional parks because they have been identified
in the May 1994 draft Kitsap Countywide Comprehensive Park and Recreation
Plan as parks with regional significance which are eligible for countywide
funding participation. (Table PK-2)
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 mayor 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.
The second table on the next page includes an inventory of Bremerton open
space park lands. (Table PK-3)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 30
........................
......................
. ...................
...................
..... ...... >>J.>.>.>....<i..... ..... .... .. . .. ......... ......... ... .......
.. . ....... .. .......... ... ........ . ...... ..... ... ........ ... .............. ...
. . ..... ....... . ....... ....... ............. ......................
.. ..................... .... . ........ ..... ... ........ . ........... .....................
. ................ ............. .. .. ......... . .... . ................ ...........
Map ... .... .P.'tkN.~). Di~~lDp.~. Qijdeveloj)4ti:f fOliE
. ................ .... ..)j ...(~~r..) .{A~'e.} ]A~~!~t
# ... . ......... ... . ....
28 Bremerton Boardwalk Downtown waterfront, 1 st-4th 2.0 2.0
26 Gold Mountain Golf Course Old Belfair Highway 190.0 190.0
27 Lions Community Playfield Lebo at Hefner 15.0 15.0
29 Pendergast Regional Park Union & Werner 25.0 25.0 50.0
Total = 232.00 25.00 257.0
... .. ....... .. ...\i<......... .:.:.. ......:> ..
. . . .. . ............. .....
.. .... ..... .... .. ..... .....:.....<..i....
.. .. . ..........
.. Localp_rk$ofRegionaISlgnlfical1c:i\. . .>......r ....... ..: ........ ..>..
1 1 Bachman Park Shore Drive & Trenton 0.5 0.5
15 East Park Magnuson Way & H.Jones 1 7.5 17.5
16 Evergreen 14th & Park 6.0 6.0
19 Kitsap Lake Park Price Road 1 .8 30.12 31 .9
4 Lent Lane Park Lebo Boulevard 1 .5 1 .5
22 N.A.D. Marine Park Shorewood Drive end 27.5 27.5
21 NAD. Upper Park 6002 Kitsap Way 2.0 52.0 54.0
8 Sheridan Park, Lower Lebo & Clare 6.1 6.1
23 Sheridan Park Community 680 Lebo Boulevard 4.0 4.0
Recreation Center
Local Parks of Regional Significance = 37.90 1 1 1 .12 149.0
... ......H.. ... ... .. . ...... ......... ....... .. ........... . ....... . ......... ....... .
. .... ..... .. .... ... .. ........... .... ... .
. .. .............. ... ...... . .... ...... .. ..... . ...... .. . ..........
. . ..... ...... . .. . ..... . .... ... ........ .. .. .
. .. ..... . .. ......... .
\.<: > ..... .. :.. :,.ota(Regi()na]ParkAcre~~) .....269 90" ....:.:.13Ett~ >.406.0....
> :<<. .:':':'>-::':':'::::~:' . \f .... ..
..... ..... .. .. .... . .. ...... .............. ....... ......
11
13
31
Eastpark Nature Area
Holly Terrace West
Ivy Green Cemetery
Stephenson Canyon
... ...... ...
. .... ........ ..... .............
....... ... . ........... ............ ...........
..... .. . ............ ........ .... .......
.......... .'Add..'i. .......... ....
Wheaton Way at Magnuson
Near Monticola Way (off Sylvan Way)
Naval Avenue
. -.... .. ..-. .... .-. .
...... .. ... . ....... ..... .....
..... . .. .. ....... ...... .....
. . .......... .. ....... ... ......... .......... ......
... .............. ... .......... . ............. .......... .. .......
... ..................... T. ....b....J.......P....K............... ......... ... ............. ......... ............. ..
.. ..>./.a . e' . ..3< .....:</.. .
. ........... .-. ..... .. .. ....... . ....... ... ..........
....lriyentoryQf6periSp~e~t(..... .....
...Mar/#< . ..
7
14.4
Between Lewis Lane & Willow
3.0
13.0
28.0
Beautification Areas/Pocket Parks various locations
1994 Open Space Acres =
58.4
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 31
d. Total Park Lands.
The City has a total of 520 acres of park lands including the new Andy
Pendergast Regional Park now under construction. Of these park lands, 28
percent are undeveloped (not including open space). (Table PK-5)
::\;:II!IIh;;;;(;$ummary.ln"ent~~I~~~~~&ndS (Acrlls).. ...
.00000.'.0.0.0.......:000000.:00.00.:.. ::':<<0;.;.,. .......0....
::.;0;0:.;.... o <'type' 0 HJi'iPlace12/31f94 Undeveloped TOtal Acres .
..
./
....
local
48.17
269.9
58.4
376.47
6.9
136.1
55.1
406.0
58.4
519.5
o ... .0.
% Developed
87.4
66.5
100.0
72.5
Regional
Open Space
Total =
143.0
Note: Open space parks are listed as developed, since there are no plans for further development.
2. Forecast of Future Park Needs
a. Existing Demand
With 519.5 acres of park lands serving about 38,000 residents, the City has
13.6 acres of park lands per 1,000 persons. (Table PK-5)
.. b. Level of Service (LOS)
The need for park lands can be estimated by comparing 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. According to the NRPA standards, the overall City
LOS is just below the recommended range. Compared to the NRPA
standards, the City has ample regional park lands but falls short in local and
open space lands. (Table PK-5)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 32
. ..
......... ....... ......... ,,', . . ......... ....... ............. ......................... ....... . ....... ..... .... .........'................. ..............................
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... - . '. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .
i~~'.<.Exi~!llgt6st .....~RPA'(jS(A~re.j1;0CJ6jprapo~~tQ~\
Local 55.1 1.4 6 - 10 1.7
Regional
Open Space
T etal =
406.0
58.4
519.5
10.6
1.5
13.6
5 - 10
3.6
13.9
1.4
16.9
15 - 24
Existing LOS = Acres /1990 Population x 1000 (1990 pop. = 38.142)
The NRPA standards are intended to be used as a guide, realizing that local
situations vary. If Bremerton's 149 acres of "local parks of regional significance
(Table PK-2) are added to the 55 acres of local parks, the City has 204 acres of
parks serving local needs -- only slightly below the NRPA recommendation.
Further, subtracting these 149 acres from the total acres of regional parks still
leaves the City's regional parks within the NRPA range. (Table PK-6)
...... ... " .........
.... ... ..... .. .. . ....... ... ..
...... .. . 0<-' .... ..... .. ... ...." . ..... .. ....
. . dO... . .... ........ ....... .. n..... ... . ....
H ., ......." . n. ............. . ...... n.. ......... ...."
.................>//.. .)TablePK4){(<}>>.i)..
.. .... .>(<4rialysi$ofLocitljR.'gIOn~rParki.O$u..
... . "., ....... ......... ..... .....". .. ..."
....... .. . ...... , . . ........ ...."...."... ...... .. "
.. .,,,..,...... ..., ..... . .......... ................ , ....... .. ...
~X1~ingA~~~;{ ... ....Existirlgl.OS) NJ:lPA>~bs (A6~s11,006 Pop;).
Local
55.1
1.4
Local/Regionally Significant
149.0
3.9
Total =
204.1
5.4
6 - 10
5 - 10
Other Regional Parks
257.0
9.3
The NRPA standards are intended for a "typical" community, and of course all
communities differ. For example, while the LOS indicates that Bremerton 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 Bremerton waterfront parks provide visual
and physical access to miles of open water that would be difficult to quantify
with a \:..OS. Likewise, unlike a "typical" community, distant mountain views
visible from many parts of the city add to the feel of open space.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 33
The proposed LOS of 16:9 acres per 1,000 persons will bring City park lands
within the overall NRPA standard. (Table PK-5)
. Existing LOS =
13.6 acres per 1 ,000 persons, or
0.0136201 acres per capita.
. Proposed LOS =
16.9 acres per 1,000 persons, or
0.0169305 acres per capita.
c. Future Demand
The projected population growth within the City is for 20,000 new people by
year 2014, for a total population of 58,142.
d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements
The proposed LOS would result in a need for 463.1 additional acres of park
lands by year 2014 -- a total of 982.6 acres. (Table PK-7)
".., -..'. -, ...
.. ", .p'." -"
.. .... .." ... .,
,"". T' "'bl ""'p' 'K' .' ',:,,"'.' :,........ .....
... '" ..... .. ..-,
.: '., a e" -7 .....::.':.. "'",', "./:. ':":"',,:.,,: .'
futf,Jre.Need:p~r~s\..""""""
. .., ,,,......... . ... .., .. . ..... ....
.. ...... . ..,.. .. .... .... .". .... ...... .. ... .... .. ...... .... .
.. ......,. n' .. ...... on n. ........... .. ...... ...... ..... ......
. . . ..." ...... ..... .... .... n" ...... ...... ..... ..... ...,
,Acres rttquir~CI @1~;9 lj6t~!park8~re.iNtrtr'$etVepd
.. "};ooo persoris/: .'. ...... :. ivailabl~? .... ...., '#ifid,ncy
1994
1995-2014 (new)
Total as of 2014 =
38,142
20,000
58,142
644.6
338.0
982.6
519.50
-125.10
519.50
-125.1
-463.1
-463.1
* Since Bremerton's population has fluctuated between 36,000 to over 39,000 since 1990, its 1990 population of
38,142 is used for all calculations of Existing Level of Service (ELOS), consistent with the Kitsap Regional
Planning Council's adopted population forecast.
3. Proposed Park Facilities
a. Plans of Other Providers
The 1994 Kitsap Countywide Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan
recommends that the various jurisdictions undertake a coordinated,
countywide 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 34
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 only assume direct responsibility
for facilities that have regional use benefits. Examples in Bremerton are:
Bremerton Boardwalk; Lions Field; Pendergast Regional Park; and
EastparkjBremerton YMCA.
The county~wide plan recommends a coordinated and shared countywide
funding strategy to maintain the proposed LOS. It concludes that a feasible
strategy.will consist of a combination of local revenues, a countywide growth
impact fee, and a countywide park and recreation bond. Assuming local
revenues remain steady, an impact fee of between 25-50% of projected costs
and a bond at a rate between $0.0030 and $0.0045 per $1.00 valuation (annual
payment between $28-$42 for a $100,000 house for 10 years) will be needed to
maintain the proposed LOS.
b. Proposed City Facilities
The City's 1995 Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan proposes to add 184
acres of park lands. The largest project will be an 18-hole addition to the Gold
Mountain Golf Course (170 acres). The Golf Course is a hfgh priority, as it
provides revenues for other city parks. The Plan also anticipates acquisition of
an additional 14 acres of local park lands. (Table PK-B)
The City recognizes the difficulty in maintaining the recommended LOS past
the year 2000. There are few large tracts of undeveloped land left within the
developed parts of the City today. As infill development continues there will be
even less vacant land, and land prices are likely to increase corre$pondingly.
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 Hgreenways" 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 35
4. Six-Year Financing Plan
a. Six-Year Funding and Proiects
Under the proposed LOS it is projected that a total of 702 acres of. park lands
will be needed to meet the total demand through the next six years -- an
increase of 182.7 acres. (Table PK-8)
il;::d'iii^i;'i;^:;,:;;^:~~~:~~\Wieo;~~~(~.i~~f\~;~~~bl!:i~rp~~~^^^^ ^
.. . . .... ....... ....' "'., .', ,,' ,...... ...... ...... ........
...... .' "p ...kY............. ..... . .(6S:A~...pe.r . . "Existing ACi'&f . <TOt~( Ac~es ....... .
................................................(...s#O8'........n. 8y'...~.I..O....~.\... .... l' 000 P ,. .t' ... . ...................Req.<......u....r..e.....d....... '.' .
,) )..; . .. opu a Ion ..' '.'
Local
Total =
1.7
13.9
1.4
16.9
55.1
406.0
58.4
519.5
70.6
577.6
58.2
702.2
-15.5
-171.6
0.2
-182.7
Regional
Open Space
The Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan recommends a financial strategy
based on the following:
1) A growth impact fee of 25% of the actual cost of maintaining the
existing level of service (ELOS) standard. ($1,274,597 x 25% =
$318,649)
2) A proposed citywide bond to raise between $1,294,785 and $3,499,951
of the cost of raising the level of service to the proposed (PLOS)
standard. (Cost of raising LOS to PLOS = $3,078,317.)
3) The use of general funds, conservation futures, real estate excise taxes,
intergovernmental grants, and other sources must remain the same as
in recent years. If the amount of these monies declines, then the
growth impact fee percentage assessment and/or the citywide bond
amount and rate must be higher.
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects and non-
capacity projects for the next six years. The last portion of the chart reflects
the balancing of funding sources and money expended on project$. Any
surplus or deficit is indicated. (Table PK-9)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 36
!!lljlljlklll:lillliilililllR'i~il.l~~tl'!lil ~~~:JJ!~ll\I'\;;C'"
",. ... ',. ". .:...:....:.:::::::::::::::.:::.:-:.: :.":;:;:::;:::;";::",. ...;.;:;:;:; .. ...........:-:.;.;....<<-.-....;. :-:>:.:-:::"::<::::;'::;'::::::::;", . ................ .'.
<><<'uijdlri9$9l1rc~) .............../j.....J9961gg1...H1~) ......1~2(i)Q ...TQt~r..
General Governmental
1994 Revenue Bond (Golf Course)
5,000
Future Grants
600
100
Bond/Impact Fees
Total Sources =
1,151
100
155
50
6,456
110
125
100
665
160
125
100
Golf Course Fund 112
Real Estate Excise Tax
Roosevelt Trust Fund
1,000
100
100
o
5,000
1,900
2,132
1,370
780
550
... ". ... .... ..)/(
. ....".. ..
....... .... '. ....
p.<,6j<;Cis<........:.......... .. ...
.:... ......
... ..........:..........
935 1,150 1,325 675 1,191 11,732
.. .:.......\i.. .. .... ................ .:..>..:\. H)(.:.i> ill
5,000
Golf Course Expansion
2,500 2,000 500
25 500
15 250
0 15
1,151 600
60 115 50
25 300
20 20
15
5
Evergreen Park
Blueberry Park
Teen Center
Pendergast Regional Park
Neighborhood parks
NAD Marine Park
Kiwanis Field
Kitsap Lake Park
Stephanson Canyon
Lent Lane
East Park Nature Area
Land Acquisition
316
100
125
100
350
125
100
550
125
100
525
265
15
1,751
361
625
60
490
20
50
180
36
50
50
300
20
1,050
Total Costs 3,751 2,930 1,490 1,225 170 796 10,362
'tj,;~:7~~ .,.. .//\".."~.~~":;~~:..,.,:I= .~: .~.". .'/If;'.:;:/
Note: All amounts are times $1,000, in constant 1994 dollars.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 37
20
475
15
10
120
5
15
654
396
(b) CaDacity 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 LOS
standard to meet the needs of the existing population and projected growth.
(Table PK-10)
.. ... .,
". . . .
". . ..
. , .......
.., .." .
.. ., ....
. . -, ...
.. '..
. ... . .
. . ._,
. ., .... , .
parris<>
1994
1995-2000 (new)
Total as of 2000
, ...... ... .. . .-. . .". .......n... ".
. 'n .. ".. . ... .... . ".. "... .... . ... ... , ... _,
.............. .. .-. ...., ..n ..... .... ....,
.. ....... .... .., ... -'.. ........ .. ..... .........
>> .........ii~.lp!rkac::ht..{) \} ...ijet~is.fJ.~k)i
..i.) ..... .>a~aitabl~.) .....>.} ../"dt,i(:i!:ncy.}"
645.8
57.7
703.5
519.5
-126.3
519.5
-126.3
-184.0
-184.0
. .
.. ProJeCt~..
Golf Course Expansion
Evergreen Park Expansion
Land Acquisition - Local
. .. .
., .... .. . .
. -, .... ...
.. .... ... ..", .
\..Acres.. ......
.... .....
.... .... ....
Total as of 2000 =
* 16.9 acres per 1,000 population = 0.0169305 acres per capita.
170.0
0.5
14.0
184.5
-14.0
-13.5
0.5
0.5
(c) Operating Costs {Optional}
It may be useful to consider the impact of each completed capital
improvement on the City's future operating budget. An analysis of operating
costs is optional; it is not required by the Growth Management Act.
The following chart could be used to reflect the six-year operating costs for the
projects listed in the Six-year Funding and projects chart above. (Table PK-11)
THIS CHART MA Y BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE TIME TO
DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF PARKS FACILITIES:
. ........,. - ". _n. . n. . ".
... ... ...>)>TAfl~~p~i11~j*"Y~~rQ~~t;~n~'~b~.i..\r"". ..........
,. . , , .. .... ..... .. .... ... .. .... ...... ...... . . ......... .... .............. .............. . ... ... ......-. ........ ........ .......
.................... ................... ......... ...... ." ................ ... .'. .................... ..... ..' ..... ...................... .... ..... ................ ........................ .............. .... ....... .............................................
..................... '" .... ... ...... ... ..... ..... ....... ........... .... ...... '" " .
\j~......>\ ...<<l~(i .... ./...1997 /i ..19ge\).:}i9!i.......L~~2)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A _
N/A
N/A
Note: all amounts are times $1,000
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 38
()
III
"0
~
!!!.
'TI
III
Q.
~
(D"
Ul
'"'0
..,
o
CO
..,
III
3
()
'TI
..:g
I
'"'0
III
co
CD
f8
"T1
cO"
c::
'"'
(1)
o
71
w
CD
'"'
(1)
3
(1)
~
o
::::I
"U
Ql
'"'
'"
"T1
Ql
~"
;::;:
CD"
o
# . Par/(s and Facility Sites
1 - Bremerton Boardwalk
2 - Bremerton Municipal
Swimming Pool
3 - Bremerton Sr Citizens Center
4 . Bachman Park
5 - Balaan Park
6 ~ Blueberry Park
7 . City Hall Park
8 - EastPark
9 - EaslPark Nature Area
10 -Evergreen park
11 -Forest Ridge Park
12 -Gold Mounlain Golf Course
13 -Holly Terrace West
14 -Ivy Green Cemetery
15 -Jars/ad Par/("
16 -Kitsap Lake Park _
17 -Kiwanis Park l 1
18 -Lent lane :
19 -Lions Field J
20 -Manetle Playfield II _" ).1
21 -N A.D. Mifine Pa"t~=i[ I
22 -NAD. P~rk i '~r"'~' =.
23 -Ninth Slreel Mini P~rk [' -='9' , \
24 .Roto Vi~~ Park \'_ ,
25 -Pal ca~y Vista
26 -Pende sl Re~ark (;7 I
27 -SmIth p ~. O'~~~:.'3" I I' \
28 -Shenden p~rk~ ,.' _ I I!
29 -Sheriden C'jf" unity Cenler , '. \ ( ,_
30-SR-3Par~;, ': r- ~ \ I ~ (
31 -Stephens ~'Ca""on -t' "'_ J \ _, J ' ,
32 -Warren A~nue flayfield dr t' ~ ~_j J,)
33 -Wycolf Me,!,ona Park ) r \ l~ J
'owned..,p",.'", by 'he utlflrt ,*"pl ~ ~ 'jr
\\\~'" E(j:=>\~~='J~~ ~
I ~\ ~,~\
'~ ,
""-< ,
'" '
BREMERTON SC~L ~:rRICT , lL ....
SCHO , ~
tl ~ School Sites 11 , '\
A . Armin Jahr Elementary School
B - Bremerton High School
C . Bremerton Junior High School
o - Bremerton Middle School
E . Crown Hill Elementary School
F . Frances Haddon Morgan School
G - Haddon site
H - Kitsap Lake Elementary School
I .. Lincoln School
J - Magnuson Community School
K - Naval Avenue Elementary School
l .. Otympic View Elementary School
M .. View Ridge Elementary School
N - Wesl Hills Elementary School
BREMERTON PARKS & RECREATION
PARKS AND FACILITIES
led
.j
"
Q/
.~. :-t:
~
~
,
\
,
i'i
ii:
..
~
"
~'
CO
~
;,:>:
tt-l\Jf
CtJt'~
S\~
LEGEND
_ PARKS
_ SCHOOL
COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
:f:
< Gold Mountain Gall Course
(Old Bellair Hwy) 4D C I T Y
< Jarstad Park (Garst) G)
BREMERTON
OF
~~
j//
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 April 1992 Final Draft Wastewater Comprehensive Plan (a.k.a. the "Wastewater
Plan"). This plan is due to be updated and adopted during the second quarter of 1995 after
completion of SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) environmental review.
1. Service Area
The draft 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 Wastewater Plan estimates the population of the service area at
45,210, of which 38,140 are within the city limits and 7,070 outside the city.
Approximately 37;000 people within the service area are connected to the system, The
plan estimates that approximately 37,000 persons are connected to the sewer system,
leaving an unsewered population of 8,210.3
The service area covers 13 drainage basins, of which four extend beyond the city
limits into unincorporated county areas: 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
2-2 "Service Area'?
2. Inventorv 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 31 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 col/ection system. Approximately 60 percent of the system is composed of
combined sanitary and stormwater sewers. (Table SS-1)
1"able 1., Final Draft Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, April 1992, p. A-2.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 40
i:i:1:ii'1"'1"1'~![;;~If,,!ii;~~~~G~:;N;il:r~t~j!:~~JI~,~CY1,1'~1 .. ......... .. .
" ... .. ... ......... ....... '.,:.; . ,- ..., ........ .... :.}:':-' ':::/',:\
><ir~~rn~~ffljm\ ... ... · .. .)<...<<A4iji"lt).>.> .J~a~lcitvH. .....
Bremerton Wastewater Treatment Plant (1)
Forest Enhancement Sites One & Two (2)
1600 Oyster Bay Ave W
Near Gold Mtn. Golf Course
(3) 10.1 mgd
600 acres
(1) City of Bremerton Final Draft Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, April 1992.
(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 monthly. 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. With 9,242 existing connections serving
approximately 37,000 people, the plant has the capacity to serve about 21,000
additional people (8,600 connections). (Table 55-2)
Population
.CaJ)a~ity .
58,000
23,868
... .. .. ...... "'.'
. ...'::',: ,'. <<".' :-',', .<<< ....'.;..:,.
.......1994D~!Tlan~> . .... (1994Surph.iiij[)efleit
......'(,;;;:~t~~~rio~:~asi~\e;f;~f~:n~~~i~~~~;~~ A~~a~~ci~....'........,
Connections *
37,000
9,242
21,000
8,642
Sources: Final Draft Bremerton Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, April 1992; Bremerton Dept. of Public Works
(11/94).
* Connections = Population capacity / 2.43 average persons per household size. (A change in
average household size would change the number of possible connections.)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 41
(b) Forest Enhancement Program - 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 biosolids in
accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.
3. Future Needs
a. Existing Demand
There are 9,242 existing connections, including several connections at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), serving approximately 37,000 people in
the service area. This includes several connections at the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard (PSNS). The average daily flow is 5.6 mgd. 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.
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)4
100 gpcd5
. Proposed LOS =
4.Executive SummarY', City of Bremerton Sewer Comprehensive Plan, October 1991, p. 10.
5Kitsap County Draft Comprehensive Plan, Part III, October 1994, p. 176.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 42
c. Future Demand
City and County estimates of future demand differ. (Tables 55-3 & 55-4)
(1) County Estimate
The Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities element
estimates 1994 population in the "Bremerton Area" sewer service area
as 57,475.6 The County forecasts a 2014 service area population of
81,408 -- an increase of 23,933 persons. The element states, "The
forecast provides sewer purveyors with a minimum population to plan
for during the 20-year planning period." The County projects a need for
an additional 9,031 connections by year 2014, which it estimates would
exceed the capacity of the system by 1,914 connections.7 (Table 55-3)
(2) City Estimate
The City's Wastewater Plan estimates the 1994 service area population
at 45,210, of which 16% are outside the city limits. All but 8,210
persons are connected to the sewer system. Assuming 100% of this
unsewered population will connect to the system within the next 20
years, there is a remaining capacity to serve an additional 12,790
persons.
The City estimates that the actual 2014 service area population will be
69,217 (rather than 81,408 as forecasted by the County).
. ':. . .:. ::. '.': . ..::......
.'. ". 'T' bl ':'''55'' 3 '.' ..... .........:.;
:. .. .:. ..,' . ..... l:l.... e: ..' "'". ...........:: .' ...... .'.: ,,:":' :....: ..:....: .;:..::.::.::..:...::.:.......;.:,:"/,}
Comparison Of C:ity/CountyEstimates' of SaoitaryS~wetSer'lic~Ar~aPoptilation. '.':."
, ...
. . .
I :..Source of Estimate
County
'" -.'"
." , .
1994 Population.
..., . ...
...... . ..
..... .. ....
.. . -.. . ... .. .
2014PQPul.tion . '.:" .:....: ::3994..2014 Increaa~ .... .:.;:,:::'.:.:
Difference =
57,475
45,210
12,265
81,408
23,933
City
* 69,217
12,191
24,007
-74
Sources: City of Bremerton Final Draft Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, April 1992.
Kitsap County Draft Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element, October 1994, pg. 176.
* 2014 population = 58,142 / 84% - Bremerton Planning.
6Table SF-2, Kitsap Draft Comprehensive Plan, Part III, p. 178.
758,000 capacity - 45,210 population = 12,790 remaining capacity.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 43
The City projects a year 2014 deficit capacity of 11,217 (compared with
the County projection of a deficit capacity of 5,072). Table 55-4)
.. '. .:.:
:. :'.. .'. TableSS-4 .
Compari~bn:of City/County Estimates of WastewatetTreatmen~ Plant Demand .:
....:..> .:': ." "(PopulatiOn). '>
ii .:.... .' .:...... .:.:..}: /":,::"... . .. .. ....... ...:.'.. ..... .": .... .. . .. ..'
..::!) ..:.., :,.1994 Capacity.:::...' ....1994. Demand '. '2QOODemarid 2014 Demand ... T atal DefiCit
... puree 0 .'. ..
:..:::> ::: 1!:stimate 01' Surplus
County (1) 55,581 37,000 68,245 81,408 -5,072
City (2) 58,000 37,000 58,022 69,217 -11,217
Difference = -2,419 0 10,237 12,191 6,145
Sources: City of Bremerton Final Draft Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, April 1992.
Kitsap County Draft Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element, October 1994, pg. 176.
(1 ) 1994 Capacity = 20,974 possible connections x 2.65 pph.
Deficit Capacity = -1914 connections x 2.65 pph.
(2) Year 2000 Demand = 85% of County estimate - Bremerton Planning.
Year 2014 Demand (85% of County estimate) - Table SS-3.
(3) Difference Between City and County Estimates
These estimates of sewer system capacity differ for several reasons:
(a) 1994 Population -- The County estimate of the existing service
area population is 12,265 higher than the City Wastewater Plan
estimate. The City estimate was based on a 1991 count of
structures from aerial photos within actual service area
boundaries, adjusted to match 1990 Census data. In contrast,
the County estimate is based on the population of
"transportation analysis zones" (T AZ's), which only roughly
correspond with actual service area boundaries.
(b) 2000 Population -- The County estimate of the 2014 -service area
population is 12,191 higher than the City estimate. The City
estimate assumes that within the city limits the population will
increase by 20,000 (to 58,142), and that the population outside
.the city will remain 16% (11,075) of the total service area
population.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 44
(c) Household Size -- The average household size is used to
calculate the number of connections to the system. The County
estimate assumes an average household size of 2.65 persons
per household (pph), the 1990 county-wide average. The City
estimate assumes 2.43 pph, the 1990 service area household
size as calculated in the City's Wastewater Plan.8
(d) Treatment Plant Design Capacity (Population) -- Due to a
mistake in the City Wastewater Plan, the County lists the design
capacity of the wastewater treatment plant as 55,300 rather than
58,000 population.9
(e) Sewer Facility Connections -- The County estimates the number
of existing sewer connections at 13,858, while City records show
that there are 9,242 existing connections.10
(1) Unsewered Population -- The County forecast does not
recognize the existing unsewered population of 8,210. The City
estimate is adjusted to add the existing unsewered population to
the projected new population to be served.
(4) 2014 Demand
Both the City and County estimates identify a probable deficit sewer
system capacity by year 2014. Depending on the methodology, the
deficit will be approximately 5,000-11,000 persons within 20 years.
(Table 55-4)
(5) Six-year Forecast
Over the next six years the City projects an increase of 10,237 persons
within the service area. In addition, it is assumed that 30% (2,463) of
the existing unsewered population will also hook up to the system by
year 2000. In this case, there would still be a surplus capacity to serve
5,725 additional people in year 2000. (Table 55-5)
8Number of persons per dwelling unit = total number of dwelling units inside Bremerton City limits (15,690) / total
population (38,140).
9Final Draft Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Appendix C, Figure 8 incorrectly lists the treatment plant capacity as
55,300 persons. Source: Bremerton Utility Department.
10Number of connections as of January 5, 1995, according to Bremerton Utility Department.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 45
... ..-- ..... ,., .
.. ...., .......
." ....." .... ,
... . .".. ...... ...., ."
." ...., .......
.................. ... n< T~bleSS~5n) .... ......
.. · Futute Neeci:$anitafySeYie{>
.. . ......
....,. .-- ,
Sbc-Yeai' Neecf
1994 Sewered Population
Hookups for 30% of
Unsewered Population (1)
1995-2000 New Population (2)
Total 2000 Sewered
Population =
37,000
2,463
21,000
18,537
3.70 MGD
0.25 MGD
12,812
52,275
5,725
5,725
1.28 MGD
5.23 MGD
.. .
"" .
1"w.nty~Year N,ed
Hookups for 70% of
Unsewered Population (3)
2000-2014 New Population (4)
Total 2014 Sewered
Population =
Total 1994-2014 Increase =
5,747
-22
0.57 MGD
11,195
69,217
-11,217
-11,217
1.12 MGD
6.92 MGD
32,217
nja
nja
Notes: (1) 8,210 x 30%. (2) 58,022 - 45,210. (3) 8,210 x 70%. (4) 69,217 - 58,022.
d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements
The draft Wastewater Plan was developed for an ultimate service area
population of 80,610. Therefore, planned improvements will be adequate to
serve the projected 69,143 sewered population. (They would also be adequate
to serve all but 798 of the County's projected "Bremerton Area" population of
81 ,408.)
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.
4. Proposed Facilities
The 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:
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 46
· 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.
5. Six-Year Financial Plan
It is estimated that the existing sanitary sewer system has 8 million gallons per day
(mgd) available capacity, which is sufficient to meet the total need of 5.23 mgd
through the next six years. (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 Proiects
The following table is a summary of the City's Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
projected implementation in 5-year increments, broken down by financing
method (Utility versus Non-Utility). Improvements prior to the year 2000 are
shown to be 84 percent utility financed, 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
(ULlDs) or by developers directly. Roughly 20 percent of the expenditures
beyond 2000 are projected to be funded by non-utility sources of revenue.
(Table $$-6)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 47
. . .....
. . ...
<> ............ ..>... .... <Table SS:;'6 .. ... ...... ..
.. Six;;year Fu ndlrigand Piojeets:sanitary ~E!\VE!r.. .
. .
.... .. .. .
19951996 1991<1998 1999 2000 total
Utility Revenue Bonds 1994
11 ,000
Non-Utility Assessments (LID)
300
1 ,500
2,000
1,000
451
11,000.0
5,251.0
Sanitary Sewer Utility
TOTAL SOURCES
ProjeCts ....
Treatment Plant
12,698 6,500 700
23,698.0 6,800.0 2,200.0
3,000 400 2,888 26,186.0
5,000.0 1,400.0 3,339.0 42,437.0
Surplus or Deficit
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Sources: Draft Bremerton Wastewater System Comprehensive Plan, Department of Public Works and Utilities,
3/21/95; City Treasurer, 2/95.
5,955
6,743
2,853
15,551.0 6,800.0 2,200.0
6,800
2,200
5,955.0
3,339 20,982.0
2,853.0
500.0 1,400.0 3,339.0 29,790.0
5,00
1,400
Collection System
CSO Reduction
TOTAL COSTS
. Balance.
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-7)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 48
e
i!i~:i:kt~:ii;i";"c~~l~~::~'~n~~l>~~~~r~~I~,;~!i~,!i;
1994
1995-2000
. . . ....
... . ............
... .. .... . .... '_.d....
'n ....._,.., .... ..... ... .....
M8xilriJJilMonthDeman~
.......~equh~ed@ LOS)..
7.8 MGD
1.8 MGD
9.6 MGD
n' 'n ..., ..... ......, .
.. .. n_.'..... n.... ......... ...
. n. ..,.. .. .......... .
.. . ..... .... ..... .......
.. Facllity eurrently>N:8tReserve.)
)i...Avliilaa.~ ......... ... (<Or[)~f!c:i&ncY)
. ...H . ...... . . __ ,
... .... ... .H.. ...
. .............. ..........'..,. ....... .. "....
. }<"'\y elir!Pro)l:lc:ts>< ... .... .. .
........ .....,.. .....
..... . '"
10.1 MGD
2.3 MGD
Total as of 2000
.... Proj~~~1995th~OoOtJ>lri9teaseci~r;acitY H..
10.1 MGD
0.5 MGD*
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 during six year term of finance plan.
** These two projects will eliminate some stormwater inflow to the wastewater system.
*** Year 2000 total capacity is not quantifiable at this time.
Source: Bremerton Department of Public Works and Utilities, 4/95.
c. Operating Costs
It may be useful to consider the impact of each completed capital
improvement on the City's future operating budget. An analysis of operating
costs is optional; it is not required by the Growth Management Act.
The following chart may be used to reflect the six-year operating costs for the
projects listed in the Six-year Funding and projects chart above. (Table SS-9)
THIS CHART MAY BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE TIME TO
DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT:
.... .
1995......
N/A
.. ...
T~ble~S~~ ..
.....Six-year..Operclti~g ~()$~S.
N/A
>..j997.
N/A
N/A
.J999
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 49
~
--
!
r-
r
i
;1
I
-..-..j
2.000 4,DOO
-..-
LEGEND
Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
Service Area Boundary
............ City limits
Sewered Portions
Of Basins
Non-Sewered
Portions of Basins
!l".:.:.:.:.....".:.:.:.:.:.:..:...::.
........"...............
:~~~~:1~t~*iJf~::~\
.. .
Include in Service Area
Only if Annexed
~
Figure CF-4 Bremerton Wastewater System Service Area
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 50
E. Schools
Bremerton Public School District #100C 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 inventory, 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
The capital facilities used by the school district are elementary, middle, junior high,
and high schools. The district also administers a vocational skills center that serves
other school districts. The present school enrollment requires the use of 50 portable
classrooms. Crownhill Elementary School is scheduled to be replaced after being
destroyed by fire in 1993. In the meantime Crownhill students are being temporarily
housed in 20 portables, and fourth and fifth grade students are bussed to another
school.
The current grade configuration in the district is based on grades K-5 (elementary);
grades 6-7 (middle school); grades 8-9 Ounior high); and grades 10-12 (high school).
Class size and student to teacher ratio vary by grade. The average class size inn the
district is about 28 students per teacher (28: 1). The district seeks to maintain the
following average class size ratios of students to classroom teachers: Grades K-3,
23: 1; Grades 4-5, 28: 1; Grades 6-8, 30: 1; Grades 9-12, 32: 1. Class size is dependent
on availability of local levy funds, which must be provided by the voters every two
years. (Table SC-1)
School capacity is defined as the number of students a school is designed to
accommodate, and includes only permanent facilities. Portables are used as
temporary classrooms until new facilities are built, or used to accommodate
enrollment fluctuations. Current square footage cannot be directly correlated with
existing school capacity. School capacity is determined by the number of teacher
stations, which is in turn determined by school design, the educational program, and
State funding criteria.
a. Existing Enrollment
The school district has a total enrollment of nearly 6,700 individual students.
This includes 486 students in the vocational skills center program and 152
students in the alternative high school program. Some students attend only
half-time or part-time in the pre-school program, kindergarten, alternative
school, or vocational center. This inventory counts individual students for its
enrollment figures. Bremerton enrollment fluctuates significantly depending on
homeportedjoverhaul ship movements.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 51
Elementary school students make up about 50% (3,273) of the total enrollment.
The middle school and junior high school have a combined enrollment of
1,675 students. Bremerton High has about 1,237 students including the
alternative high school students. Since the vocational skills center is a county-
wide educational program, the inventory does not include its enrollment. The
district administers the vocational program and has agreements with the other
districts to serve their students. (Table SC-1)
:':'.'
I:"...... .. .... Table SC-1
I) . .
'.:. '. '" Inv~ntory of Existing Facilities - B~emel1ohHSchool District. .
...:... H
I...,,' School Existing Student Existing Surplus Student
Capacity Enrollment Capacity
Elementary (Grades K~5)'
Armin Jahr - 800 Dibb 337 367 -30
Crownhill - 1537 Bertha Ave. 0 472 -472
Kitsap lake - 1111 Carr Blvd. 550 518 32
Naval Avenue - 900 Olympic 412 487 -75
Olympic View - 2442 Perry 486 513 -27
View Ridge - 3220 Wheaton Way 374 463 -89
West Hills - 520 National Ave So. 561 453 108
Total Elementary School Facilities = 2,720 3,273 -553
.. . : :",:"
,.. .. .
s~ondary Schools (Grade$ 6~12) ,', .
Mountain View Middle School - 2400 Perry Ave. 900 924 -24
Bremerton Jr. High - 1300 E. 30th 1,236 751 485
Bremert6hHlgh~Choot ~'150(r13th 1,500 1,237 263
Total Secondary Facilities = 3,636 2,912 724
Total School Facilities = 6,356 6,185 171
Note: Capacity figures do not include portable classrooms.
Source: Bremerton School District No. 100C, 10/94.
b. Existing Capacity
Five of the seven elementary schools are over capacity. Only two elementary
schools have room for more students -- West Hills and Kitsap Lake. Overall
the elementary schools are over capacity by 553 students, or 22 classrooms.
After replacement of Crownhill school, they will still be over capacity by 395
students, nearly the equivalent of a new school.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 52
The middle school, built in 1992, is already over capacity~ Four portable
classrooms were added to begin the 94-95 school year.
The junior high can house an additional 485 students. However, it is nearing
forty years old, and is functionally inadequate in terms of technology, energy
efficiency, ventilation, and classroom configuration.
The high school can accommodate an additional 263 students.
Fifty portable classrooms are required to accommodate current enrollment.
Twenty of these are being used at Crownhill while awaiting State funding to
replace the school.
The developing need for a new elementary school in addition to the Crownhill
replacement is apparent, as is a potential need for another middle school as
larger elementary grades rise to the 6-7 level and population growth targeted
for Bremerton begins to appear. The junior high and high schools still have
some capacity for the near future. (Table SC-2)
. . . ',' ... i
.......'," ," ...... . .. .,' ,'..' . '. . .. ,'........ ....... ......., ........'..". .......'. . . ..) . ."'.":',' .(
. ...... , ... ....." ........ .. "'n . ..... .. . .. ............ _,. .. . ..... ... ............ .
,'<'<<<':;;m~~~~~6ti6~JT~~*~i~CC~~~~~i~i~~~fu~rY)/ .. ... ':...
.....
.. :.....:. ..:.<,.<:. ... .
::../. . .::.:.. .::.;:.:::0'. ."<"
n" n' . .... .... .. ......... , . '. . .,....,..... P' .. .. ., "H' ..... n..........
....... n.. ........... ......... . ... .... . ...... .. .......... . . . ... .... ....... ,".. .... .. ....,..
...... ..... ........... . ..... ..... .. ....... .. ....... ................ ... ..... ...... ..... ..n .. .,. p',_,'
.... . .... . .............,", . ...... .. ... ...... .. .... Additi6nalf~~djdCa~acitY... .... .......... .,.... ......
................... $chc!>c>rl'vpcf> ......... . .. 1994$urplu$C;padty..... )99SSJtptUsCaptic#J. ..
Elementary (K-5) -553 * 158 -395
Middle (6-7) -24 0 -24
Jr. -High (8-9) 485 0 485
Senior High (10-12) 263 0 263
Total = 171 158 329
* Crown Hill School is funded for replacement due to fire damage.
** Includes Bremerton Middle School (grades 6-7) and Bremerton Junior High (8-9)
Source: Bremerton School District, 10/94.
School officials also cite a need for supportive facilities -- a central food facility,
a new administration building, a maintenance shop, and a bus barn. The
district points out that it should be emphasized that any snapshot of facility
requirements based strictly on current enrollment is subject to misinterpretation
because of the fluctuating Navy population.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 53
2. Forecast of Future Needs - Bremerton School District
a. Existing Demand - Enrollment
There are 6,185 students in Bremerton's elementary, middle, and high schools.
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 23 for elementary students and 30
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. (Table SC-3)
Measore.
School Size (Students)
550
23
. n. . ".., '...
.. .. ...... n.
., '.. . n.
.." ..", ....
.. . Middle/Jr.High
1,000
30
. .. n...'
H, '.. ',",' .... ....:....".,.
. . .. .........
T bl .SC 3... . ... ..,. .......
. .. a e ....:', . :<,..,.. ......:':..: .'..":.,,.:..
. . - . '.' . '.'
.,.... .. .. level of.Service ~"Brem~rtonSchodIDistr.!r#\
.~Iementary
Classroom Size
1,250
30
Source: Bremerton School District No. 100C, 10/94.
c. Future Demand - Enrollment Projections
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".11 The school
district considers the SPI system useful, but inadequate to represent the
unique growth conditions of the Bremerton district. For example, 1992
enrollment forecasts based on SPI 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.
The Kitsap County Department of Community Development (DCD) has
projected county-wide school enrollment based on the current percentage of
student enrollment to population. The County estimates that the present
Bremerton School District population is 56,786. Based on this estimate, the
total enrollment (6,185) is 11% of the total district population. (Table SC-4)
11 The Cohort Survival Method uses historic 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.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 54
1';;~";:;,:I~~i~i~'~;~\i1Il~~fl;lll~~i]jilliri~;#j;;jjijiji:jij:j::::Y;
IIi ... " .... ..,. .... .. ... . +~~t~~"6f!ffiiM ............... ................ .............................. .................. ...... .
... ..... ........... ..... .... ....... ...... .............. ...... .... .....
... ..... .......... ....... ... .... .............. ....... ............ ......... ...
/[9taf~~pijl.19"....... . .... .. ............ ......... ............ .......... .....
........ ....... /P,!r~irjfitg..r . . ..
: .... ......
. . . ,. . ... : . ....... ....
. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .
....... ........
56,486 6, 1 85 1 1 %
Source: Kitsap County Draft Comprehensive Plan, Part II I, September 1 994.
County-wide, the percentage of enrollment to population averages about 18
percent, with Central Kitsap the highest (26%) .and Bremerton the lowest (11%).
The County estimates that the Bremerton School District can expect 6,942
students in year 2000, and 8,710 students by 2014. (This estimate assumes
that 18% of Bremerton's future population will be K-12 students. An
assumption that students would continue to make up only 11 % of the
population would lower the projected enrollment.)
The School District points out that the difficulty with making accurate student
projections is illustrated by the middle school projected year 2000 enrollment
of 1,037 students. The October 1994 actual figure was 1,030, so the District is
effectively six years ahead of the County projections already. (Table SC-5)
. .. H'd .n. _....
. .", .... ..... . .... .., .... ".. ... ........ ... ..-......... .
... ...... ......... ... ............... ..... ......... .... ...... .... ................
.... .......... ...... ...... ... ..... ........ .... ........ ..... ..............
... . ....... ....... ... .......... ... ........ ... ........ ... . ..... ..... ............
... ... ....... .... . . .......... .... ..... ...... ........... . ...... .... ....
.. ......... ...T.. .. b.....r ..s.. C..... ............ ...... ............ .... ............ ........ . .............. ........ .....
. .... ...... .... ....... ......... ..... ............
.:/.::::. a e.. ...;;5.:.::, .}}:<> .}.::.:::::.:<}:..::
. .. ............. ..... ..... ..........
.. ...... ... ........ .......... .... ....... "',..
...l:rit9nrile~t.. prdl~(:#pij$...H< ............... .
... .... .. .... .. .. ......... ........ ........ ................ ......................
..... . . .... ...... ...... .. ............ ................... ...... ......... ........ ........... .
.... ..... . ..... ... .... ................. ..... . ....... ...... ...... ... .... .... .. .........
. ...... .... ...... . . .. ........ ..... .... .. . ...... . ....... .... ..... ............... ...........
... . ........... ... ............ . . .......... ........... ....... ...... ..... ...........
.. <}Projea~d............ .:?..S~tpllJ.\ <~I'~J.9f'~) .....SHI.1d4.(
.. Enrollment 2000 .... . .Capacity2QQo. .~rirollm~rrt2()14jCapicitY~o1A.
Elementary 2,720 3,674 -954 4,609 -1,889
Middle 900 1,037 -137 1,301 -401
Jr. High 1,236 843 393 1,058 178
Senior High 1,500 1,388 112 1,742 -242
Total = 6,356 6,942 -586 8,710 -2,354
Sources: m Table SC-13, Kitsap County Draft Comprehensive Plan, Part III, September 1994, pg. SC-24.
(2) Bremerton School District (10/94)
d. Need for Capital Facility Improvements
Based on County population projections alone, the Bremerton School District
is expected to need one new elementary school by year 2000 (in addition to
the Crownhill replacement), and an additional 4.4 elementary schools by year
2014.
However the District feels that population projections alone do not accurately
reflect the need for a new middle school by year 2000. The 1992 Bremerton
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 55
School District Capital Facilities Plan recommends that new elementary and
middle schools be constructed when demand exceeds supply by 10 percent.
The projected year 2000 demand for middle schools will exceed the supply by
15%, but that level has already been reached in 1994. The need for a new
middle school by 2000 remains a distinct possibility.
Facility costs are based on average site acquisition/development and
construction costs in the school district, excluding any site clean-up costs.
The District cautions that the projected facility needs do not include any school
modernization or replacement costs, nor do they include any costs for
essential support facilities replacement, acquisition, or expansion. In addition,
the District points out that environmental cleanup costs are becoming more
burdensome. (Table SC-6)
.... ..
. .. ..
.. . .
. ..scllob(Type ..
Elementary (K-5) *
Middle (6-7)
Jr.High (8-9)
High (10-12)
.. <Cost>
.. .. .
. ... .. ......
<...:. ::: ... : ::....... .. T.......b.....I...;.:.:.:S..C .....::.. .......<:::::..
..... ... . ... .:.:.. a e. . 6.... :..:.
.;.:;.Pf6j~ed FacilitYNe~dian~Costs..
.. .
.... . ...
.., ...."... "
. .... ,..... ...""...
." ..... " .
. ., ........... ".. ...
..... ......y,. ..... .....2000... ... ..
. .<: ear .......
.. """ .... - .,,-.
.. .., .
.. ..
.. .:<.:.:.. ..'(88r2014..;.
$7.3M
$13.7M
4.4
$32.3M
0.2
$5.4M
N/A
21.0M
N/A
37.7M
* Projected needs do not include replacement of Crownhill Elementary School.
Source: Bremerton School District, 10/94.
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. For example,
construction costs for a typical middle school in the Bremerton District
($13.7M) are mLlch lower than in the neighboring Central Kitsap District
($21.3M).
3. Proposed Facilities
Based on outdated enrollment projections, the 1992 Bremerton School District Capital
Facilities Plan proposes construction of High School #2 in 1993, Elementary #8 in
1994, Elementary #9 in 1997, High School #3 in 1999, and Elementary #10 in year
2000. The recently completed middle school is not listed. The 1992 plan is obviously
outdated and overdue for an update.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 56
4. Six-Year Financial Plan
The School District estimates it will need one new elementary school (in addition to
the Crownhill replacement) and one new middle school by year 2000. If the City
were to decide to collect Impact Fees to help offset the costs of schools needed
to serve growth, Table SC-7, below would be necessary to document how those
schools would be funded. At present the District points out that it has no approved
levy, and the State match percent or timing is an unknown.
a. Six-year Funding and Projects
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects and non-
capacity projects for the next six years. The last portion of the chart reflects
the balancing of funding sources and money expended on projects. Any
surplus or deficit is indicated. (Table SC-7)
THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS INCLUDED AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION. IT SHOULD BE
COMPLETED IF THE CITY DECIDES TO COLLECT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES.
. . . . ..
.n .. ... ...... 'n
....... .. .. .. ......
. . ....... ....... .............. .
....Fij~ding.SQ(I~!~.. .
State Match
. ,. ......
'. q. .. .. ... ...... .... ......
.... '" '.._ 'n ...... .................
.... ..",... ... ... .... .. ....... . .....
.... ... .. ............., ,,,. ......",.... .....
j~tt........1 ~.......... .. .... ..1997. .1998.
. .. n... ..... . ..... ....... . . . .... , . ....
.. . ............ ....... . . .... ....... ... ....
. ......... .. ....... .......' . ','. ........... . ..., .... ...... .......',. "." . .... ......
....... . ......... . ..... ... ... ...... ........n..
......................................~.i~-\'e~r....Fu~.~f~:~IRd~~:~IJ~$;... .J~hO.Olj......................... .
TOTAL SOURCES
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
5,240
7,328 7,328
13,688 13,688
0
Future Levy
Insurance
Impact Fees
.. .. ...
. .<<.... ... ..
. .... ... ......
.. ...... .. .
.. Proje<:t~<. ...... ...
Crown Hill School * 5,240
Elementary #8
Middle School #2
TOTAL COSTS
o
o
. ,,,.
Balancen
Note: All amounts are times $1,000. Figures are in 1994 constant dollars.
* Crownhill school replacement cost does not include any site acquisition/development costs.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 57
b. Capacity Balance
The following charts demonstrate how the projects to be developed over the
next six years provide the required amount of capacity at the adopted level of
service standard to meet the needs of the existing population and projected
growth.
(1) Elementary Schools
The construction of one elementary school by year 2000 will meet
enrollment needs by year 2000. (Table SC-8)
. .
.~ear I pr()jects
.." .
. ,. .
.".. '''' . , . .
> School. ReqtJir.d*
7.6
0.7
., . . . . .., ...... .... ......
.. .. . . .".. . ...,... ......
. . . . .... "' ..., ............
S~f1~ls Avaiiable..< ...... ...8et~!t&~tv~dt(
...... .......... .......p~frcl!.o~y)
7.0
0.0
.. d'" ... ....
....... . ..... ... . ... .
. ,,,... '''' . .. . ... .. .. .
.", , ...... ..... . ........... .
....... , ... n. ... .... .. .......
.......... .......... ........ .T bl......SC.....S. ... . .
.. ........ '" .. .
... ...." , ... ... ... ..
. .... ..... ..... . . . .... .... . ..... .<JI .e ... ~..) >>....... .... .>i . . i. ....}.
. .eapa~ity Bali:ll'iceStleet:"Elementatj SchoOls
1994
-"" .
(p~ojElCt$ ..
Elementary #8
Total as of 2000
1.0
8.0
-0.3
0.3
* The capacity of new elementary schools is assumed to be 550 students.
· Year 1994 Schools Required = 3273 (existing enrollment) - 2967 (existing capacity) /550 (students per
school) + 7 (existing schools).
· Year 2000 New Schools Required = 3674 (2000 enrollment) - 3273 (1994 enrollment) /550 students
per school)
(2) Middle Schools
According to the following chart, the construction of one middle school
by year 2000 would create a surplus of 0.9 middle schools by year
2000. However, the District justifies this need with its goal to begin
construction of new middle schools when demand exceeds supply by
10 percent. (Table SC-9)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 58
,,::::i:II~II!l,,!l:I:'I'::"I'lllltr;~.~~:,;~il~!il!.~I~~A~;i:II:::::::;lv~ll::I:"I:'"'"...."..... .
....';...>>>>>>>.<.;..-:........... .;..........:-.".......... . ,.".,.. .., ...,..".. .... ......:-.>>>...:.:;.,..:.:.....::;:::::;.;.;...;.>..:-.. ::;:::::;'.;"':'" ,';';';';',',', ...;...;.:;.;:;.... . .:.:::;.:.;:..........:....:>:::::::::;.;.:.;:.:::::::;:::;:;:;';'.:'.:;';:;';:;:;:;:;.
Y!~tl<p.yJ~~.><~~hJ61iRij~tiWid~. ... .. ... ....$dh~oi.A*.ii.bli\?i~~~~s~r;;~rp;fl~.,6~y)
1994
1995-2000 (new)
Total as of 2000
1.0
0.1
o
0.0
-0.1
" . ...... .....'.,',
... ..........,
...... . .......
Proi~<:t$ . .
Middle School #2
Total as of 2000
2
1.0
0.9
* The capacity of new middle schools is assumed to be 1000 students.
· Year 1994 Schools Required = -24 (existing deficiency) j 1000 (students per school) + 1 (existing
schools).
· Year 2000 New Schools Required = 1037 (2000 enrollment) - 924 (1994 enrollment) j 1000 students
per school)
c. Operating Costs (Optional)
It may be useful to consider the impact of operating costs of proposed new
school facilities. Such an analysis is optional, and is not required by the
Growth Management Act.
The following chart may be used to reflect the six-year operating costs for the
projects listed in the Six-year Funding and Projects chart above. (Table SC-1Q)
THIS CHART MAY BE COMPLETED AT A FUTURE TIME TO
DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF SCHOOL FACILITIES.
NjA
NjA
>>1997'<
NjA
.H1~
NjA
,........ ...
, .. . .
.......q>i q . .'tible$C-1Q
.Six~yeir (>pei'atii'lg<Cost${
NjA
NjA
NjA
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 59
."
cO.
r::
...
CD
0
."
.
U1
m
...
CD
3
CD
;:a.
0
:s
en
() n
III =r
"0 0
::l' Q.
e!..
'TI C
III
g ![
::l'
(ii' ...
III a
-c
a
<0
ii3
3
0
'TI
.3!
I
-c
III
<0
(I)
8
am.
~~'".
'0"
,>"
TRACY ON
f
!!l 5
!
~ Riddell Rd
CHICO
"
i
1. Bremerton High School lh I
2. Bremerton Junior High
3. Armon Jahr Elementary
4. Naval Avenue Elementary
5. Naval avenue Elementary
6. View Ridge Elementary Werner Rd
7. West Hills Elementary
8. Frances Haddon Morgan
Children's Center School
9. Warren G. Magnuson
Community School
10. Kitsap Peninsula Vocational
Skills Center
11. Olympic View Elementary
12. Mountain View Middle School
F. Stormwater
f6~~!wi~iQ~ti~P.~d~~~~Of~~Y~I~plhgi$tb~@W~terMij~~~~tt.~nt.>>
,i~~~iijl&if~i~li1ii.~i~~;rjt
~pdjt~ln_la~~tamen~ffieht9P9ij cQmple~~Qrip1~h~flfi~!< ... .)>
$~ormwij..rPlali~/.<<. ... . . ... .. ........ .. . ...... .... ......... ...... ................. n/) .....
The Stormwater Utility was formed by ordinance in 1994 as a funding source for the
stormwater program. The mission of the Program is to control flooding, enhance water
quality, protect sensitive habitat areas, and optimize the recharge of local aquifers.
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 in Exhibit 4-1.
The City has a storm drainage system with partial sewage separation. The City's
newly 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. Bremerton currently has 14 holding 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 storm
water facilities holding capacity is 8,564 acre feet. (Table SW-1)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 61
" .". - . ...... -.. .. -. .......
..... ....." . d' ".._On. ....... ....... .... . _, 'n ..... n. .... .. n'" .
..." ... .,.., , . . ........ .. . . ....- ....., ........... ...... .............. . ........
.... .. ......,.... . .... ,....., . . . .... ...... ...., ... ..... ......... ......... ...........
......, . .... .. ... ........ n. ......, ......, .... ...., ...... ..., ....0.. ....... ....
.... ..., ....... d' . ._..... n. ... n. ......... .. , . , ....,. ..... .... .. ..... ......., ..
............. ............. ....... ................T........bl. S"W... 1. ............... ...... ........... ...................... .... ............ .......... ....
i}.. ... .... ............... .>>>8 .. e. . .~... ..i>"< . ).i .>..\>>< ..
.... .. . ..... '" ..... ... ,. ... ... .. .... . .. .. .. .... .. ... . "' ....
..ll'lyent6rYofCapital..f~91!iiies~$iormWat!rI19IqirigB~sin. .i
1. Anderson Avenue
2. Callow Avenue
3. Cherry Avenue
4. East Park
5. Kitsap Lake
6. Oyster Bay
7. Pacific Avenue
8. Phinney Bay
9. Pine Road
10. Sinclair Park
11. Stevens Canyon
12. Tracyton Beach
13. Trenton Avenue
14. Warren Avenue
.. ........ - ...... .....
. ..............-.... .".". ".................... .... .....................
. . '" ...... ....... .............. .......
. ... .. . ... ...... ............. ........
. .LOcat)~nAp...~~ljag~V .
N. shores of W. Brem. - Port Wn. Narrows
Central W. Brem. - Sinclair Inlet
E. Brem. NE of Warren Ave. Bridge - Port Wn. Narrows
E. Brem. S of Sylvan Way - Port Wn. Narrows
W. Brem surrounding Kitsap Lake - Chico Bay
NW part of W. Brem - Oyster Bay & Ostrich Bay
SE part of W. Brem incl. Ferry Terminal - Sinclair Inlet
N central part of W. Brem - Phinney Bay
W part of E. Brem. - Port Wn. Narrows
SW portion of W. Brem -
E. Brem. in vicinity of Wheaton/Sylvan - Port Wn. Narrows
Along W. edge of city limits in E. Brem - Port Wn. Narrows
E part of E. Brem - Port Wn. Narrows & Port Orchard Bay
... . .....
.... .. . . ..
.... .... ... .
........ .........
..... .... ..... ..
)(iC;:;..:~~ft~\.:
400
650
250
330
1,550
1,575
150
225
680
1,400
350
60
Downtown Bremerton - Port Wn. Narrows
670
275
Total = 8,564
Source: City of Bremerton March 1994 Draft Stormwater Management Plan.
2. Forecast of Future Needs
a. Existing Demand
(TO BE COMPLETED)
b. Level of Service (LOS) Standard
. Current LOS =
_-year, _-hour design storm
. Recommended LOS = _-year, _-hour design storm.
c. Future Demand
(TO BE COMPLETED)
(TO BE COMPLETED)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) .,.. Page 62
3. ProDosed Facility Improvements
The Draft Stormwater Plan identifies twelve 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.
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. (fable SW-2)
,:,;:il.l8~~~"~aptica~;~I~#~~lii~~I'iI~jaf&~I!~~~;IJj)ll!::I(Ilr~":I:I~'I,":
. ..... .... ... . ...... ...........
....... ... n. ....... .... ...
. ....". . ......... . . ..... ...... .
.. ......... . .......... ... .... ........
.... ...... "/~roie~( ... .....c::O~(1~$)...
...... . .
.., n. .. . .
... } Basiri
..... ....
. ......
....Projjtt#
CIP #1
CIP #2
CIP #3
Sinclair Park Upgrade piping and detention at Kean and Rogers St.
Stevens Canyon Piping improvements at Robin and Dibb Streets
Pacific Avenue Piping improvements along Park Avenue, 5th St to Burwell
Total =
851,000
170,000
250,000
1,271,000
Source: March 1995 Draft Stormwater Management Plan
The Draft Stormwater Plan identifies a number of small capital projects that need to be
performed on an annual basis. The small project list includes the annual stormwater
utility contribution to the City's CSOjstormwater sewer separation program. Table
SW-3)
All
All
All
All
.... .. ."
...... . .... .
.~rQj.~< ..
Storm Utility's Contribution to CSO Projects
Install/Upgrade/Replace Pipes and Culverts
Upgrade Dedicated Private Systems
Regrade Swales/Ditches
.. ......... .......... .... .... ....
. ... .....,. ......... n. ..............
.. ......... . .. .............. n.. ...........
"...... d.. .................... ...
. . ........ ,.. ,.......... . . ...
/ . Aonuii tost > . .....
.... .. .. ..... .
...... .....
Total =
$150,000
$35,000
$10,000
$30,000
225,000
Source: March 1994 Draft Stormwater Management Plan.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 63
4. Six-Year Financial Plan
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PROJECTED SIX-YEAR FUNDING PLAN NEEDS TO BE
RECONCILED WITH THE DRAFT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS, ABOVE.
TOTAL COSTS
620
620
620
620.0
620
620.0
620
620.0
..\<>>i>...i>................... . <>TableS'W-4>.. . ................ ........... ... . .............. ......>.. ....... .....>..
..... .......Sbt.iyeafFuhdlngand ..PtOjects: Storm>!later Nlanag~merif>
.......FJri~!ngSou~is\..i >.....J995<>1. ....>1991..............)998. . ......1999 .... ....2000/
User Rates
TOTAL SOURCES
. ,.,...
. . ..' ..." .. .
. .."... '" .. n.
o ".... ....." , .....
...>~roj.ct.><... .
Various
160
160
. ,.. .
'. ",. . . . . .'
..... .. p'
......... . ..
>881. 8.>nce}<"'. ..>...
. .....
Surplus or Deficit
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Source: City Treasurer, 2/95.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 64
."
cQ'
c
..,
(1)
0
."
.
en
m
..,
(1)
3
(1)
::1
0
::J
en
-
0
() ..,
III 3
"2. ~
![ I>>
-
"TI (1)
III ..,
g C
;::+ ..,
ai" I>>
en
-0 ::J
a I>>
(Q
(Q (1)
iil
3 m
() I>>
~.
"TI ::J
~ 0
I
-0
III
(Q
(I)
ffi
U;I ~:NT OF
srOIUIW,\1l.U SWU'i AUt:^
11'11 Y I.u.rrrs EXTEIW
soUfII ,'NI1 WRsn -
DRAINAGE BASINS
WITHIN THE BREMERTON
STORMWATER STUDY AREA
Illl-f'f
5\Ilrl).11t
LEGEND
IIASIH I!OIlN\)AHY
o 2000 4000
I I
SCALE IN FEET
CIIY 11"'l/TS
G" Transportation
This section is a summary of information contained in the Transportation Element.
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:
.. ..Type
Streets and Highways
" Principal Arterials
. Minor Arterials
. Collector Arterials
(See Transportation Element Table 1)
(See Transportation Element Table 1)
(See Transportation Element Table 1)
(Not inventoried)
. Residential Streets
Mass Transit
. Kitsap Transit (See Transportation Element pg. 20)
. Washington State Ferries: Bremerton-Seattle (See Transportation Element pg. 20)
. Horluck 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 0J Ie) 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 0Jolume/Capacity Ratio .90) threshold during the PM peak
hour:
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 66
'''(;;;i,;:;~iiii:i;;'i:,:!;'ii:il:;~~I;~i=:lilll~i!~!l'il~1Ilr!!jij~~~l'li!;::':::;::::!:':::'i'H
. . n' n"_ ,. . "... ... .............. ....... . ....,
....... 'n . "... ....... ..." .......... ........ . ..... .. ......
. .. ....,. . ..... ..... .... .... .... . ........ . ................. ...........
.. ............ . ." ............. .... ........ ..... ............ ..........
<$;8109.) .>.. .}<<.Vj~R~i())).
Burwell
Warren to Naval
0.77
o
E
o
o
Kitsap Way
Manette Bridge
Preble to Farragut
Callow to SR3
0.91
0.87
SR 304
0.89
Warren
11th to Bridge
Bridge to Callahan
0.80
0.99
o
E
Warren (Wheaton)
Source: Table 1 - Existing Corridor Level of Service, Transportation Element
(b) Recommended level of Service (lOS)
The Transportation Element establishes the following level of service standards:
. Wheaton/Warren Corridor -- LOS F with V IC threshold of 1.06
. Kitsap Way Corridor -- LOS E or better ~ IC less than or equal to 1.00
. Manette Bridge -- LOS E or better ~ IC less than or equal to 1.00)
. All Other Arterial Streets -- LOS 0 or better (vi c less than or equal to 0.9)
3. Six-year Financial Plan
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects and non-capacity
projects for the next six years for capital improvements to the road system and related
systems. The last portion of the chart reflects the balancing of funding sources and
money expended on projects. Any surplus or deficit is indicated.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 67
. ... ... .... ........... ... . ...... . ......... ......... ..... ......\.,...".... '...)"ii"
..?;~~~y.,....~:...~h~.~i~'9..~1~~~JJ.:~!C~;~~~P.~~ib~>.\..... .. ....... . ...'i).i
. ..'.'...............'..,'..;...;...;.>:-:.;.;.:-:... .' . ..:: :>" . '.' ,",', ',. ....:.. ...... ...... . :.... : ,In,.::::',;;.::-,:::'?;:: ':.' ::: :;:.:: ",:,:..:.);j;;::.::/:
~ti;'diri~s66~e,ii>>1995 ....\1996..199'1 .>1998>....1999i..2()Q()// '.'''Tot~1 .....
Arterial Street Fund 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800
Total Sources = 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,800
p'~oj.eu. . /...., "... . ..'...'.'.... ...... ...... " ........... ..'.....) ,...
. ...,.... .. . ...... .......,..
BremertonjGorst 150 150 150 150 - - 600
Kitsap Way at SR-3 20 - - - - - 20
Interchange
Werner Road 5 - - 40 35 - 80
Wheaton Way MIS - 50 100 50 - -- 200
Operational, Safety, & 150 150 150 150 150 150 900
Other Improvements
Total Costs = 325 350 400 390 185 150 1,800
.. :.....} ...., ,..... .."'.>. . ..
.. ... . "..... .,:.,.,.'
Salinee ' .... .. .. .... ... ..,..:............ ,
.. .......
Surplus or Deficit = -25 -50 -100 -90 115 150 0
Note: All amounts are times $1,000
Source: Transportation Element Table 10
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 68
<$
~~ ,~
OJ\'c_ ~~~
----- ~~ ~ "0
---... -'4}- '" '\ ~
>- ~ ,,~~;.
-"~.~UT;"""F'" "\
~ .;; I~ ~ \,
~ ItD 1= I \
I
/ PORT ORCHAAO
;;::y ~ - - - pgj.SlRiAN FfllRY
~
~, ~
L.:-..., 'i.
c: <'.
c=:...\
r--
Parametrlx. Inc.
CITY OF BREMER TON
COtoAPREHENSlVE
TRANSPORTATlON PLAN
o
t--=L
19
.:..---.
'II(
I
Ln
~RO
~
~
...
i
Z
'----
~
t:-
Ii;
r
~
rLJI
o 1750 3500
SCALE IN FEET
CHICO W,,"V
LEGEND
FREEWAY
PRINCIPAL ARTE:RIALS
------- MINOR ItRTE:RIALS
-.. - COtL.ECTORS
Figure CF-7 Bremerton Arterial System
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 69
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
adopted 1994 City of Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan -- also known as the
Bremerton Water Plan.
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, not
including PSNS, and approximately 6,800 acres within unincorporated Kitsap
County. (See Figure "Bremerton Water Plan Service Map".) Areas of
boundary uncertainty exist between. the Bremerton Utility and Sunnyslope
Water District service areas. The Kitsap County Coordinated Water System
Plan contains an Interlocal Agreement for Establishing Water Utility Service
Area Boundaries, but this agreement has not 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, 13 wells, 204 miles of water pipe, fourteen
pressure reducing stations, 16 water storage reservoirs, and 14 pump and
booster stations. Approximately 60 percent of the supply comes from the
2,764 acre Union River watershed, which is 94 percent owned and controlled
by the City. Wells in four aquifers supply groundwater to the system. Current
average daily demand is approximately 9 million gallons per day (MGD).
There are six pressure zones in the system: East (E) 240, E 398 E 490, West
(W) 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) on the
Union River watershed and 6350 gallor:1s per minute (gpm) 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 future use pending required treatment.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 70
Bremerton's Union River surface source is of such excellent quality that the
City is currently approved to remain unfiltered. All sources are disinfected with
chlorine. The water system control and alarm is provided through a telemetry
system. Operation staff are certified, and the system is operated in
compliance with all federal and state regulations. (Table WA-1)
(c) 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 Insurance Services (ISO) Standards. A minimum of 20
pounds per square inch (psi) (existing mains) and 30 psi (new mains) residual
system pressure in water mains supplying fire hydrants should be maintained
to meet State Department of Health standards.
(d) Capacity
The current capacity of the water system is between 9.1 to 23.7 MGD. The
capacity of the system with groundwater sources only is 9.1, while the capacity
with groundwater and surface sources at current hydraulic capability is 23.7
MGD.
The capacity varies because the Union River is used to supply the average day
demands of the system. The daily supply can be varied between zero and
15.5 MGD as long as annual average or firm yield of the watershed and water
quality limits are not exceeded. Note that not all sources can be l,Jsed to
maximum capacity at the same time, due to limited hydraulic capacity of the
transmission mains or water right conditions. For example, in December 1994
unusually heavy rains caused high turbidity and therefore the surface system
was shut down for two weeks. During unusual events such as this or a
drought, when surface supplies cannot be used, the City must depend solely
on well supplies to meet demands.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 71
........n .................. ....
..........<(. ....
..} ...
.. .n........ TablewA-1,n ...........\ . ..... ...
.. ....... ..rlnventoryofCapitilFFaeilitieg: Water SUpply
.... . ...... .....i:c. .C.C.C.:..
i=~dmi~. .... ..Address
...... ..:..... .
. . :..n. .:... .......: .. .nc,::nn:.
...
.
>/ <i. . ....i...
. ..n . ..
"Suffac~Wlit!fi.....
.. .q...
.. .. ......,
" . '" ....... ...
C.paeityn. .
c..
.
"., ........ ..,
, .. ... .
"qllp~city(cfS)
40
Union River
Watershed
~~o~lldwal;{}....::..... .
1. #2-R - Anderson Creek Well
2. #3 - Anderson Creek Well
3. #7 - Anderson Creek Well
..
: .:.
. ....::..c.....:.
nnnn..
Surface Water Subtotal = 40.00
..c....... .. . .
. . ......ca.pacltY(gpm)
..
4. #8 - Anderson Creek Well
2380 Anderson Hill Rd SW 800
2380 Anderson Hill Rd SW 400
2731 State Highway 16 450
2651 State Highway 16 650
318 NW Firway lane 230
50 NE Vena Avenue 600
5853 Central Valley Road NE 270
6581 W. Old Belfair Highway 150
6581 W. Old Belfair Highway 760
8301 W. Old Belfair Highway 370
7061 W. Old Belfair Highway 300
8301 W. Old Belfair Highway 1,100
5. #9 - Bridle Ridge Well
6. #13 - Vena Well
7. #14 - East Zone 240 Well
8. #15 - Pistol Range Well
9. #17 - Pistol Range Well
10. #18 - Twin Lakes Well
11. #19 - Golf Course Well
12. #20 - Twin lakes Well
13. #21 - Silverdale Mobile Home Estates Well
(pending application)
903 NE Saturn lane
(Future produc on 500 gpm)
14. Gorst Well (pending application)
Old Belfair Highway
(Future produc on
gpm)
6,080.00
Groundwater Sub-Total =
..". ..
. .... .. .....
..... .... .. .
.. ...... . .
...pumpSfafions /
...cc...:... ..
.. c... .......
. . . ......:.......:.:. .
.....:::.......::.::.....,:,.. ....... .::......:::.:..\:::\:.....:"
Total Water Supply (MGD) = 6,120.00
. ..... ....:. ........... . ............. .....PurriPingcapadif(g~~r
15. PS #1 - Gorst Creek (emergency supply only) Belfair Valley Road - Gorst Creek
16. PS #2 - Anderson Creek 2380 Anderson Hill Road
N/A
2,250
400
800
17. PS #3 (not in use) 7061 Belfair Valley Road
18. PS #4 1335 Jones St. (West Brem.)
19. PS #11 844 Callahan Drive
20. PS #12 3029 Olympus Drive
21. PS #13 2929 Olympus Drive
22. PS #14 2101 Schley Blvd
23. PS #16 50 NE Vena Ave
1,400
950
500
825
1,250
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 72
. ...
. .n ........
. . .........
........ ... . .......... .
....... .......... . ...........
........... . ........ ....... ..
... ............. .......... ".
........... ................... 0'
........ .... ............ ...
................... ............
.................................. ..
............... ................
.................... ..................
.... ...............................
. ...... ...................
...... .........................
. ...... ....................
.. ............. .......
...... ....... .......
.. ............... .
..... ............. ........
. ..................
...... ........ ......
. -. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. ....
.. ......... ..... ...
d. ............ ...
.. ............
. ... .... ........ n' .
.. ... .......... . . ....
... ................... ......
I~...........
I~r
n. . . . . . . . .....',. . u.
n ..... ... n. .. ................. .......... . ........ ...
.... .... .. .... . . ................. ............ . ..... ...... ...
......... . ...... ...... .., ... ............. ... ... .... .. . ..... .......
. .................. .............. .'. .' ........,....... .......... ..................................... .' ............ .........'............ .............. ..
.......:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,......... ...::.....,.,..: . . .. .:..:....,....:... ... .:..::.'.'.\fabl.e..WA:j ,.,.,i/:/\,\\.::.:..:...::.(.;.;,i,:> ....
i_8~~cc~alljifE~~ll!~;=\::C:~~~i[ii\:ccc))i;:C
- Forestry Operations Center, Old Belfair
Hwy
24. PS #17
Pump Station Sub-Total =
. .' ....... .. ....... ........... .'. ............
.... .............................. ............... .... ........
........................... .... ............,.. ....... ..,... ,
a~AA1!rpijmp$t!ti~6..?>: ,.. ..
.... .....
. ...... . ...... .....
.... .............
.... . ..... ... ...
.. .9.!P~~~y}:
1,500
.. ...:..:.::. .:.:)>/.H>:R~mplh~~P.~~~(~Pfuf
9,875.00
..:.. ..:.
25. Booster Station #2 (backup only)
26. Booster Station #3
3201 Sixth Street
3000 17th Street
27. Booster Station #4
3301 First Street
28. Booster Station #5
589 Lebo Blvd
Booster Pump Stations Sub-Total =
300
300
100
1,000
1,700.00
...}.<,>: H
.:n:.
Pump Stations Total = 11,575.00
::::.... .. ....,.:. .:".:::.. '. :::::'.' .....
i\ :.. . ........:.. ... $t(.)m.ge~p~S\tY(M@}(
. ... .. ..
..... . .. .... ...... ....
.. .. . ... ... ..... . ... ......
... ... .. ..... ... ....
..RedNolrt,,;,.. A~WW~te~{}...
29. Union River Reservoir
Union River Watershed
30. Twin Lakes Reservoir
Gorst Creek Watershed
31 Res. #22
McKenna Falls
32. Anderson Creek #1 - Abandoned
Anderson Creek Watershed
33. Anderson Creek #2 - Abandoned
Anderson Creek Watershed
..., ....
. .....,.... .,..
... . .. . ......
..... ., .. ..........
.... .. .......... .......,
.fhis....voi~~bIMnblrti~n
Reservoirs (Raw Water) Total =
.:>> ......,.,..:
.:..,<..>.. .. ...:.. . ......... ..::..
. .............,.....:....
:....,., .:. H
.. .... ..:: ...:.........,.,.:
.<......:.....
34. Reservoir #4
4801 Roosevelt Blvd
3200 First Street
35. Reservoir #5 . Forest Ridge Park
36. Reservoir #6
5144 Francis Street @ Eden Road
7300 Werner Road
37. Reservoir #8
38. Reservoir #10
5785 Imperial Way SW, Pt. Orchard -
Port of Brem. Industrial Park
39. Reservoir #11
844 Callahan Drive
40. Reservoir #12
3029 Olympus Drive
2929 Olympus Drive
1628 Hayward Avenue @ E. 17th
1925 Cheryl Street @ Forest Drive
41 Reservoir #13
42. Reservoir #14
43. Reservoir #15
44. Reservoir #16
260 Sugarpine - Tracyton Watershed
400 Ridge Lane NE @ Sandra Lane
45. Reservoir #17
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 73
1,350
390
0.1
NjA
NjA
1,740.10
.H
H~tqti,lge (M(3)
11.0
3.0
0.15
2.54
0.21
1.58
2.0
0.80
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
I;C/;// ... . ...;;. .....
). '. . <</.. . He ...... }f.~jIitie~ . ..... ..... ....
.... . .:....< ..<... .. ....:. ....... .... ..<.. .<... .... ..:......:.....\..../... :.:....:.:....
TableWA..;j . ....... ... .>
)lhyeritdryofCaPital.Fil~ii,H~:Wat~t$.uPPIY<:/". .....<( \. t<
............ ........................ ... ........ ..... ...............:.....:. ... ...............(.... ......... .:..... ::......<..<....::......
.. . ............. . ......... .......\..<Acfdreq >/. ...... ..................t;!p~l(:ay..
46. Reservoir #18
1925 NE Cheryl Street @ Forest Dr.
2628 Ash Street @ Cherry Ave
400 Ridge Lane NE @ Sandra Lane
2132 Lakehurst Drive - NAD Park
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.0
47. Reservoir #19
48. Reservoir #20
49. Reservoir #21
,- ... .
.. ,-,- ... ..
rrah~n1ission M~in Piping
12" Water Mains
.....<....
...:.....
.')'..< .......
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
Distribution Reservoir Total = 33.28
../.. .<}.. ....... ..<.......:... ........... .........<cip~8i.W(~~1
45,720
36" Water Mains
4,000
30" Water Mains
1,981
28" Water Mains
18" Water Mains
11 ,750
5,869
55,193
1,705
44,708
30,222
27" Water Mains
24" Water Mains
20" Water Mains
16" Water Mains
... ..
..
Transmission Main Piping = 201,148.00
...<.. ./..... H.......................:... ...... ........
. ........ .. ..... .. ............... .<...............<..<...
...... . .... ....< .... . .<..... ...<..C#p~cifY(f~}
106,680
43,945
387,816
411,758
155,653
14,533
91,344
1,211,729.00
... .. .. ."
. . .
. . . " .
..< Distribution Piping Sy~terYI
12" Water Mains
.H."
Various
1 0" Water Mains
Various
8" Water Mains
Various
6" Water Mains
Various
4" Water Mains
Various
3" Water Mains
Various
2" Water Mains
Various
Distribution Piping System Sub-Total =
Total Piping System =
1 ,412,877.00
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 74
2. Forecast of Future Needs
(a) Existina Demand
The average daily water system demand in 1993 was 7.73 million gallons per
day (MGD) -- down from 9.35 million gallons in 1990.
~ Average Day Demand (MGD)
1990 9.35
1991 8.71
1992 8.48
1993 7.73
1994 8.29
Approximately 38 percent of the 1990 average daily demand came 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
low 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. Even though the City's population
dropped by about 2,000 persons between 1990 and 1994, this change would
have accounted for only 0.2 MGD.
(b) Level of Service (LOS) Standard
The estimated 1990 LOS is 106 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The City's
"Moderate 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 (MOD) will increase from 21.85 million gallons
per day (mgd) in 1990 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
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 75
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 low to high range used
to forecast water system demand.
:.:':':. '................. ......:................. .
. ..... ........ . ........ .
i'''.. Water Source .
. ....,. '" .. .... ..
'. .............. "'" .. ...... . ". ",.'..' . ..
..::....:..:... :.:..:'. .:: ......b.....I:...: ..:...... .
.. .. '.i}: '.: ....<E~isting~nd~~ot:~~~..~a'etSUpply
......, . '"
..... .. ... ... -.. .
.... ..n... . ....... .
"'::'. :.'. Dailysopply(mgdr': .......:..... · .:AhhuaISupply (~(?-fi)
Existing Sources
9.1 - 23.7
11.0 - 12.2
20.1 - 35.9
13,460 - 16,565
7,470
20,930 - 24,035
Potential Sources
Total Sources
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)
..... . n' ... ... n' .. . .,
..... ....... ..... ... . .... . .
... ..... ...... .......... ..... .. ....... .
... ..... ........ .... . n.. . . .. ................
... ....... ..... . ,,,. ....... ,,,........,
.. 'bem.ikJ{Pop'ijlatiori:incitY~coiJnfy. .
.:.:..... . . ......Servl9sArea)..} .....
.. ...,
. ...... ...., ,
.... .....
.... ,." . ....,
W.A...... .................
. . .... .
.. .......
, .. ....
.W~i~f/>......
.... .. ., ,.. - .
.. ... ,......".",
....... .. ........... ...... ..... .....,
...... ........ ....... .............. ....
..... . ... ...... .......... . ..... .......
sG-YliiarNeed\ /<<<.' .
.... ... .......
... ..... .......
1994
1995-2000 (new)
Total as of 2000
i~riti.;y~~ji~iia\.>......\.... ....
2000-2014
Total as of 2014
18,366
89,704
1.84
12.17
Source: Bremerton Water System Comprehensive Plan, updated by Bremerton Water Utility
Assumptions: 2000: Pop. X 103 gallons/capita + 3.2 MG for PSNS
2014: Pop. X 100 gallons/capita + 3.2 MG for PSNS
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 76
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)
The Water Plan concludes that existing distribution system is capable of meeting
typical system demands. Improvements in transmission and distribution mains are
necessary to improve flows and pressures in certain areas and to replace undersized
or sub-standard facilities.
(a) Water Quality
Meeting strict 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, to be implemented in 1995.
(b) Storage
With the exception of additional storage for fire fighting in 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 and south of Gorst. Additional storage
should also be provided north of the East Bremerton city limits in the vicinity of
Fairview Junior High School.
(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
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 77
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 low-pressure problems
in the Sherman Heights area. The existing telemetry and control system will
require upgrading and 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. Currently areas of boundary
uncertainty exist between the Bremerton Water Utility and the Sunnyslope
Water District service areas. An 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, is being 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 adopted by the State
Department of health in 1995, 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.
(a) Six-year Funding and Proiects
The following chart contains the funding sources, capacity projects; and non-
capacity projects for the next six years. The last portion of the chart reflects
the balancing of funding sources and money expended on projects. Any
surplus or deficit is indicated. (Table WA-4)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 78
'>'!i1!j4\)\\':\::::L~!'!~;\tl'~~~I~~,~~t~i~ifil~atl1.1.;;!,\1W;1;;;~~'j
......~q~~ihg~dijt~i/ ..i~~. ..i1~<q991'~ii19; ..... ............~............@t~ir.. . .
Current Utility Rates
Contribution - Navy
Cash Carryover
1,250
3,500
1,500
1,250
1,500
7,500.0
11,000.0
1,500.0
4,743.0 4,744.0 4,745.0 4,746.0 19,996.0
(.H...>........................<......~.}~
198.0
1,250
1,500
1,250
1,500
1,250
1,500
1,250
1,500
TOTAL SOURCES 8,241.0 4,742.0
. .............. ... ................ ..........i.> .........................:. ............... .<................:.....:...... ...
ph,jec#iH ..... ~.:<... .....:. ........ .'..<.:.. .....
Telemetry Equipment 148.0 50.0
Reservoir Rehabilitation
Pump Sta.14 Replacemt.
Anderson Ck. Well
Abandonmt.
1 st St Transm. Main
Domesea Well Devlpmt.
Fairview Tank Trnsm.
Main
S.CtrI.Vly.Rd. Stor.Res.
Sherman Hts. Main
Replacemt.
Twin Lakes Main Ext.
Alder Bottom Well #23
Expansion
36" Main Gorst
Fleet Purchases (above
$351<)
Biosolids Bldgs.
Union R. Land Acquisition
Various Equipment
Bldg Remodel
Well 21 Pump/Motor
Subst. Main Replacemt.
Schley Way Main Install.
Austin Dr. Main Rplcemt.
W. Kitsap Lk. Main Ext.
115.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 715.8
32.9 486.2 519.1
34.7 34.7
196.8 196.8
127.3 127.3
133.7 133.7
790.1 790.1
218.8 218.8
1,850.6 1,850.6
140.4 140.4
1,680
135
100
235.0
106.6
106.6
713.3
713.3
61.1
108.5
50
50
50
50
50
311.1
108.5
79.1
79.1
74.8
115.8
60.8
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
335.6
115.8
81.8
81.8
133.7
133.7
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 79
it(i,i'ii;i\:",,';c::',:;i;(,III*;~~;~~~~~~'::A~~;~:~~~r'i,,:,
......... '.. . '" .. ... ." . .
..~QijiiMuSb~~&ti>... ....199$\.. ....1996... ......1997 /199S.....)1999. .... .2006. ...) Tdtali
NW 64th Main Install.
13th St Distr. Main
51.1
114.9
70.2
.68.3
50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0
418.3 250.0 350.0
51.1
114.9
High St Distr. Main
Ohio St Distr. Main
70.2
Deteriorated Meters
Upgrade
TOTAL COSTS
68.3
300.0
Surplus or Deficit
Notes: All amounts are times $1,000.
Only capital facilities valued at $35,000 or more are included.
Source: Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Department.
,.. .... -, .
..... . ......... ........ ..
.. ...... ..... .. .
..... .. ......... ....... .
........ .......... ...........
. Bilairice< ..... > .....
.n ...._..
(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 WA-5)
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 80
_J""!'::r;ji'IEI\\\"II:i!'lll.j~lliiRt~.II~i~1 t:l:iljl'!'i,,!"!;~,@i" " "" """
................................................................. :. .......;.::;:;.;:;.;:::;:::...:;..:::...:::;:::::::::;:.:;'.:' ':'.:'::.;:;::.;":::::...;.:';..'.;':':.:;:::;:;:;:;:.". ;.:. .......;...;.;.:-:-:<::-:-:;:.;..;.::..:....::.;:-:;.::::::::::;:.:::..........;: ;:::;:......:...;:;:::::;:.....;::::::::::::.:;-.::.:::;:;:;:;:;.;":..... ,,;.'.;.;.',
........................~.:-.........r....l..........p,....~,.,':',jict,'.,>.., li,.'.... '. '..,.,..,..,.',..,.."A,..".,..".,.."~,..".,..,,.,.."9,..,,.,."....,..',..,.....,.....,..,0,.....::.'.'..,...~.'.',.~:.,..,p.'.....O.......T.....~..."~......OR...,..,.,,!Cl)P:.....,,:.....,...:...,.,..U.,.,..:..,1...~..'.!...~............199ie.iP..~J.tY(MGD) ".> NeiResii'iiQri
~ ~ ~ \~~ ' "PP" ",', · P 'c' ", . .pificj.6~Y(MijI:U?
1994 (1) 9.54 9.1 to 23.7 -0.44 to +14.16
1995-2000 (2) n/a n/a n/a
Total as of 2000 (3) 10.34
P@J~#t~1~tO~OOOtdi~~~i~~t,piC;~y ~ .
Well 21 Pump/Motor
Gorst Well Pump/Motor/Piping
10.4 to 25.9
+ 0.06 to + 15.56
Total as of 2000 =
..., . ........ ... . ... . ....... .
....." ....... .. .. .... .. ..................
...... .......... . ...... ...... ...... .
.. .. .. .. ......... ......... ... .
>#:pptdi.c.pilc~...(~Gb)i
500 gpm (est.) = 0.72
400 gpm (est.) = 0.58
900 gpm (est.) = 1.30
Notes: (1) 1994 pop. x 106 GPC + 3.2 PSNS.
(2) Not applicable because of difference in LOS between 1994-2000.
(3) 2000 pop. x 100 gpc + 3.2 PSNS.
Source: Bremerton Public Works & Utilities Dept. (1/95)
(e) Operating Costs
It may be useful to consider the impact of each completed capital
. improvement on the City's future operating budget. An analysis of operating
costs is optional; it is not required by the Growth Management Act.
The following table could be used to reflect the six-year operating costs for the
projects listed in the Six-year Funding and projects chart above. (Table CF-5)
THIS TABLE MAY BE COMPLETED AT SOME FUTURE TIME
TO DETERMINE THE FULL COSTS OF SCHOOL FACILITIES:
. .. .. ... ...
. . . -, . ..." . ..... ...,-"
. ... ........., . . n' .... .. .. .. ......... .
. .. . . ......... ..... ........ ........ ..... ..
. . . ....., . . ...,-,-,.' ...... .... ,. ..
. ........ ...................... .T.......b...[.........W.A~............... ............ .'
.. . ... " .. .... ..... . ...., .
........, .. ....... ....... . ....,. .
':.:.<::..{...:.: .:. '. .' . .........:..,...,:.:. '.:.: ..::.: a e.. :":".'.{,',::", .'. ......<.>..... :"':':""'"
. .... ......,. . ... ...... ". .... ... .. "" ...
. ...... .. . ........ ....... ......
'>C!:;ix~yeafOpefatiri9g9sts ........................ .........:........
. .... . '."-, ,,- .
. . . . ........ .. ...........
... .. .. ....-.... .... ....,
... ... ........ . . ...... .....,.....
iL1997}i .'. 1991f< .. '}1999 ( .
.... .. . ... . . ..........
. .. ,.....
N/A
NjA
NjA
N/A
NjA
.... . .... ... . .
... ........., ..
... ............ .
..... .......
......2000............. .
..-... .
. .
... ...
..-:.:' . ;:::;.-:.,.,.,',.
... . .....
.. . .. .....
N/A
N/A
Note: all amounts are times $1,000
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 81
i
.------------t-- ---------------t
Plin NO. I
\ ; 1~CO
r-----------------t---------------- ------ -------t---------------!
: i RHODODIHDRO HlJcGHT9 1
t I ~ mT' I
i../..d::...-t ..._..._...i
: 1 : SCALE IN FEET! i
,-- n__ --------+-----------------1-----------------r--------------Of
!~ !
f-J- ,I ; S1L'o'BlI:W.E I
. IW~~D&. i
- --t--------- --------t--
: :
, ,
, ,
, ,
I '
LEGEND
D ~ l1TLITY
o
DD
D
-
BfBERTON WAlEA
l1TLITY
WA lEA SERVICE
DlSTIlCT
lJNClAlMED AfEAS
SERVICE AREA
UNDER DtSP\JTE
I
,
I
I
__171_____ ---4-~-
1 I .C
: I
~ . I '.
j "I
-----------+---------l--~~~~+~- "
, I , I-
I " ., "
j I
.)
......-.1
..........
W,QIIT
---- u___ ------u-mulmum-m-mj
7~=.--a-- ~l~....l.-i...,...--.8
.........
BREMERTON WATER PLAN
SERVICE AREA MAP
Figure CF-8. Water Plan Service Area Map
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) - Page 82
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
UTILITIES ELEMENT
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
I
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT I
UTiliTIES
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. GOALS AND POLICIES ......................................... 3
A. GROWTH MANAGEM ENT ACT GOALS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. KITSAP COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY ...................... 3
C. UTILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
(1) Level of Service .................................. 3
(2) Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
(3) Resource Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
(4) Timely Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND FUTURE NEEDS8
A. FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS/REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
B. NATURAL GAS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
C. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES ................................... 12
D. TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
(1) Telephone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
(2) Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
(3) Cellular. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . .. 18
(4) Cable Television. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
UT-1 Utilities Facilities: Bremerton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UT-2 Existing Capacity: Electrical Utilities ............................. 14
UT-3 Projected Electrical Load Level: North Kitsap Subarea ................ 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
UT-1
UT-2
UT-3
UT-4
Kitsap County, Washington, Utilities ............................. 21
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation Service Area . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Map 1 - Electrical Transmission System: Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Map 2 - Electrical Transmission System: Proposed Facilities ........... 24
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT I
UTILITIES
.......I...~..............INTRODmCTIQjN ..... ................................
....... .. . .. .
.. .... .
This Utilities Element has been developed in accordance with Section 36.70A.070 of the
Growth Management Act (GMA) to address the utility services in the City of Bremerton and
the adjacent urban growth area.
The GMA requires:
A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and
capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to,
electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines.
The Utilities Element represents the community's policy plan for growth over the next 20
years. The element describes how the goals in the other plan elements will be implemented
through utility policies and regulations, and is an important element in implementing the
comprehensive plan.
The Utilities Element has also been developed in accordance with adopted Kitsap County-
wide Planning Policy, and has been integrated with all other planning elements to ensure
consistency throughout the comprehensive plan. The Utilities Element specifically considers
the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities.
The ,element also identifies general utility corridors.
The Utilities Element includes:
. INTRODUCTION
. GOALS AND POLICIES
. INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND FUTURE NEEDS
Utilities -- Page 1
The Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary was selected in order to ensure that urban services
- will be available to all development. This includes the provision of utility facilities. The City
recognizes that planning for utilities is the primary responsibility of the utility providers.
However, the City will incorporate plans prepared by the providers into its comprehensive
planning efforts in order to identify ways of improving the quality and delivery of services
provided in the City and its designated urban growth area boundary. All development
requiring urban services will be located in the UGA, and will have these services extended to
them in a timely and financially feasible manner. The Utility Plan in this element will guide
decision making to achieve the community goals as articulated in the Vision for Bremerton
(Element B).
Utilities -- Page 2
. .... .. ........ .. ..... ....... ...... . .. .. .. ...... .........
.. ................ ..... .... .... .. . ..... . ...
....... . .'. .................. ......... ..... .... ..... . '.' ..... ............. .... ....... ......
.... .... ......... ............ ... ... ........ . .... .
.... ..... . . ......... .. ........ . ....... ..... .... .
<~~GOAtSmD<mO[IGIEs. .../>. .. ............
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GOALS
The Growth Management Act Public Facilities and Services goal is related to the
provision of utilities:
Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current
service levels below locally established minimum standards.
B. KITSAP COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING POLICY
The adopted Kitsap County-wide Planning Policies for Capital Facilities include
.reference to utilities:
The multiple use of corridors for major utilities, trails and transportation rights-
of-way is encouraged.
C. UTILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES
The Utilities Goals and Policies have been developed from the analysis of the existing
conditions and projected needs contained in the Utilities Element.
(1) LEVEL OF SERVICE
GOAL:
Facilitate the development and maintenance of all utilities at
the appropriate levels of service to accommodate anticipated
growth.
Policies
1. Coordinate city land use planning with utility providers', planning.
1.a. Adopt procedures by 1996 that encourage providers to utilize
the Land Use Element and Urban Growth Area in planning future
facilities.
2. . Utilize maps of existing and proposed utility facility corridors to
determine consistency of such designations with the elements of the
comprehensive plan. NOTE: The map designation for proposed utility
facilities applies to a general utility corridor or area rather than a specific
alignment or site.
Utilities -- Page 3
3. Assure that the comprehensive plan designates areas available for the
location of utility facilities.
4. Ensure that all elements of the Comprehensive Plan (and implementing
development regulations) are consistent with, and do not otherwise
impair the fulfillment of, the public service obligations imposed upon the
utility provider by federal and state law.
5. Provide for efficient, cost effective and reliable utility service by ensuring
land will be available for the location of utility lines, including locations
within transportation corridors.
5.a. Allow for various utility facilities, such as transformer stations,
repeater stations, pumping stations, etc. to be permitted as
appropriate to serve growth.
6. Recognize that utilities have an obligation to serve and provide the
same level of service to all customers.
7. Recognize that decisions regarding utility corridors and facilities cannot
be made solely on the basis of local considerations if multi-jurisdictional
or regional interests would be affected.
7.a. Strive to coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions in the
implementation of multi-jurisdictional utility facility additions and
improvements. Effort should include coordination of procedures
of land use decisions for consistency.
8. Establish the level of service for City utilities in the Capital Facilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) DESIGN
GOAL:
Facilitate the provision of utilities that are environmentally
sensitive, safe and reliable, aesthetically compatible with
surrounding land uses, and available at reasonable economic
costs.
Policies
1. Minimize visual impacts of antennas and towers on surrounding
neighborhoods and other view-sensitive areas such as parks.
1.a. Encourage siting of antennas and. towers in industrial and
commercially designated areas and near transportation and
utility corridors.
Utilities -- Page 4
1.b. Encourage shared sites and towers to minimize the need for
new towers.
1.c. Develop guidelines to evaluate visual impacts of antennas and
towers on view corridors"vistas and adjacent properties on a
case-by-case basis.
2. Appropriately place utility facilities on public rights-of-way, and
encourage undergrounding of existing and new utility lines.
2.a. Encourage undergrounding of all new distribution and
communication lines in accordance with applicable rates,
regulations and tariffs.
2.b. Encourage undergrounding of new transmission lines if and
when the WUTC changes its rates, regulations and tariffs in such
a manner as to allow equitable distribution of undergrounding
costs across its rate base.
2.c. Cooperate with the formation of local improvement districts
(LIDs) to underground utility lines.
3. Encourage utilities to use new/improved technology to enhance the
quality of their service when these changes are cost effective and
consistent with the provider's public service obligations.
(3) RESOURCE CONSERVATION
GOAL:
Protect non-renewable resources to benefit present and
future generations.
Policies
1. Facilitate and encourage conservation of resources to delay the need
for additional facilities for electrical energy and water resources and
achieve improved air quality.
2. Facilitate the conversion to cost-effective and environmentally sensitive
. alternative technologies and energy sources.
3. Support development of a widespread gaseous fuel infrastructure to
provide more options to reduce vehicular pollution.
3.a. Convert city vehicles to use cleaner fuels as feasible.
3.b. Strive to achieve significant reductions in use of electric energy
in City facilities.
Utilities -- Page 5
4. Encourage the joint use of utility corridors, provided that such joint use
is consistent with limitations as may be prescribed by applicable law
and prudent utility practice.
4.a. Encourage the joint use of utility corridors for non-motorized
trails in conjunction with regional greenways plans.
5. Require utility facilities to be designed, constructed and used in a
. manner which minimizes incompatibility with surrounding land uses.
5.a. Require utility facilities to be fully enclosed in buildings/
structures where appropriate. (NOTE: Not applicable to utility
lines and poles.)
5.b. Require utility buildings and structures to be aesthetically
compatible with the area in which they are placed, and
landscaped and screened accordingly. (NOTE: Not applicable
to utility lines and poles.)
S.c. Promote replacement of existing cross-sound overhead utility
lines with submarine cable or other less visible alternatives.
6. Permit new utility projects in all zoning districts as a conditional use.
Consider the following when reviewing proposed utility projects:
6.a. Comprehensive plan designation for surrounding area;
6.b. Direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts;
. 6.c. Potential health impacts;
6.d. Compatibility with surrounding area;
6.e. Visual/aesthetic impacts, including screening and architectural
compatibility;
6.t. Impacts on surrounding property values;
6.g. Costs.
4. TIMELY PROCESSES
GOAL:
Process permits and approvals for utility facilities in a fair
and timely manner and in accord with development
regulations which encourage predictability.
Policies
1 . Promote co-location of new public and private utility distribution facilities
in shared trenches and coordination of construction timing to minimize
construction-related disruptions and reduce costs of utility delivery.
Utilities -. Page 6
2. Provide timely, effective notice to utilities to encourage coordination of
public and private utility trenching activities for new construction and
maintenance and repair of existing roads.
3. Encourage provision of efficient, cost effective and reliable utility service
by ensuring land will be made available for the location of utility lines,
including location within transportation corridors.
4. Promote the extension of distribution lines to and within the Urban
Growth Area.
4.a. Coordinate land use and facility planning to allow eventual siting
and construction of natural gas distribution lines within rights-of-
way which are being dedicated or within roads which are being
constructed or reconstructed.
5. Ensure that all maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement
activities by utilities are consistent with City critical areas ordinances.
6. Encourage communication between the City of Bremerton, the WUTC
and utilities regulated by the WUTC regarding planning for adequate
utility services.
7. Encourage system design practices intended to minimize the number
and duration of interruptions to customer service.
8. Formulate, interpret and apply development regulations so as to allow
the timely development of utility facility additions and improvements.
Utilities -- Page 7
......~.~..........].~.~I~.By;.......~~~~x~I~......AN.~.......fOIP.8E.......~.~.~.P~.................................................
The inventory presented in this element provides information useful to the planning process.
It does not include all of the data or information that was gathered, but has presented the
relevant information in an organized and useful format. Additional data is listed in the
bibliography and can be obtained at the City. The inventory summarizes general information
pertaining to existing utility service systems in the City. Many public and private agencies are
involved in regulating, coordination, production, delivery, and supply of utility services.
This section of the element identifies utility providers as well as the legislation regulating the
utility. An analysis of future utility needs is also included. The inventory includes:
. Natural Gas
. Electrical
. Telecommunications
The inventory and analysis of the following additional utilities is located in the Capital Facilities
Element:
. Water
. Sewer
A summary of utility facilities included in the element is provided on the following page.
(Table UT-1)
Utilities -- Page 8
............. .. .....) .....r..ribJiOt;1C}....................
.:.pijj,~',.f.iplt.itit.:.rem~"()k.<
. ........ .. n. ....... . ........ ............ .... ............ ........... ............ ....... .......
. n. ... .......... ............... .... ......... ........... ......... .......... ........... . ............
.. ................ .... ........... .......................... .................. .................... .......................................................................
ijtlltty.> .. ...PtoVl~i~ .... .~*t8tjhgp~P.aw\~..M~~pi~.~iji<f
Natural Gas
Cascade Natural Gas
Corp. (CNG)
Electrical
Puget Power
Telecommunications
17,000 users in Kitsap
service area in 1994.
Peak demand is c. 1,950,000
therms/day.
North Kitsap subarea
.(includes Bremerton) has 445
Mega Volt Amperes (MVA's)
capacity. Power utilization
factor is at 70.5 % of
capacity.
Plans to triple distribution
capacity to area over 3
years.
Is mandated to expand
capacity as demand
develops. Plans to increase
capacity to 484 MVA's by
2020.
. Telephone
US West
................................................. ....n............................................. .....n........................................................... ..................................................................
77,000 customers in Kitsap
County.
Maintains routes at 85%
capacity; installs additional
facilities when exceed 85%.
. Radio
................................................. ................................................... .................................................................. ..................................................................
Public sector com-
munications serve law
enforcement agen-
cies, fire depts. etc.
Emergency broadcast
network has links throughout
county.
Expansion of 911 system in
near future.
. Cellular
Cellular One
................................................. ................................................... .................................................................. ..................................................................
US West New Vector
Group
2 cell sites in Bremerton
area: East Bremerton &
Kitsap Lake.
2 cell sites in Bremerton
area: West Hills & Silverdale.
Plans 4 additional cell sites
in Kitsap County - none in
Bremerton area.
Plans 8 additional cell sites
in Kitsap during next 1-3
years -- none in Bremerton
area.
. Cable TV
TCI Cable
................................................. ................................................... ...............................................................n. ..................................................................
Falcon Cable
Has potential to serve 15,156
households Serves 10,000
customers within City.
> 2,000 households - Kitsap
Lake area.
Utilities -- Page 9
Plans for 4% annual growth
rate.
Plans to continue to meet
demand.
A. FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS/REGULATIONS
(1)Revised Code of Washington and Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission .
Utilities and transportation are regulated in Washington by the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). The WUTC, composed of
three members appointed by the governor, is empowered to regulate utilities
(including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, irrigation, telecommunications, and
water companies). State law (WAC 480-120) regulates the rates and charges,
services, facilities, and practices of utilities. Any change in customer charges
or service provision policy requires WUTC approval.
The WUTC requires gas providers to demonstrate that existing ratepayers will
not subsidize new customers. Thus, historically, gas main extensions have not
been planned in advance but have been initiated only when sufficient customer
demand is manifest. The WUTC regulations, are, therefore, inconsistent with
the GMA's concurrency goals.
(2) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent five-
member commission with the U.S. Department of Energy. FERC establishes
rates and charges for the interstate transportation and sale of natural gas, for
the transmission and sale of electricity, and the licensing of hydro-electric
power projects. In addition, the Commission establishes rates or charges for
the interstate transportation of oil by pipeline.
(3) Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
The central theme of the National Gas Policy Act (NGPA) is encouragement of
competition among fuels and suppliers across the country. As a result, natural
gas essentially has been decontrolled. The NGPA also contained incentives
for developing new natural gas resources and a tiered pricing structure aimed
at encouraging the development of nation-wide transmission pipelines. The
result of the Act has been that many consumers are now paying less for
natural gas than they were in 1980.
(4) Northwest Power Planning Council
The Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) focuses on the generation of
electricity; however, its policies have implications for gas too. The NWPPC, in
its recently released power plan, has directed the region to develop
cogeneration as an energy resource and hydro-firming as a power back-up
system.
· Cogeneration is the use of heat, as a by-product of power generation,
for industrial processes or for space and water heating. Natural gas is
often used as a fuel source for cogeneration.
Utilities -- Page 10
. Hydnrfirming is the back-up of the region's intermittent excess spring
hydro generation with gas-fired combustion turbines to provide back-up
if hydro-electric power is insufficient.
(5) 1991 Clean Air Amendments
The passage of the Washington State Clean air Act in 1991 indicates a state
intent to promote the diversification of fuel sources for motor vehicles. This is
in response to a need to both reduce atmospheric emissions and reduce the
nation's reliance on gasoline for strategic reasons. This Act promotes the use
of alternative fuels by requiring 30% of newly purchased state government
vehicle fleets to be fueled by alternative fuel by July 1992 (increasing by 5%
each year). It also studies the potential and encourages the development of
natural gas vehicle refueling stations.
B. NATURAL GAS
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation (CNG) builds, operates and maintains natural gas
facilities serving Kitsap County. CNG is an investor-owned utility serving customers in
sixteen counties in the State of Washington, as well as parts of Oregon.
The Pacific Northwest receives its natural gas from the Southwest United States and
Canada. Natural gas is supplied to the entire region via two interstate pipeline
systems. The Pacific Gas Transmission Company (PGT) and Northwest Pipeline
Corporation (Northwest) each owns and operates its respective regional pipeline
network that supplies natural gas to Washington, Oregon and Idaho. (See Map 1)
Natural gas can be stored in two ways. First, it can be pressurized and then injected
into underground geologic structures which are suitable for gas storage. This is done
at Jackson Prairie Gas Storage located south of Chehalis. This gas is used to
supplement the region's gas supply in colder weather. Secondly, natural gas can be
stored by cooling it to -258 Fahrenheit, where it becomes a dense liquid and can be
stored in storage tanks. Such a storage facility exists in Plymouth, Washington.
The Cascade Natural Gas supply and transport system begins at the "gate station",
the delivery point of natural gas from the upstream interstate pipeline to CNG's
system. Gate stations normally include metering stations, odorizing stations and
pressure reduction stations. High pressure lines transport gas to district regulators
throughout CNG's service area. Pressure reduction stations are installed at the point
of delivery of natural gas from the high pressure transmission lines to the lower
pressure distribution systems.
(1) Existing System
The Cascade Natural Gas service area includes all of the City of Bremerton
and the adjacent unincorporated areas. Gas is not available at this time to all
areas inside the service area. (See Figure UT-1)
Utilities -- Page 11
Connections to CNG's distribution system are initiated by customer demand
and requests. As of January 1994 there are over 17,000 users of natural gas in
CNG's service area. According to CNG studies completed in 1991, current
peak demand is approximately 1,950,000 thermsjday.
(2) Proposed System
The location, capacity, and timing of these improvements depend on
opportunities for expansion and on how quickly the Bremerton area grows.
There are usually several possible routes to connect different parts of the
system. The final routes taken will depend on right-of-way permitting,
environmental impact, and opportunities to install gas mains with new
development, highway improvements or other utilities.
CNG has an active policy of expanding its supply system to serve additional
customers. The maximum capacity of the existing distribution system can be
increased as required by one or more of the following:
(a) Increasing distribution and supply pressures in existing lines;
(b) Adding new distribution and supply mains for reinforcement;
(c) Increasing existing distribution system capacity by replacement with
larger sized mains; or
(d) Adding district regulators from supply mains to provide additional
intermediate pressure gas sources to meet the needs of new
development.
Customer hook-up to the distribution system is determined by the WUTC
pursuant to its rules. Connection to the system is driven by demand. this
means that connections cannot be planned in advance; rather, connections
are initiated by customer requests.
CNG's 20-year plan is to continue developing distribution systems and services
to meet growth at lowest possible costs. Planned improvements include
adding distribution elements when needed. Specific improvements in the
Bremerton area include a 10-inch looping line. Existing distribution capacity
will be tripled over the next three years with installation of a 37.5 mile long 16"
line alongside the existing 8" line that brings supplies to the area from the
south.
C. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
puget Sound Power and Light (Puget Power) serves Kitsap County with electrical
power. Power is moved through transmission lines, and voltage is lowered at
transmission substations. Voltage is further lowered (stepped down) at distribution
Utilities -- Page 12
stations located in neighborhoods, and carried over distribution lines toward homes
and businesses.
(1) Existing System
There are two main access points for receiving power in Kitsap County: at
Kitsap Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 230/115 kiloVolt (Kv)
Transmission Station located north of Gorst; and Command Point Cable
Station 115 Kv line in Fragaria through underwater cables originating from
puget Power's O'Brien station in Kent.
Puget Power has divided Kitsap County into North and South subareas for
planning purposes. Bremerton is in the North Kitsap subarea, which extends
northward of Sinclair Inlet. From the Kitsap BPA station, 115 Kv delivery feeds
into Puget Power's South Bremerton, Bremerton, and Valley Junction (east of
Silverdale) 115 Kv switching stations. Power then flows from these switching
stations through transmission lines to serve subarea distribution substations.
Three 115 Kv transmission lines carry power north into west Bremerton and
Silverdale areas. Two of these lines, the BPA Kitsap-Valley Junction and the
South Bremerton-Valley Junction lines terminate at the Valley Junction
Switching Station. The third line continues north past Poulsbo to the Foss
Corner switching substation, which serves the northern section of the county.
The existing electrical system within the city consists of the following:
· Transmission Substation: South Bremerton
· Distribution Substations: Bremerton; Sheridan; Rocky Point. Retired
stations: Wycoff; Hewitt; Manette.
· Transmission Lines (115kV): South Bremerton-Valley Junction;
Bremerton-Foss Corner; South Bremerton-Bremerton; O'Brien-South
Bremerton; Bremerton-US Navy PSNS-BPA Kitsap.
· Transmission Lines (Below 115kV): Presently de-energized -- Manette
Tap (66kV).
· Other utilities with facilities in Bremerton: Bonneville Power
Administration.
(2) Existing Capacity
The 230/115 Kv transformers at the BPA Kitsap Switching Station are
approaching their capacity. The power utilization factor of all distribution
substations is at 70.5 percent in the North Kitsap subarea, with South Kitsap at
nearly 75 percent utilization. The utilization factor is a comparison of current
peak system load in Kitsap County during the winter heating season, divided
by the design capacity of the substations in the County. The following table
illustrates the capacity used during peak winter loads at Bremerton area
distribution substations and in the North Kitsap subarea as a whole:
Utilities -- Page 13
. - . ..." .. . . ..... , ... ..,....
..... .... . . ..... ., ......... '_n.. .... n.
. .n'" ..... ........... _,.. . . .... .. .... .. ..... ..... .
.......... .. ....... . ...........n . ......... .... .. ..... n.
..' .. ...... ........ ,. ... .......,. .,......
.......rn .... . TabliJ)" ';2.. ,"<.}i. ni i(i .'. .\.
Existi~g'capA9ity:il,c;tri~t9~iHtl~(. .
.... n. ......... ....... .... .. .... .... .. ...... .. ........ .......
....n'. . ........... . ... . ........ .......... ......... .. ..... n. ...........
............... "....... ....... ....... ,......... ". ,-" .... .. ....... ... .... . .....,.
.)./:..c..a....~8.t..y.....:......(......M.....V).. )/..nn W' to d (MVA)
.....................(~:~J:.~j1...~.~~..............:..:.......
Bremerton
North Kitsap Subarea Total Loads =
Utilization Factor = 70.5%
50
20
20
20
20
445
22.7
Rocky Point #1
Rocky Point #2
Sheridan #1
19.8
6.6
20.3
17.1
313.8
Sheridan #2
MVA = Mega Volt Amperes
Source: Puget Power.
Since only two 230-115 Kv, 280 MVA transformers at the SPA Kitsap Switching
Station serve all of Kit~ap County, the capacity of these transformers is a
measure of their ability to serve the connected load. Using planning guidelines
from Puget Power, the system is designed so one of these large transformers
can be taken out of service without causing customer outage.
The electrical system can be expanded as the area load develops. If additional
loads do not develop, or develop more slowly than anticipated, the
construction timing of individual projects is simply extended so that the overall
plan completion date is deferred. If the electrical load stops growing altogether
or decreases, no further construction would be necessary, except for facility
maintenance and replacement needs. Likewise, if the load develops faster
than anticipated, the timing of the construction of the projects can be
accelerated.
(3) Projected Needed Capacity
Puget Power's 2020 Electrical Facilities Plan for Kitsap County predicts a
projected load level in Mega Volt Amperes (MVA's) of 483.7 for North Kitsap
and 163.3 for South Kitsap by year 2020.
Puget Power's long-range plans are based on electrical growth projections
anticipated for the years 2010/2020 and beyond. County population
projections produced by the state Office of Financial Management (OFM) are
used to determine new load growth for the next 20 years. Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) population and employment forecasts are used for
load growth beyond 20 years. Projected load is calculated as the existing
load, minus conservation reductions, minus demand side management, plus
the forecast of new load.
Utilities -- Page 14
The population and employment forecasts and their distribution produced by
the PSRC are used to reflect land use activities, which in turn are used to
develop a model for forecasting new load. The location of the population and
employment increases is determined by the cities and counties. In Kitsap
County, the population and employment is broken down into PSRC Forecast
Analysis Zones (FAZ's).
Using these resources, Puget Power predicts a 223.1 MVA total load growth in
the North Kitsap subarea. (Note: Capacity is measured by MV A, which
measures energy, whereas Kvmeasures voltage.)
.... . n' ...
. ...... .
. .loadlevei
.. .... . ...... .... ..... ...... ....... .. ..... .
............ ........ .. .. ..... P' ................. . ....... .
......... .......... .. ...... .... ........ ...... .
............ ......... .. ... . ............ . ..... ..... .
. ...)~~i$P.Jioi~ct.d .load.la'ii~I(I4V4). }...........
313.8
-21.8
-31.4
+ 223.1
. ......... .. ..,...
. .......... . ..... n... ..... ..... .
.. .. . . .. ........ . ...... . ..... ......,.. ...... ... ....
.. . ... .... .... ...... .. .. .... .......... ...... .
... .... ..... .. .. . ........ . ...... . ...T.............b......I.... .UT. ....3...... . .. .............. .........:....:..... .......:.....:..:::..:.... ...
.... ....... .. . .. n.. ,........... ......... n.
... . . ......... .......... .......
.. .. .>..< .. .. . . . ....\i. . ... .. .....Cl. e.. .........~..ii.i...... ..::::..:.... .
. . ...pr(jject$d: ~[ectrl~J]..padLeyel:NorttiKlt~p$.4,~~rea ... .. .
Existing load
Minus Conservation Effects (6.9%)
Minus Demand-Side Management Effects (10%)
Plus Total Expected load
Projected load level =
Source: Puget Power
(4) Proposed .system
Puget Power has identified system and transmission improvements required to
serve the forecasted load growth. Based on these system improvements,
North Kitsap subarea utilization factor will maintain or slightly increase, and
South Kitsap's will drop.
Many improvements are in progress or planned for the future; others have
been identified as future improvements to meet the growth demand.
(a) System Improvements in Progress
· Westsound Transmission Reliability (Submarine Cable) -- on hold.
· South Bremerton-Foss Corner Right-of-Way Acquisition -- Right-of-way
segments between the South Bremerton Switching Substation and
Bangor will be acquired. These segments are the missing gaps that
were not included in the BPA Kitsap-Bangor Line right-of=way
purchased from the Bonneville Power Administration in 1986. Future
transmission improvements will. include purchasing a right-of-way from
Bangor to the Foss Corner Switching Station. These improvements will
provide a transmission route from South-to-North Kitsap for a future 230
Utilities -- Page 15
kV transmission system link between the South Bremerton and Foss
Corner Switching Stations.
· South Bremerton-Foss Corner 230kV Line -- A transmission right-of-way
will be acquired from Bangor northeast to the Foss Corner Switching
Station, and a 230 kV transmission line will be constructed between
South Bremerton and the Foss Corner Switching Station. The major
portion of this line will be constructed on a right-of-way parallel to the
Kitsap-Bangor SPA Line, which was purchased from the BPA. This will
become the 230 kV transmission link through Kitsap county that ties the
South Bremerton Switching Station to the BPA Fairmount Transmission
Substation in Jefferson County via the Foss Corner Switching Station.
· BPA Kitsap-South Bremerton 115kV /s30kV Line -- A new 115/230 kV
transmission line will be constructed between BPA's Kitsap
Transmission Station and Puget Power's South Bremerton Station. The
line will be built on an existing transmission line right-of-way and
replace an existing 66 kV transmission line (not energized). This project
will provide significant reliability and capacity improvement for
Bremerton and Kitsap County.
(b) Future Transmission Improvements
· Bremerton Substation Additions -- These additions will provide better
protection for the Bremerton Switching Station 115 kV bus and reduce
the exposure to faults on the South Bremerton-Valley Junction 115 kV
Line. The line would be broken into two segments -- the South
Bremerton-Bremerton 115 Kv line and Bremerton-Valley Junction 115 kV
line -- and terminates on separate breakers at the Bremerton Switching
Station. These additions should be scheduled for construction after the
Bremerton-Winslow 115 kV Line is built.
· North Kitsap 230kV Plan -- In the short term, this project will provide an
interconnection with Tacoma City Light to the south, which will provide
another power source with a flow of 130 MV A at 115 kV to the Kitsap
region. However, under emergency operating conditions, additional
capacity would be available. In the long term it will stiffen the total
Puget Power transmission system by connecting a future Hansville
Cable Station near Point No Point via two parallel Puget Sound
submarine cables from the Double Bluff Cable Station on Whidbey
Island. Two 230 Kv overhead transmission lines would extend to the
Foss Corner Switching Station, with one continuing south to BPA Kitsap
where BPA's 230 kV system continues on to BPA Olympia. This would
include a 230 kV tie between BPA Kitsap and South Bremerton
Substation to interconnect with the Henderson Substation. By having
the 230 kVat Foss Corner, Puget would be making a system
connection with the BPA Fairmount via its proposed Jefferson County
115/230kV Conversion and Hood Canal Cable projects and the
planned Foss Corner-Salisbury Point #2 line. Initially, when the
Utilities -- Page 16
Jefferson County and Hood Canal projects are energized at 115kV,
between 40-50 MW could be made to flow from the north into North
kitsap County, in order to provide backup for the BPA Kitsap banks in
the case of one failing. A South Bremerton-Foss Corner 230 Kv Line is
one component of this plan.
. Sedgwick-South Bremerton #3 115/230kV Line and Sunnyslope
Substation -- A new 115/230 kV transmission line will serve the
Sunnyslope Substation with a high, side loop-through. This line and
substation will be converted to 230 kV when the Lagoon-Sedgwick
115/230 kV Line is converted to 230 kV.
. Henderson-South Bremerton 230kV Conversion -- The Lagoon-
Sedgwick 115/230 kV Line and the Sedgwick-South Bremerton #3 115
kV Line will be converted to 230 kV around the year 2000-2002. The
converted 230 kV line will bypass Sedgwick Switching Station and be
renamed as the Henderson-South Bremerton 230 kV Line.
(c) Future Distribution Substations
. Werner -- This is one of eight new substations being considered for
serving forecasted load growth in the North Kitsap subarea. The
Werner Substation would serve new developments in the area south of
Kitsap Lake and the west end of Werner Road. A loop-through of the
South Bremerton-Bremerton 115 kV Line will be needed.
D. TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Telecommunications is the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable,
electromagnetic energy, or other similar means. For the purposes of this element,
telecommunications include telephone, radio communication, cellular telephone and
cable television. Telecommunications is often referred to as the medium for the
"information highway".
Telecommunication service is regulated by the WUTC, and is subject to various
federal laws and regulations administered by the Federal Communications
Commission. The telecommunications industry is required to provide service upon
demand. Local laws and rules also exist with which telecommunication providers
must comply, such as those governing land use and public rights of way.
(1) Telephone
Bremerton is served by US WEST Communications, which has the largest
service area in Kitsap County. US WEST's goal is to maintain its routes at 85
percent capacity. When usage exceeds 85 percent, additional facilities are
planned, budgeted and installed. US WEST regularly evaluates the capacity of
its facilities.
Utilities -- Page 17
US WEST has approximately 77,000 access lines in Kitsap County. The
projected growth rate in the service area for the next three years is
approximately 4 percent per year. There is the possibility that this rate could
change because of new service offerings. Forecasting beyond three years in a
county and telecommunications environment with so much potential for
change is very difficult. There are many projects planned to meet the
projected growth. Some of these will increase capacity, while others will
provide new service capabilities. The capacity increases include additional
fiber optic and copper infrastructure in key growth locations, while new service
capabilities include new switching technology in central offices and at remote
locations.
(2) Radio
Radio communication forms an integral part of an established communications
system within Kitsap County. Public sector communications provides services
for law enforcement agencies, municipalities, interagencies, fire departments,
search and rescue organizations, the American Red Cross, departments of
emergency management, Puget Power, medical administration, and maritime
enterprises.
An emergency broadcast network has been in place for many years with links
throughout the county. Alternative emergency communications exist which are
designed to supplement or replace existing public safety communications
during times of emergencies or disasters. Emergency communications may
include the use of local radio stations and HAM operators who provide a link
to federal and state emergency management personnel during emergencies or
disasters.
(3) Cellular
Cellular calls use signals to and from mobile phones. Cellular calls are routed
by a series of low-powered transmitting antennas through a central computer
called the Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO), which connects the call
to its destination. Transmitting antennas are located at "cell sites", and their
coverage areas are known as "cells". A network of strategically placed
antennas allows a "handing off" of the signal as the carrier of the phone travels.
Capacity overload and cellular system expansion is a response to several
factors: an increase in the number of customers residing within a designated
area; a shift in traffic volumes affecting cellular users; or a record of service
inadequacies such as dropped calls or poor quality sound. In these cases,
additional antennas are then planned, with site selection influenced by
topography and other engineering constraints.
The Bremerton Area is served by two cellular providers: Cellular One and US
WEST - New Vector Group.
Utilities -- Page 18
(a) Cellular One
Cellular One has over 100 cell sites in Western Washington, with six in
Kitsap County, including two in the Bremerton area: East Bremerton
and Kitsap Lake.
Cellular One plans to construct four additional cell sites in Kitsap
County during the next one to three years in order to increase and
enhance coverage. No new sites are planned for the Bremerton area.
(b) US WEST New Vector Group
US WEST New Vector Group has approximately 100 cell sites in
Western Washington, with six in Kitsap County, including two in the
Bremerton area: West Bremerton and Highway 3 north of Gorst.
US WEST New Vector Group plans to construct eight additional cell
sites in Kitsap County during the next one to three years in order to
increase and enhance coverage. No new sites are planned for the
Bremerton area.
(4) Cable Television
Cable television service is delivered to customers through a complex series of
electronic components and many miles of cable installed throughout the
community~ A central collection point, called a "headend", receives signals by
satellite, microwave or broadcast antennas and converts them to VHF
frequencies that correspond to those in the tuner of a television set.
Cable television companies are regulated by the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and enforced by the FCC. Cable
companies must enter franchise agreements with local governments, who
regulate service rates according to FCC guidelines and formulas.
The City has a "non-exclusive" franchise which allows any qualified cable
television company to construct, operate and maintain a cable television
system by use of City-owned rights-of-way. At the present time Bremerton is
served by two providers: TCI and Falcon. The current franchise agreements
expire in May 1995, and the City is in the process of negotiating renewal
agreements for the next five or ten years. The franchise provides for: bi-
directional cable connections to Olympic College and City Hall; a minimum of
29 channels with capability of 35; one institutional channel; addressable
equipment; one public access channel with the ability to expand based upon
usage.
The City has a Cable Communications Advisory Committee to advise the City
on optimal utilization of the cable communications system.
Utilities -- Page 19
(a) TCI Cable
TCI's service area includes the entire county and has the potential to
serve 15,156 households. Within the city TCI serves approximately
10,000 customers. TCI plans for an approximate 4 percent annual
growth rate in its service area.
(b) Falcon Cable
The Falcon Cable service area includes the entire county and serves
17,700 subscriber households. Within the city Falcon serves less than
2,000 customers in the Kitsap Lake area, Jackson Park and PSNS.
Since Falcon has been providing cable service for less than two years,
it is currently meeting demand rather than planning for an annual
growth rate.
Utilities -- Page 20
(
I n
~/ /
-)
"%>0=
J
~-;-~
\; 0 ~Q,
/ ~
/~/
(
rJ
(
(
j,
! 0)
)
l \_~)
~
KITSAP COUNTY
Washington
UTILITIES
~
Idd
o
r-\
)\~
f ,
(\ ! ~
1 \ ) i
\ L/ /
\ f
"--) (
)
c\f
r-
,I
PTI Communications
Unitei:l',TtJfPbone Compaay
us. w...
CtU'Site!J
e
EB
us. .Wtst NewVK10r Group
Cellulu One
IV
,
(
)
)
Cueade NaNni GD
Serna. Aru
PrlDcipal Arterlll!J
Mlaor Arterials
Ftlderal Iodiu Keen.doll!
l
r
/l1
, , (
/"_J G
y-/ Q
o
o
-<-
f'. \...
f'. N
-,-
(j
(~
/
I
(
J)
"
<x
~
...
Figure UT-1
Kitsap CoonI}' Department of CommuniI}' Development
~ ""'"..nll................
_.._-~--
v
,.
~
,.
C>
'"
c
Cl
'"
o
c::
i .
..... . .
-' .
:
--
.
.
Pou
... ., .. ~ ... .. ...
'- .
,v
:
:
~
-.f
~
~
y
. .
,
y
",-' ~,-+-
,'-
....
- ~
Lynden
Everson
Ferndale
...... ..........
Deming....:
BELLINGHAM;
Acme:
....-:
Sedro- :
Anacortes Woolley:
, . ~glOn
laC~:''''
MOUNT
Oak Harbor V ERN 0 N
~...\
.
.
Arlinglo~..
.
.
.
.
Keyport :
IISEATTLE
Gorst Manche~ter
Port Ord'lard
. Belfair Sunnyslo,~
HoqUlam .'
~cCle~7.' helto.'2"
Elma .. ..-
Montesano '. .'
ABERDEEN .t-
.
.
.
.
.
LONG VIEW:
... ';Castle Rock
~!<elso
~Kalama
';Woodland
\
Madrash
Metolius,( ,
~
Redmond J.p . .11
.... rj!'levl e
BEND I ~o
~ .~
Sunriver ~." <f?~
LaPinee.! -<..<..'b'
GilChri~ 011-'"
Crescenv "
I t
I Q..~
~hemult
I
I
WENATCHEE
4::::! East Wenatchee
".
....:., Moses lake !
Selah .' Quincy ~Wheeler :
J{YAKIMA OtheIlV:\o.... ./ ."
Union G~\"Moxee .:., /
wapato~~ ..' I
Toppen~sh ~ ~NNYSIDE ..... J
ZIllah . .'
Granger ". Rich/and ~Pasco.... '"
Grandview ..f~sser ~/. .Bu/t)!lnk WALLA
KENNEWICas.A COllegeWALLA
Patterson! '. '~inley Pia ~
PI mouth It :..' .
y ..... .aUmatllla Mllt.tn-:Freewater
.................. .l-i8T,ston.-
Irrigon:;' "':"Weston
Boardman _ - 00lta '. Athenl]:
,. Stanfield t..... Mission
'pENDLETON .....,.
Pilot Rock '.
.
.....
t"E."f~~l
A.BERD~N
~NGYIEW
.
.
.
.
'~~
;:---',:,
.. Oregon"
," : .....
"".' .~ .;....:-~. ..;.-~.,....
;.--;~:::~::.::J
/ .~
BEND'" / /
") ~.
/' ....,.
/ ~.'
/ ....
( $
.
/4.
/
....
BAKE
CI~1
)
.::;:..... .:' ONTARIO
.~ ; . -. - ,. I
. ~"-". . '-
._i:~ ~ ~;".-, - - ~""t: ~~
,;-.... ;.~,
. .:...
. :. .'--..;..
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation
Service Area
.
....
-
---
I.......
Communities served by Cascade Natural Gas
Cascade Natural Gas District Office
Cascade Natural Gas Laterals
Pacific Gas Transmission Company Line
Northwest Pipeline Corporation Line
Utilities -- Page 22
',I I'
I :)!
I,
I
!
j
/' it '
.'" " -,----
~- / ----~-
I I'
i
C
=:
;:::;:
(D"
(/)
""U
n>
co
(I)
I\)
(..)
____I
\.
Map 1
ELECTRICAL
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
EXISTING FACILITIES
CITIES OF
BREMERTON &
PORT ORCHARD
lHIW
EXlS1tt
1RAI&'Srn It[S
IHOW II$V
m
2m
51 A 1m;
fUI1 000
. . TR~
. '" IlSTmJT~
0l1fR' fociily owned/oporol'd by ulitly other lhan PLoj,t P,weL
Note<
It" I11<\l !<he."hcoly deplCls laciihes owned and 'l'etoltd by
P"J,I Pow~ <1'0' ...cl other uliilies, Acloo Idly Iocolions
."y 001 hove beer held checked <1'0 ."y 6f1er Irom lho.. deplCled
ThIS m", ."y nol depicl 01 locOlies belonglllll 10 olher uliihes,
for !LIther .lor."lion conlact Rilo Persloc 01 (1116)461-3570
Pugel Sotnd Power & l'lill Co" P,O 80. 970J4 OIIt-tl<
Bel,,,,, WA 98009-9754 ~
~ LlJ'd Pb-ni~ as
~cy!llf) May 1994
Itllloscde
III ".lulMmM4IU
c
~
;::+
(5"
(/)
" i
))
1/
./'
J
,; --------;-
.
,
"'U
D>
co
(l)
I\)
~
L
.,'
~11
f
//1 WI'
~' I r::' /
/ '--,
t I
\,
4 ..It..... (l>!III'~;1'"
-1 f,
,/~/
Map 2
ELECTRICAL
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
PROPOSED F A ClLITI ES
CITIES OF
BREMERTON &
PORT ORCHARD
If(Dl)
D1.lTN:;
T~ [J{S
ffia'OStD
IIlOW 11.'j(V
100 -------.
231)<V -------.
STATm
fUll
'fUll
TRANS S\l1T01 Ell
. '" TR~
. 4 [)sT~lW 0
OTIfR foeirly owned/operated by ulility ollrer thon Puge! Power
onfR
Nole<
lhls m~ scherootlcaly depicts foci~lies owned and operated by
Puget Porer end seJed olher ul~hes Adud facility bcolions
may not hove been field checked ood may differ. If an those depICted.
ThiS m~ may nol depict 01 fac~llies bebflgmq to olher ulib'tles.
Proposed lacaihes. 500Wl1 on Ihls mop 5chemolic~y depIct genera
IocatlOOS orO possibl' o"r'I<nls based on flecllleo Syslem <lemcrrd
1000ecasls ood OCf &/bjecl to chooge ~s forecasts Ire updaled I
Proposed ohgrrnents appearaD;j alop eXlsl~ troosmlSslOll h/'lfs
ndicate the rebuilding of lnose locl~lies
for "l'lher irlOfTlllllron eooloel Rita Perstoe al (206)462-3570
Puce! Sourd Power & lJQlrI Co, P.O, Bo, 97034 oaC-111
BeI,vue, WA 98009-9734 m
~ Lend ftrt1ifI'J GIS
ffWYD!lm fkly 1994
f<rttom
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
J
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT J
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 1
'2. CRITICAL LANDS and SHORELINES .......................... 1
A. Water-oriented Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Lands Adjacent to Shorelines ........................ 2
C. Urban Lands (Shorelines) ........................... 3
D. Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Hazard Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
F. Shorelines of Statewide Significance ................... 5
G. Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
H. Shoreline Area Capital Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
I. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
J. Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
K. Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
L. Agriculture & Aquaculture ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
M. Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
N. Aquatic Habitats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
O. Economic Development ............................ 9
P. Recreation and Open Space Linkages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
a. Natural Resources ............................... 11
3. AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
4. WATER QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
'5. ENERGY CONSERVATION GOALS & POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
A. Mixed Use Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
B. Urban Infill Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
C. Pedestrian and Commuter Convenience ............... 14
D. Streets, Parking & Transportation Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
E. Telecommuting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
F. Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
G. Capital Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
H. Recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
I. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
6. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ................................ 17
/
~
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT J
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
. ."." .:.::;:;".:;:;":> ..<:......;','.,. . :' "<::::":;::{::.>::. .:.
1. .....HINfRdbLJGTION............
The Growth Management Act, our Countywide Planning Policies, our 1986 Comprehensive
Plan, and other planning guidelines and requirements contain an abundance of
environmental considerations. These are woven into the goals and policies of all major Plan
elements, as well as into the implementing regulations.
Because of the extensive nature of environmental goals and policies, and their importance to
the City's Comprehensive Plan, most have been placed in this new (optional) Plan element,
the Environmental Management Element. This will allow these issues to be addressed
more directly, will help to ensure consistency among policies, will expedite the environmental
review of Plan policies, and will make the Plan easier to amend when necessary.
. . .. -,
. . . n.' ....
. -, , , . ..... ......
, .. . .... " . .. ..n.
o . " ".. _.. . .
. . . .... n'
2.CRITICA[.. r:ANDSanCt SHOREI;INES
Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program, which was mandated by the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971, includes goals, policies and regulations relating to development in all shoreline
areas within Bremerton's jurisdiction. The program is continually monitored for effectiveness
and periodically updated, as necessary. These regulations are, in most cases, well-
coordinated with the City's Zoning Ordinance and other regulations. When occasional
conflicts arise, the more restrictive takes precedent.
The Critical Lands Ordinance, adopted on March 1, 1993, is closely related and similar in
many ways to the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. The Critical Lands Ordinance
applies primarily to inland areas. It takes over where the SMP leaves off and defines those
natural and environmentally sensitive areas that are to be protected from the adverse impacts
of new growth and development. And it includes the standards and requirements necessary
to achieve the desired protection.
The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies shall be used to guide land use and
development decisions, and also considered in revisions to the Master Program, Critical
Lands Ordinance, and other City regulations that may affect the Bremerton environment.
Most of the following goals and policies were developed by City staff. They were designed
primarily to help implement the Comprehensive Plan. They will also ensure consistency
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 1
between related regulations, and will help the City meet the requirements of the Growth
Management Act. Many of these goals and policies address specific areas of concern that
are of particular interest to State agencies reviewing our Plan for GMA consistency. Specific
references are provided for goals and policies borrowed from other sources.
BZO =
SMP =
CLO =
BCP =
Bremerton Zoning Ordinance (1988)
Bremerton Shoreline Management Program (1988)
Bremerton Critical Lands Ordinance (1993)
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (1986)
A: WATER-ORIENTED LAND USES:
GOAL:
Reserve appropriate shoreline areas for water-oriented uses and to
discourage non-water-oriented uses in the shoreline.
Policies:
A-1 Accommodate preferred shoreline uses (water-dependent, -related, and -enjoyment uses) while
protecting and preserving shoreline resources and avoiding hazardous or sensitive areas.
A-2 Encourage existing non-water-oriented commercial and industrial uses to relocate to non-
waterfront property whenever feasible.
A-3 Restrict over-water commercial and industrial uses to those which are water-dependent or water-
related and provide public access where appropriate;
A-4 Recognize the unique suitability of certain areas to accommodate preferred shoreline uses such as
deep water ports.
A-5 Discourage sprawl and inefficient use of urban shoreline areas.
A-6 Encourage renovation and reuse of under-utilized or obsolete uses and structures.
A-7 Implement water-oriented use policies through application of the Shoreline Master Program,
through consistent provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, and enforcement of other development
codes.
B: LANDS ADJACENT TO SHORELINES:
GOAL:
Encourage uses, densities and development patterns that are
compatible with shoreline uses and resource values and that
reinforce the policies of the Shoreline Management Act and
Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program.
Policies:
B-1 Consider the compatibility of proposed upland uses with those allowed in each adjacent shoreline
environment and with the purpose and intent of the environment designation.
Environmental Mgrnt. - Page 2
B-2 Minimize shoreline impacts from residential development on upland .view" property; Le.,
stormwater run-off, septic drainfield seepage, intensification of risks from geological instability, etc.
B-3 .Adjacent lands. policies shall be implemented through zoning, subdivision, short-plat and other
land use ordinances, and through mechanisms such as the Capital Facilities Plan and budget.
C: URBAN LANDS (Shorelines)~
.GOAL:
Protect both the economic viability and resource values of urban
shorelines.
.Policies:
C-1 Protect and preserve natural and/or critical areas throughout the developed urban environment
and recognize that Shoreline of Statewide Significance priorities also apply within our urban
area.
C-2 Use long-range regional economic projections to help determine the amount of shoreline to be
reserved for preferred water-oriented urban uses in subsequent Plan revisions.
C-3 Allow limited mixed-use development (including open space and recreational useS/facilities) to
help sustain the economic viability of the urban shoreline.
C-4 Encourage revitalization and restoration of Bremerton's urban waterfronts.
.C-5 Ensure adequate access, utilities and public services to serve existing shoreline needs and
planned Mure development.
C-6 Promote aesthetic and view protection through sign control regulations, appropriate siting and
screening requirements, protection of view corridors, and the use of architectural standards.
C-7 Implement urban shoreline policies through the City's Waterfront Access Plan, Downtown
Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Shoreline Master Program, and other
applicable development codes.
GOAL: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Encourage adequate commercial
development of the kind that can be integrated with the shoreline
environment and can benefit from a shoreline location. (SMP)
Policies:
Specific poliices regarding commercial development in shoreline locations are provided in Chapter
5 of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program.
GOAL:
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: Encourage the development of
ports and industrial areas that are water-related or water-dependent
where they will have a minimal adverse impact on established uses.
(SMP)
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 3
Policies:
0: PUBLIC ACCESS:
GOAL:
GOAL:
GOAL:
Policies:
Specific policies regarding industrial development in shoreline locations are provided in Chapter 5
of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program.
.
Protect and enhance the rights of the general public to enjoy the
physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline, while allowing
controlled development consistent with the public interest. (SMP)
Plan, provide and maintain a comprehensive system of public access,
designed to provide safe, abundant access to shoreline recreational
areas, while preventing trespass onto private properties. (SMP)
Encourage water-oriented shoreline uses and activities that provide an
opportunity for substantial numbers of the public to enjoy city
shorelines. (SMP)
.
Protect and enhance shoreline visual and physical access
consistent with Shoreline Management Act and Public Trust
Doctrine principles.
Restrict public access to sensitive areas that may include fish or
wildlife habitat, unique vegetation, or other lands that might be
easily damaged by unnecessary public access or use.
0-1 Protect areas with unique and/or fragile geological or biological characteristics from inappropriate
public access and use through access and use regulations.
0-2 Acquire suitable lands for permanent public access to shorelines, when available and feasible.
0-3 Assure that development, uses and activities on or near the shoreline do not impair or detract
from the public's access to the water or shoreline.
0-4 Enhance and preserve public views.
0-5 Reserve publicly owned shorelines for water-dependent uses or for public recreational uses and/or
protected open space whenever possible.
0-6 Preserve, maintain and enhance public access and views afforded by shoreline street ends, public
utilities, and rights-of-way whenever feasible.
0-7 Separate or clearly delineate public and private space to avoid unnecessary user conflicts.
0-8 Ensure that docks and other in-water developments have only minimal impacts on public use.
0-9 Implement shoreline public access policy primarily through applications of the City's
Comprehensive Parks Plan, the Shoreline Master Program, the Waterfront Access Plan, and urban
renewal activities.
Environmental Mgrnt. - Page 4
0-10
Work toward the integration of the Shoreline Master Program, Critical Lands Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinance, and SEPA provisions to streamline the permitting process, avoid unnecessay
duplication and confusion, and ensure regulatory consistency.
*
Additional policies and regulations pertaining to public access, view protection, and related
matters are contained in Chapter 4 of the Bremerton Shorelines Master Program.
E: HAZARD REDUCTION:
GOAL:
Evaluate coastal hazards and the impacts of erosion and sea level
rise on coastal resources and proposed development.
GOAL:
Reduce inland hazards through the careful regulation and
monitoring of development projects in or near environmentally or
geologically sensitive or hazardous areas.
Policies:
E-1 Review local comprehensive flood hazard management plans and state and federal policies to
assure their consistent applic;ation in shoreline areas and adjacent lands.
E-2 Prohibit most types of physical development, fill, or encroachments into floodways, frequently
flooded areas, highly erodible areas, and critical areas.
E-3 Implement these policies through the local flood hazard reduction ordinance, the Critical Lands
Ordinance, building codes, zoning and subdivision requirements, and the Shoreline Master
Program.
F: SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE:
GOAL:
Manage designated Shorelines of Statewide Significance according
to the order of preferences for use established in RCW 90.58.020.
Policies:
F-1 Protect and preserve wetlands and riparian corridors associated with Shorelines of Statewide
Significance.
F-2 Require the use of best management practices for all commercial timber cutting and reforestation
in shoreline areas.
F-3 Incorporate aesthetic values into a general enhancement of shoreline areas whenever possible.
F-4 Evaluate the short-term economic gain or public convenience of other development relative to the
long-term and potentially costly impact to the natural shoreline.
F-5 Restrict or prohibit development that would interfere with the shoreline ecology or irretrievably
damage shoreline resources.
F-6 Use the policies contained in the City's Shoreline Master Program to protect Shorelines of
Statewide Significance.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 5
G: HOUSING:
GOAL:
Permit residential development in shoreline areas and in the vicinity
of other critical or sensitive lands only at densities that can be
properly served by needed utilities and roadways and only when
within the "carrying capacity" of the site or general location.
Policies:
G-1 Prohibit development in critical areas as necessary to preserve and protect shoreline resources,
wildlife and fish habitat, natural stream corridors', and other environmentally sensitive areas.
G-2 . Reduce allowed densities within sensitive areas, or allow density transfers to more suitable sites
through the City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) or other process.
G-3 Ensure that urban level residential development is provided with sewer and water services
throughout the City and surrounding "urban area" to help control the proliferation of individual
septic drainfields and private water systems.
G-4 Encourage the use of Planned Unit Developments and clustering of development to help protect
natural features, preserve open space, minimize physical impacts, and reduce the costs of utilities
and roads.
G-5 Require adequate setbacks, buffers, and open space as needed for shoreline development to
protect vegetation, natural features, views, and other aesthetic characteristics.
G-6 Ensure that these and additional housing policies contained in the Housing Element are
implemented through zoning, the Capital Facilities Plan, various housing plans and programs, and
through the application of development standards and codes.
H: SHORELINE AREA CAPITAL FACILITIES:
GOAL:
Plan for the provision or extension of capital facilities in shoreline
areas in accordance with existing and planned shoreline uses and
the carrying capacity of the shoreline ecosystem.
Policies:
H-1 Assure that the Capital Facilities Plan Element adequately provides for implementation of the
goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program as they
pertain to new growth and development in shoreline areas. (Appropriately locating, timing and
designing capital facilities to seNe desired shoreline uses and densities and assuring
compatibility with upland land uses and densities.)
H-2 Avoid the inappropriate provision/extension of capital facilities into open space, resource lands,
critical areas, and natural or rural areas which are relatively free of human influence and/or
intolerant of human uses.
H-3 The Capital Facilities Plan shall be implemented through the capital budget and subsequently,
through project-specific designs, specifications and work plans, prior to actual construction.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 6
. '-. -,
I: UTILITIES:
GOAL:
Locate public utility facilities to accommodate existing and future
uses and activities while protecting the ecology and resources of
shorelines and other sensitive areas.
Policies:
1-1 Locate utilities and rights-of-way outside shoreline and critical areas whenever possible.
1-2 Place utility lines underground in shoreline areas whenever possible. In all cases, require that they
be located where they will best preserve the natural landscape and vegetation and minimize
conflicts with present and planned land uses.
, 1-3 Encourage joint use of utility corridors.
.1-4 Protect the water, shoreline, and other critical areas from contamination and degradation during
utility construction, installation, operation and/or maintenance.
.1-5 Utility policies shall be implemented primarily through the Capital Facilities Plan Element, the CIP,
zoning (and site plan review), and through other existing regulations.
J: TRANSPORTATION:
GOAL:
Provide adequate access to planned development while preserving
and protecting undeveloped, environmentally sensitive areas, and
natural shoreline areas.
Policies:
J-1 Minimize soil erosion and water quality degradation through proper roadway construction and
maintenance practices within shoreline areas.
J-2 Allow only those roadways that are related to and necessary for the support of permitted uses and
activities to be located within shoreline or critical areas.
J-3 Encourage common access roadways whenever possible:
J-4 Encourage joint use of transportation corridors for utilities purposes.
J-5 Design City circulation patterns and parking facilities to direct vehicular traffic away from shorelines
and critical areas wherever possible.
J-6 Encourge low-impact transportation and access opportunities through the provision of bicycle and
pedestrian trails.
J-7 Retain and improve road ends and other area rights-of-way for public access.
J-8 Encourage biofiltration, groundcover maintenance, and other ways of managing roadside
vegetation and drainage, while discouraging the use of herbicides and other chemical
applications.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 7
J-g Transportation policies are located throughout the Comprehensive Plan and also in the Shoreline
Master Program, the Capital Facilities Plan, the Comprehensive Parks Plan, the Six-year
Transportation Plan, and others. Policies are implemented through the zoning, grading and
subdivision ordinances, other development regulations, etc.
K: CONSERVATION:
GOAL:
Maintain and restore riparian vegetation in shoreline areas and on
tributary streams which affect shoreline resources.
Policies:
K-1 Avoid disturbance of, and adverse impacts to, fish and wildlife habitat (including spawning,
nesting, rearing and migratory routes) through proper location, design, construction and
management of all uses and activities in riparian areas.
K-2 Require distrubed areas that remain following construction be either landscaped or promptly
replanted with native vegetation.
K-3 Ensure that the City's minimum requirements for extensive clearing and grading address species
removal, replanting, irrigation, erosion, sedimentation control, and other methods of riparian
corridor protection.
K-4 Conservation policies shall be implemented through the provisions of the City's Shoreline Master
Program, Critical Lands Ordinance, and various existing development codes and requirements.
L: AGRICULTURE & AQUACULTURE:
GOAL:
AGRICULTURE: Preserve the quality of the agricultural
shoreline inasmuch as such lands are important private open
space systems. (SMP)
Policies:
Specific policies related to this agricultural goal are contained
in Chapter 5 of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program.
GOAL:
AQUACULTURE: Encourage aquaculture in suitable areas,
while minimizing adverse Impacts on water resources,
aquatic wildlife communities, navigation, and views. (SMP)
Policies:
Specific policies related to this aquaculture goal are contained
in Chapter 5 of the Bremerton Shoreline Master Program.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 8
M: WETLANDS:
GOAL:
Preserve and protect wetland ecosystems to minimize wetland
degradation and assure that there is no net loss of wetland acreage,
values and functions.
Policies:
M-1 Prohibit wetland alterations unless it can be shown that the impact is unavoidable and necessary,
and that the resultant impacts are effectively mitigated, as provided for in the City's Critical Lands
Ordinance.
M-2 Provide greatest protection to wetlands of exceptional resource value.
M-3 Assure that the wetlands protection provisions of the Critical Lands Ordinance remain consistent
with those in the Shoreline Master Program.
M-4 Wetlands policies are generally implemented through the Shoreline Master Program, Critical Lands
Ordinance, and various other development regulations.
N: AQUATIC HABITATS:
GOAL:
Preserve and protect aquatic habitats, including salmon and
steel head habitats, salt water fish and shellfish habitats, and
important marine vegetation.
Policies:
N-1 Direct new development away from important aquatic habitats such as areas used by salmon and
steelhead, kelp beds, eelgrass beds, surf smelt spawning beds, Pacific herring spawning beds,
Pacific sand lance spawning beds, rock sole spawning beds, rockfish settlement and nursery
areas and ling cod settlement and nursery areas.
N-2 Look for these kinds of habitats whenever reviewing a development proposal that may have an
adverse impact on these kinds of resources.
0: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - Shorelines:
GOAL:
Reserve adequate shoreline area for water-oriented commercial and
industrial development based on reasonable long-range regional
economic projections.
Policies:
0-1 Areas suitable for deepwater shipping and other port facilities shall be viewed as limited and
unique resources within Bremerton and the surrounding Urban Growth Area. '
Environmental Mgrnt. - Page 9
0-2 Accommodate, whenever possible, preferred water-oriented industrial and commercial uses when
suitably located and designed for minimal environmental impact.
0-3 Encourage the continuation of existing port and industrial activities.
0-4 Encourage mixed use developments that include open space and public physical and visual
access to the waterfront, where appropriate.
0-5 Provide, through the City's Capital Improvements Program, the public facilities that will be needed
for future shoreline uses in advance of the need.
0-6 Implement economic development policies through the City's Downtown Waterfront Urban
Renewal Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, Economic Development Council plans and activities, etc.
P: RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE L1NKGAGES:
GOAL:
Reserve appropriate areas for parks, land- and water-oriented
recreational facilities, and public access points that foster public
recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of shorelines and other
natural and scenic areas.
Policies:
P-1 Improve public access to shorelines, while preserving and protecting critical areas and unique or
valuable open space areas.
P-2 Locate, design and operate parks and recreational facilities in ways that will ensure compatibility
with shorelines and other natural areas. Include steep slopes, wetlands, and other unique features
as passive or aesthetic components of the design of parks and recreation areas.
P-3 Plan for and encourage the development of linear linkages between shorelines, parks, and other
public areas and recreational facilities.
P-4 Consider pedestrian trails and walkways, bikeways, easements, view corridors, viewpoints, and
scenic drives as components of the overall linkage system.
P-5 Consider wildlife migration patterns and interjurisdictional connections when establishing and
maintaining major open space linkages.
P-6 Implement recreation policies through the Comprehensive Parks Plan, Waterfront Access Plan,
Shoreline Master Program, Capital Facilities Plan/budget, and special plans and programs.
GOAL: MARINAS: Encourage marinas in areas which will have the least
negative impact on water quality, marine life, visual or physical
access to the shoreline, or the residential use of property. (SMP)
Policies:
Specific policies and regulations pertaining to marinas are contained in the Bremerton Shoreline
Master Program.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 10
Q. NATURAL RESOURCES:
GOAL:
FOREST MANAGEMENT: Enhance forest productivity, while
protecting the shoreline environment. (SMP)
Policies:
Specific policies and regulations pertaining to forest management practices are contained in
Bremerton's Shoreline Master Program.
GOAL:
MINING: Minimize mining on the shoreline.
Policies:
Specific policies and regulations pertaining to the removal of sand, soil, gravel or other naturally-
occurring materials from shorelines areas are contained in Chapter 5 of the Bremerton Shoreline
Master Program.
. ...... .. ,
...... ....
,. .,.......
,". ,. .- . ..........','.'.' .' .' .,' ...,
3. ...AIR<QtJALITY
The air we breathe is vital to our lives and well-being, but we often take its quality for granted.
Washington's "State of the Environmenf' report, a product of the Environment 2010 program
initiated in 1988, announced that air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to public
health. The combined efforts of a number of programs have reduced some of the more
common pollutants, but serious air quality problems persist in several areas, including heavily
populated areas in the Puget Sound basin.
Unfortunately, our population growth and growth in the use of motor vehicles are growing
faster than our ability to keep up with air pollution controls. Carbon monoxide, ozone, and
toxic air-borne pollutants are growing rapidly in our environment. It is especially bad during
winter months when woodstove smoke hangs low in the valleys or over our community. The
small particulates carried by wood smoke are one of the largest health concerns and threaten
the health or lives of those with respiratory problems.
More than fifty tons of toxic chemicals, such as benzene, toluene, xylene, formaldehyde and
chloroform, are emitted into Washington's air each year. About 70 to 90 percent of all these
toxic air pollutants come from such daily activities as driving our automobiles, heating with
woodstoves, and outdoor burning.
These are also activities that we can control to some extent through regulation and personal
habits, and that can also be altered through good comprehensive planning. Probably the
greatest impact our Plan can have on air quality is through implementation of the plans and
policies of the Land Use and Transportation Elements. Through good planning we can
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 11
gradually reduce the need for long-distance travel, reduce the number of single-occupant
vehicles on the roads, increase transit ridership, etc. .
The following goal was developed by City staff and the policies that follow were based in part
on a March 1993 PSAPCA publication entitled "Local Growth Management Strategies to
Protect and Enhance Regional Air Quality".
GOAL:
To provide for needed urban growth and development while
ensuring that it is best sited, oriented, clustered, and otherwise
designed to promote air quality objectives and policies.
Air Quality Policies:
1. Promote and support public education efforts aimed at reducing activities that result in air
pollution, especially transportation-related pollution.
2. Support the air pollution abatement and prevention activities of the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency (PSAPCA), including the requirements of federal and state clean air acts.
3. Collaborate with other jurisdictions and agencies in ways that will leverage federal and state
programs and funding that promote clean air protection and enhancement.
4. Consider the air quality implications of new growth and development when designing urban
growth areas, when considering annexations, when making Comprehensive Plan and zoning
changes, and when planning street and utility line extensions.
5. Consider the adoption of new development controls or guidelines designed to avoid or mitigate
adverse cumulative air quality impacts prior to project approval.
6. Plan and zone for higher density housing, clustered commercial activities, high-intensity
transportation corridors, new local job opportunities, home occupations, and other community
design options that will reduce travel needs while promoting public transit.
7. Promote energy efficient infill development throughout Bremerton while discouraging urban sprawl
in unincorporated rural areas of Kitsap County.
8. Consider adjustments to development regulations and guidelines that will promote the use of
.c1ean. alternative forms of domestic use fuels, such as natural gas, while discouraging the use of
wood as a heat source.
9. Promote and implement transportation demand and systems management actions designed to
reduce vehicle emissions by lowering the number of miles traveled by single occupancy vehicle
(SOV), reducing traffic congestion, improving the efficiency of existing roadways (HOV lanes,
. enhanced signalization, etc.), and increasing public transportation levels of service.
10. Establish and implement a commute trip reduction ordinance and program for City of Bremerton
employees.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 12
':'::":::':':':::::';::';:;';'::;'::" ............: "':::""" " :'::;,::,,: ,.., .;.;,.;
<1~WArER~WP;~'fJY:....
Water defines our state better than any other resource, especially in Bremerton and Kitsap
County. Bremerton residents look at or otherwise relate to water, shorelines, bridges, ferries,
etc., every day. Water appears to be abundant here and, like the quality of our air, we
sometimes take it for granted.
Although we have water all around us, it is a fairly sensitive resource and one that is being
seriously threatened by pollution or over-use throughout much of the state. Washingtonians
use 2.4 trillion gallons of water every year. Although most of it (76%) is used for agriculture,
we are finding seasonal and other water shortages in many areas, including our own county.
Bremerton is very fortunate in having the only surface water source (reservoir) in this county
while most residents rely solely on groundwater. But, as we continue to grow, the quantity of
available fresh water, as well as its quality, will become increasing concerns.
The Capital Facilities Plan Element addresses the City's future water supply and distribution,
while this section will offer policies related to maintaining water quality. Since water is a
limited resource, we can't afford to squander it, misuse it, or allow it to become polluted.
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and related land use and development
regulations can help ensure the quality of our water.
GOAL:
Protect the quality and quantity of surface and ground water by
minimizing land clearing, soil disturbance and non-point runoff
affecting water quality, erosion and sedimentation.
Water Quality Policies:
1. Carefully locate all uses and activities to minimize adverse impacts.
2. Use effective site planning, setbacks and buffers, construction timing and practices, bank
stabilization, bie-engineering, and erosion and drainage control .methods both during and after
construction.
3. Ensure the restoration of degraded shorelines, gravel extraction sites, and other damaged areas to
arrest the processes of erosion, sedimentation and flooding.
4. Conduct dredging and filling activities in ways that will minimize the introduction of suspended
solids, leaching of contaminants, or the disturbance of habitats.
5. Implement water quality_policies through detailed procedures included in the City's Shoreline
Master Program, Critical Lands Ordinance, and other development requirements.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 13
.....!i~>. .iENERGYCONSERVATION)GOALS. ANID. PQll€IES{...
The Washington State Energy Office (WSEO) produced the document entitled "Energy and
the Growth Management Act" in 1994 to assist jurisdictions in the incorporation of energy
and the conservation of energy into their Comprehensive Plans.
Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan does not include a separate Energy Element. However,
many of the suggested energy policies are being included in this Environmental Management
Element for now, since the wise and efficient use of energy resources is an important
environmental management concern. It's very possible that these will eventually be included
in a separate Energy Element which will provide greater detail on the current status, energy
needs, options, and conservation opportunities and programs.
ENERGY GOAL:
Incorporate efficient energy conservation strategies into all
aspects of City growth and development.
A. Mixed Use Policies:
A-1 Encourage integration of housing and commercial/office uses in the Central Business District, the
Manette Business District, the Charleston Business District, and other locations determined to be
suitable for mixed use development.
A-2 Develop incentives and development guidelines that will encourage mixed use development.
A-3 Adopt mixed use zoning that will encourage a mix of residential, commercial, and/or office uses in
key locations.
A-4 Apply mixed use zoning in areas near transit routes and terminals, along major transportation
corridors, in the CBD and smaller commercial districts, and in targeted redevelopment areas that
are suitably located.
B: Urban Infill Policies:
B-1 Emphasize Bremerton's many opportunities for "infill" development as ways to provide cost-
effective, affordable, and energy efficient housing and new businesses, utilizing existing utilities,
streets, parks, schools, and other community services and facilities.
B-2 Achieve compact, energy efficient, and higher density residential intill by encouraging the utilization
of existing small vacant lots, the use of innovative development and subdivision design, the
addition of accessory units, and the use of clustering techniques.
B-3 Develop additional incentives within the City's development codes that will encourage residential
intil!.
C: Pedestrian and Commuter Convenience:
C-1 Encourage development and community design that will favor the pedestrian and offer greater
convenience within comfortable walking distances of most homes.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 14
C-2 Plan and zone for higher residential densities within 1/4 mile of neighborhood centers that include
grocery stores, postal facilities, banks, schools, recreation areas, child care, and other goods and
services that residents generally need on a regular basis.
C-3 Allow highest residential densities along major transportation corridors, in the vicinity of transit
stations or multimodal terminals, within the CBO, and within smaller business districts to maximize
the levels of potential transit usage and pedestrian travel.
C-4 Adopt development guidelines that ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access between
residential and commercial areas of the City.
C-5 Integrate small convenience shops and personal services into major employment centers and near
park-and-ride lots (within 1/4 mile) to provide streamlined services for commuters which will, in
turn, reduce the need for additional vehicular trips. Such uses might include convenience
markets, postal facilities, restaurants, dry cleaners, banks, child care centers, etc.
C-6 Allow small shops and personal/professional services to be within convenient walking distance of
neighborhoods and within one-quarter mile of transit terminals or routes.
C-7 Consider the development of a citywide master plan for pedestrian facilities and amenities,
particularly in higher-density areas and areas undergoing redevelopment, as a viable travel mode
alternative. .
C-8 The City shall continue and expand programs aimed at alternative ways to commute to work in
order to reduce traffic congestion, lost time, and energy inefficiency.
0: Streets. Parking & Transportation Facilities:
0-1 Ensure a citywide network of interconnecting walkways and bikeways (where safe and feasible) to
directly connect major origins and destinations.
0-2 Include energy efficiency as a criterion in the design of streets and walkways.
0-3 Consider the energy implications of trees when landscaping parking areas and streets, including
their cooling effects and ability to filter the sun and wind.
0-4 Promote bicycling as a non-polluting energy efficient mode of transportation by including bicycle
facility considerations in all major street and bridge projects, in new subdivision design, and in
new commercial and industrial developments - for both employees and patrons.
0-5 Structure the rates of parking lots to encourage carpools and van pools and to discourage long-
term parking for single-occupant vehicles.
0-6 Reduce the amount of required off-street parking when commute alternatives exist.
0-7 Encourage carpooling/vanpooling by offering such incentives as a guaranteed ride home to cover
emergency or late working hour situations.
0-8 Increase energy efficiency through adjustments to the timing of traffic signals.
E. Telecommuting:
E-1 Establish home-based telecommuting work programs whenever feasible.
E-2 Ensure that City zoning allows for home-based telecommuting businesses.
Environmental Mgrnt. - Page 15
E-3 Encourage the expansion of telecommunication linkages between jurisdictions, especially for such
applications as GIS data access, mapping, permitting, and sharing information.
F. Housing:
F-1 Look for ways in which the City's development codes can be adjusted to better encourage the
construction of smaller, compact, energy-efficient affordable housing.
F-2 Maximize the efficiency of existing City infrastructure by encouraging in-fill development and
accessory dwellings (where permitted) on existing small lots throughout the City.
G. Capital Facilities:
G-1 Include energy (and water) efficiency and conservation provisions in all capital facilities projects.
G-2 Consider the cost and energy conservation advantages of retrofitting major facilities with energy
and water saving devices such as more efficient indoor and outdoor lighting, inmproved heating,
more efficient air conditioning systems, water system leak detection and pump efficiency testing,
.low-flow plumbing fixtures, and energy- and water-efficient landscaping.
G-3 Use life cycle costing in major purchase and construction decisions.
G-4 Review and adjust, as necessary, the operation of the sewage treatment plant to achieve
maximum water and energy efficiency. (Wastewater treatment consumes a major portion of a
community's energy - about 25 percent in many cities.)
G-5 Consider the inclusion of an "Energy Conservation Element' in a forthcoming update of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
H. Recycling:
H-1 Promote waste recycling, curbside recycling, yard waste programs, and similar activities that will
save energy and resources and which will extend the life of the regional landfill.
H-2 Adjust zoning requirements to include adequate space for the separating and storage of
recyclable materials, particularly in multi-family residential, commercial and industrial
developments.
I. Utilities:
1-1 The City shall cooperate with local utilities companies in planning ahead for the siting or
expansion of needed utilities in locations where they will be most energy-efficient with the least
impact on the natural environment or on the existing urban environment.
1-2 Use a regional siting process for dealing with major utilities and facilities having regional
importance.
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 16
...e...iL.l..iS1rOR............I14hR........r;S<.e)R}.VuurAT-ION...........).... ........... ........ ..
. U.': -..;<:::.>;:0 .~::.~:._..::..... v:::r:.. .......~.... .:.:;.1:\ I.....P ......<.;....
Bremerton has a long and colorful history, much of it related to its military ties and Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard's more than 100 years of service to the fleet. Historic preservation is
an important tool that is often used in the protection and enhancement of a community's
special attributes.
One of the goals of the Growth Management Act is to -Identify and encourage the
preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological
significance. - To assist jurisdictions in these efforts, the State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation (OAHP) has developed a technical guide outlining the preservation
process and tools. That guide will be helpful to the City in undertaking an inventory of
historical sites and structures and in establishing a formal preservation program.
The following policies are just the beginning of the historical preservation process and will be
built upon in coming years.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOAL:
Preserve archeological and historical sites which are of public and
scientific interest. (SMP)
Preservation Policies:
1. Consider the development of an historic preservation program that responds to the unique needs
and character of the Bremerton community, and that includes an historic preservation ordinance to
help implement the program.
2. Consider historic buildings as opportunities to meet affordable housing needs, alternative living or
work arrangements, or other unique and creative adaptations.
3. Look for ways to include historic properties or buildings for recreational, entertainment, educational
or cultural uses. .
4. Use interpretive signs, displays or markers to help explain the community's history and
uniqueness.
5. Look for ways to combine historic preservation tax incentives with housing tax credits and grant
programs in packaging financially successful housing projects.
6. Consideration should be given to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Chapter
43.51, RCW, which provide for protection, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in history, architecture, archeology or culture;
also see RCW 27.53, which makes it unlawful to disturb any archeological site without permission.
(SMP)
...
Environmental Mgmt. - Page 17
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
IMPLEMENTATION,
CONSISTENCY and
CONCURRENCY ELEMENT
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: AprilS, 1995
K
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
Element K
IMPLEMENTATION, CONSISTENCY
and CONCURRENCY
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 1
2. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .......... . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
A. Continuing Evaluation .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1
B. Timing of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
C. Emergency Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
D. Criteria for Approval ................................. 2
3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Subdivision Ordinance ............................... 4
C. Shoreline Management Program ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
E. Waterfront Access Plan ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
F. West Hills Area Plan ................................. 6
G. Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
H. Utilities Plans ................................,..... 6
I. Comprehensive Parks Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
J. Other Plans, Standards and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. URBAN GROWTH POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Countywide Urban Growth Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. City Comments on County Draft Compo Plan ............... 8
C. Urban Growth Management Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. Annexation Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
5. MEETING CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
A. Internal Consistency ................................ 12
B. Interjurisdictional Consistency ......................... 12
6. CONCURRENCy......................................... 14
A. Definition ........................................ 14
B. Application .............................. . . . . . . . .. 14
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
ELEMENT K
IMPLEMENTATION,
CONSISTENCY and
CONCURRENCY
. . .
. .
1. INTRODUCTION
All elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with each other. The Plan itself
must be consistent with other plans since those plans and their inherent policies will affect
growth and development within the City of Bremerton for years to come.
In addition to the consistency rule, the City must develop a program that will ensure
"concurrency", or the provision of certain types of utilities and services in a timely manner
when they are needed to serve new development.
Implementation, or "making the Plan happen", is vital to its success and is a major
consideration that will be addressed in this element to help ensure coordination and
consistency.
. .
. .. .
. .. ., ,.
, , ...
2. AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE]?LAN.. '.'
A. Continuing Evaluation
Following adoption of the Revised Comprehensive Plan and related development
regulations, the City shall continually monitor their effectiveness and document
needed amendments.
B. Timing of Amendments
(1) The Comprehensive Plan shall be amended no more frequently than once per
calendar year. That process shall be scheduled so that any changes that have
financial implications can be included in the City's fall budget process. The
amendment process shall generally conform to the following schedule:
Implementation - Page 1
.
Spring:
May & June:
July:
Neighborhood meetings, as necessary.
Planning Commission Public Hearing(s).
City Council Public Hearing(s).
.
.
(2) All amendment proposals shall be considered concurrently (in a package) by
the Planning Commission and the City Council so that their cumulative effects
can be ascertained. .
(3) Provisions for the joint City jCounty consideration of Plan amendments of
mutual concern within the Urban Growth Area shall be included in the Urban
Growth Management Agreement (UGMA), or other appropriate agreement.
C. Emergency Consideration
The Comprehensive Plan may be revised or amended outside the normal schedule if
findings are adopted to show that the amendment was necessary, due to an
emergency situation of a neighborhood- or community-wide significance and not a
personal emergency on the part of a particular applicant or property owner. Plan and
Zoning amendments related to annexations may be considered during the normal
annexation process and need not be coordinated with the annual Plan Amendment
schedule. The nature of any emergency and proposed amendment shall be
explained to the City Council's Growth Management Committee, which shall decide
whether or not to allow the proposal to proceed ahead of the normal amendment
schedule.
D. Criteria for Approval
Each component of a Plan Amendment package shall be reviewed and approved only
if it meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Growth Management Act
and will not result in Plan or regulation conflicts; and
(2) 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
(3) The proposed amendment can be accommodated by all applicable public
services and facilities, including transportation; and
(4) The proposal will help implement the goals and policies of the Bremerton
'Comprehensive Plan; and
(5) If the proposal could have substantive impacts beyond the City limits, it has
been sent to Kitsap County for review and comment.
Implementation - Page 2
.... n.' ... _, . ....... .. .. . .. . on .
,... ................. ..".. .... .... . .. .., .. ... .... .H
.. .... ................,'...'.....................................,.,..... ..' '. .......,.........,..'. ". ..... ..... ,..... ....,..".... ". .."
. .. .............. ..... .......... . n.. ......... . . . .......... ..... .
3 tl..iinIE. .liIE....k.frA 'J.J.1"\ KI0" . ..F>;rH........ i~(p..... .fA'>.......\
.. . .. ... IV~FL IVI. I~..II"\ ....'"'l[~ ..... . .....] 1:::..... LI"\~.l.......
A number of implementation "tools" will be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Each of these must be "consistent" with the Plan and with its leading goals and policies.
These tools include, but are not limited to:
A. Zoning Ordinance
Current Status:
The Zoning Ordinance is the City's primary land development code. It
contains the basic requirements for density, building set-backs, building height,
landscaping, off-street parking, fences, landscaping, lot coverage, and includes
lists of specific types of land uses that may be permitted in each zoning district
throughout the City. It also provides the requirements for Site Plan Review,
Rezones, Variances, Special Use Permits, Special Exceptions, Appeals, public
notification procedures, and other processes related to development.
The Zoning Ordinance was revised in 1988 to be consistent with the City's
1986 Comprehensive Plan. The general land use categories of the
Comprehensive Plan intentionally allow for a variety of zones, provided they are
consistent with the overriding Plan designation and the goals and intent of the
Plan.
Policies:
(1) Zoning district descriptions and requirements shall be reviewed and
fine-tuned, as necessary, to ensure consistency with all Comprehensive
Plan designations.
(2) During the process of Zoning Ordinance review, the City shall look for
ways to provide development incentives where needed to direct
population and new development to the most appropriate locations.
Possibilities may include density bonuses, reduced development
requirements, reduced City standards for some public improvements, or
the offering of new development options such as "accessory dwellings".
(3) As the major city within its Urban Growth Area, Bremerton shall
continue to encourage mutual collaboration with Kitsap County on the
development of an urban zoning program that is mutually consistent
and that can be applied throughout the UGA.
Implementation - Page 3
B. Subdivision Ordinance
Current Status:
The City of Bremerton has a Short Subdivision Ordinance for the processing of
land divisions consisting of four lots or fewer. However, larger subdivisions
have always been governed by the provisions of State law, as contained in the
RCW. That procedure has been used for decades, but Jacks some key
components of the development process that are needed, including specific
procedures related to the dedication of right-of-way, installation of needed
utilities, sidewalks, curbs and gutters and other public improvements,
dedication of land for parks or open space consistent with this Plan and the
Parks Master Plan, and other details.
Policies:
(1) The City of Bremerton shall develop and adopt a subdivision ordinance
that will include procedures for short-platting as well as road standards,
other development design standards, and specific requirements for
public improvements. (NOTE: Since this is neither mandated nor
necessary for Plan implementation, it should be treated as a high
priority project following completion of the mandated Comprehensive
Plan.)
c. Shoreline Management Program
Current Status:
Bremerton adopted a shoreline permit system and compiled a shoreline
inventory in 1972, following State passage of the Shoreline Management Act of
1971. The City adopted its first shoreline master program in 1976. That SMP
was amended several times, including major amendments in 1989 and 1992.
Development along our shorelines is now monitored by the State Dept. of
Ecology and regulated through substantial development permits, conditional
use permits and variances in accordance with the SMP.
It has been determined that proposed amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan that are needed to comply with the GMA will not erode the effectiveness
of the Shoreline Management Program and immediate adjustments are not
necessary to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and state
planning goals.
Policies:
(1) The City of Bremerton shall continue to monitor the effectiveness of its
Master Program and initiate amendments as necessary to keep the
program up-to-date and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Implementation - Page 4
D. Downtown Waterfront Urban Renewal Plan
Current Status:
The DWURP was adopted in 1989 to guide renewal efforts along the waterfront
of downtown Bremerton, generally north of the ferry terminal and east of
Washington Avenue. The Plan contains a Land/Water Use Plan which
designates specific types of uses and establishes planning criteria, lists of
permitted uses, building controls, and other special controls.
Implementation of this Plan relied on the creation of separate development
strategies after working closely with local and CBD area property owners. The
next phase was developed in 1993 in the form of the "Waterfront/CeO
Revitalization Implementation Study" which included design guidelines and a
conceptual development plan for the waterfront and Central Business District
that would be consistent with both the DWURP and the Comprehensive Plan.
Policies:
(1) Continue to work toward implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan, as
already scheduled, with the next phases of the downtown/waterfront
redevelopment process.
(2) Ensure that all ferry terminal and service improvements that may be
proposed by the Dept. of Transportation and Washington State Ferries
are consistent with adopted local waterfront and CBD plans.
E. Waterfront Access Plan
Current Status:
This Plan was adopted in August 1990 as a policy document and an action
plan related to the identification and development of a system of public
accessways to the shorelines with the City of Bremerton. It continues to help
guide other planning activities as well as land use and development decisions
in shorelines areas of the City.
Policies:
Eight Waterfront Access Objectives and fifteen specific access policies are
included in this document. All were found to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goals and with statewide planning goals, and all are
related to the following primary goal of the Waterfront Access Plan:
.Provide a comprehensive system of safe and abundant access to City
shorelines, while protecting private properties from adverse impacts. ·
Implementation - Page 5
F. West Hills Area Plan
Current Status:
This "neighborhood plan" was adopted in February 1990. At that time the
West Hills area was unincorporated and adjacent to the City limits. This plan
was prepared primarily to look at land use, transportation/circulation, and
capital facilities infrastructure conditions and needs prior to a possible
annexation. It provided area property owners with some degree of City
commitment by establishing pre-annexation Plan and Zoning designations.
Since 1990, most of this area has been annexed to Bremerton.
This area plan was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. All
recommendations contained within this Plan have since been integrated into
the revised Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency.
G. Campus/Evergreen Neighborhood Plan
Current Status:
This neighborhood plan covered a 270 acre neighborhood in central Bremerton
and was adopted in December 1992 as an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. This plan will continue to guide local development and
redevelopment efforts, as well as influence discussions and decisions involving
public facilities, services, street improvements, parks, shoreline access, and
other issues.
Since this plan was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, there
are no conflicts with goals, policies or recommendations.
H. UTILITIES PLANS
The City's Department of Public Works and Utilities is responsible for the
following major system plans. Each is being coordinated with the land use
and development proposals of the Comprehensive Plan, and particularly with
the Capital Facilities Plan Element, to ensure consistency. A more specific
discussion of these systems is included in the Capital Facilities Plan Element.
(1) Water System Comprehensive Plan
(2) Wastewater Comprehensive Plan
(3) Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan
Implementation - Page 6
I. Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Plan
Current Status:
The Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Plan (CPRP) is developed and
. administered by the City's Department of Parks and Recreation. The plan has
recently undergone its five-year revision, with consultant assistance. It is now
before the City Council for approval and is expected to be adopted prior to
adoption of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan. Parks and open space
considerations addressed in the CPRP are included in the Land Use, Capital
Facilities, and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The two plans are,
and will remain, consistent with each other.
J. Other Plans. Standards and Regulations
The City recognizes the need to remain aware of all the other plans,
development standards, and regulations that will come and go. We will
continually strive to maintain consistency between our Comprehensive Plan
and regulations and all others that may affect our area or jurisdiction. We will
also review and comment on draft plans and regulations as to how they might
affect our own.
, ... . .
, . , .
, ... . ,,' -' .... - .... '., . ..
4. .. .URBANJ GRdWTH.80IJCIE$
All lands within the City of Bremerton are also within an Urban Growth Area, as officially
designated by Kitsap County following an analysis of urban land needs, land capacity, ability
to provide urban municipal services, consideration of the City's UGA proposals, and other
factors.
In accordance with the Growth Management Act, Bremerton (the only incorporated city within
the UGA) shall be the primary provider of urban services. However, since a considerable
portion of the UGA is already served by Kitsap County and special districts, the process of
transition is expected to be gradual over a period of many years.
A. COUNTYWIDE URBAN GROWTH POLICY:
"Policies to Implement RCW 36. 70A.11 0 Relating to the Establishment of Urban
Growth Areas" were adopted as Element A of the Kitsap Countywide Planning
Policies in August, 1992. Those policies guided our Plan revisions.
The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the CPPs in the following ways:
Implementation - Page 7
(1) Based on a detailed Land Use Inventory and Build-out Analysis, it has
been determined that Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning can
accommodate new and infill development sufficient to house the 20,000
population that was allocated to the City for its 20-year planning period.
(2) Bremerton has planned for and is currently providing a full range of
urban services within its current City limits and in some cases beyond.
(3) Annexation policies pertain only to lands within the Urban Growth Area
and assume that all such lands are encouraged to urbanize and to
either annex to their adjacent city or incorporate as new communities.
(4) Both the City and County have conducted land use inventories. Both
are capable of computer/GIS storage and ready access, although the
City's inventory was not absorbed into the Countywide GIS system.
(5) In response to the "Urban Growth Management Agreement" mandate
of the Countywide Planning Policies, Bremerton has entered into some
discussion with Kitsap County and also drafted an early version of a
UGMA. The focus of that early work was to clarify the process of
annexation and to begin to establish urban level development
standards that will ensure development and utility design consistency
throughout the UGA. Kitsap County and its jurisdictions are now
discussing service agreements, as required by SSB 5038. Some of
those agreements may be integrated into the the UGMA, which is
considered an important tool for implementation and coordination.
B. CITY COMMENTS ON COUNTY DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
During the development of the County and City Comprehensive Plans, the
staffs of each jurisdiction met periodically, attempted to share draft documents,
and commented constructively on each others' work whenever possible. Not
all differences were resolved during this ongoing process.
During Kitsap County's Comprehensive Plan public hearings, Bremerton
offered oral and written comments that included the following
recommendations to help ensure Plan coordination and consistency:
(1) Work together to develop a joint City/County build-out analysis of land
use and population for each UGA, based on common GIS data and
procedures.
(2) Work together to develop a clear and coordinated analysis of public
facilities and services that will be needed over the next 20 years, and a
related financial plan.
(3) Ensure the integrity of UGAs by not providing the urban facilities and
services that would allow continued growth outside UGAs.
Implementation - Page 8
(4) Consider the concept of "current use zoning" for rural areas that would
include the recognition of active resource production areas.
(5) Adjust development codes and impact fees to ensure that new
development in rural areas pays its "actual share" of the public costs
involved. Also, work with cities to develop UGA development
incentives.
(6) Allow some additional time prior to Plan adoption to allow for local
coordination of Plans and consistency reviews.
(7) Establish a clear definition of "urban". (In reference to some areas
outside UGAs that are proposed for densities up to 8 DU / Acre.)
(8) Keep the "FCC" (Fully Contained Community) symbol off the
Countywide Land Use Plan map. Bremerton suggested that sufficient
land is available within cities and UGAs and, therefore, FCCs should be
discouraged until there is a clear need for additional urban land beyond
established UGAs.
(9) Bremerton disagreed with a "market factor" of 2.5 or 1.75 and felt that
the 20-year land supply within the Comprehensive Plan is sufficient. A
1.75 market factor would extend the planning horizon to 35 years
instead of 20.
(10) Requested that the City and County collaborate in the development of
the new County Zoning Ordinance, especially as it pertains to Urban
Growth Areas.
Kitsap County adopted its new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance on
December 29, 1994.
C. URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
The Countywide Planning Policies identified a critical need to coordinate the
planning and growth activities of all jurisdictions within established Urban
Growth Areas. To accomplish this, we would develop an "Urban Growth
Management Agreement" (UGMA) that would contain at least the following
provisions, as outlined in the Countywide Planning Policies:
(1) Description of the annexation process.
(2) Public involvement in the development of the UGMA and annexation
process. Adoption of annexation policies.
(3) Establish a method of determining appropriate compensation to the
County (if any) for major construction projects undertaken by the
County within an annexation area.
Implementation - Page 9
(4) Establish a method for sharing net revenues, and services and
expenses (if appropriate) in annexations of significantly developed
areas.
(5) Consider pre-annexation agreement issues related to the provision of
urban governmental services.
(6) The UGMA shall designate level of service (LOS) standards.
(7) Establish a process for review and comment by other jurisdictions on
Compo Plan and zoning changes as well as development proposals.
(8) Identify common and consistent development and construction
standards to be applied throughout the UGA.
(9) Identify services to be provided in the UGA, the reasonable purveyors,
and the terms under which the services will be provided.
D. ANNEXATION POLICIES
Annexation is a means of meeting community needs and is also the process
through which the City grows. Since its incorporation, Bremerton has grown
from a very small community to a City that today contains about 23 square
miles of area. This expansion was accomplished through a series of about 90
individual annexations.
The following will establish definitive objectives and policies as the City's official
position on the process of annexation. These will then provide the guidance
that is needed to review and evaluate specific annexation requests.
The following annexation policies are consistent with similar policies and
objectives that were adopted by the City (Resolution 2361) on September 11,
1991. The format has been altered slightly, but the content is unchanged.
Annexation Policy:
It is the policy of the City of Bremerton to promote~pjanned community
growth through annexation within our Urban Growth Area (UGA).
Obiective A:
To utilize uniform criteria in evaluating annexations.
Policv A-1
Evaluate all annexations on the bases of both their short-
and long-term community impacts on. . .
Implementation - Page 10
Policy A-2
Obiective B:
Objective C:
Policy C-1
Policy C-2
Obiective 0:
Policy 0-1
Policy 0-2
(a) Levels of service for existing City services, and
(b) Projected revenues and expenditures for services
in annexation areas.
Support only those annexations that do not diminish the
City's current levels of service over the long term.
(a) Annexation shall take place only after the City is
satisfied that revenues for needed resources and
capacity can be made available to the existing
and new areas in a manner that will be cost
effective over the long term.
(b) The City will require staff to prepare a report
assessing the probable short- and long-term
financial, economic, political and social impacts of
annexations.
To consider annexations that best meet the growth
goals and policies of the City and region.
To consider annexations that preserve established
neighborhoods and community identities.
Adopt land use controls in newly annexed areas that
favor the positive characteristics of those neighborhoods.
Encourage and provide opportunities for maximum
citizen participation in governmental planning and
decision-making processes.
To cooperate with Kitsap County and other
jurisdictions in addressing areawide comprehensive
planning, zoning, and service provision to areas
outside its corporate limits but within the Urban
Growth Area.
Cooperate with Kitsap County and other jurisdictions to
establish uniform road, development, and utility
standards within adopted Urban Growth Areas.
Participate in the planning for areas outside City
boundaries but within the Urban Growth Area to ensure
that City and County Comprehensive Plans and related
implementation policies and ordinances are compatible.
Implementation - Page 11
. .. ." . :.. ~. ..:.. ..
. . ... .... . . .... .
.. . '. .. ..
.. . .... . ..... . ... .
5.MEBTING<CONSISTENCY Rt;Ql.JIREMETSlTS .....
A. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
To be effective, each element of the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with all
other elements, policies, maps, and recommendations. This is "internal consistency"
within the Plan itself. When this is achieved, the land uses that are indicated on the
Plan and Zoning Maps will be adequately accommodated on the ground with the
roads, public facilities and services they will need.
Internal consistency was developed gradually during the preparation of the Plan.
Because new findings or alterations in one element often caused changes in others,
all elements of the City's Plan had to be brought along together rather than
independent of each other. The on-going process of Plan review and amendment will
also involve multiple elements because of these interrelationships.
Policy
Bremerton shall undertake a complete review of its Comprehensive Plan
at five-year intervals, beginning in 1999.
Policy
Bremerton shall provide opportunities for annual Plan amendments that
include the following provisions:
(1) Requests for Plan amendments will be accepted at any time.
(2) Staff will begin processing all amendments during the fourth
quarter of each year and prepare them for City Council adoption
during the first quarter of the following year.
Policy
The City will work with Kitsap County to 'establish a joint City jCounty
amendment process for Comprehensive Plan designations and Zoning
within the Urban Growth Area, and particularly within those areas that
are served by City utilities or other services.
B. INTERJURISDICTIONAl CONSISTENCY
Bremerton's Comprehensive Plan must also be consistent with those of surrounding
jurisdictions within our region. The adopted Countywide Planning Policies are the
primary guide to achieving regional consistency. Those policies have been used and
referred to throughout this Plan.
Achieving interjurisdictional consistency is an ongoing process that is not expected to
be fully realized with the first round adoption of local and county plans for the
following reasons:
(1) Inconsistent Work Scheduling: Local jurisdictions have attempted to meet,
discuss problems and concerns, coordinate programs, and follow a regional
Implementation - Pag~ 12
work schedule. Unfortunately, it was not possible for all local jurisdictions to
adapt to the same production schedule for a number of reasons. As a result,
each jurisdiction developed its own schedule and proceeded at its own pace,
using the Countywide Planning Policies as the primary guide to regional
consistency. Since some cities have completed their plans well ahead of
Kitsap County, it's impossible to accurately judge the final level of consistency.
(2) Inadequate Time and Resources: Planning jurisdictions have had about
three years in which to develop new comprehensive plans that are consistent
with the Growth Management Act. The GMA was borrowed, in part, from
several other states and was an entirely new program for Washington. Many
of the concepts were not well thought out, not fully developed, and not tested.
The "bottom-up" process could not adjust quickly and develop the necessary
tools to deal with "top-down" mandates that required local jurisdictions to do
things that weren't easily done, technically or politically. Three years to
complete plans of this complexity, not to mention the implementation
regulations, has proven insufficient for many jurisdictions. Consistency is
probably not leading their priority lists.
(3) Slow Resolution of Difficult Issues: A few important countywide issues
have been resolved enroute to Plan production. Among them were population
allocations, protection of sensitive areas, and some regional transportation
issues. Several issues will remain unresolved at the time of Plan adoption.
These may include some or all of the following:
(a) Identification and protection of agricultural and forest resource lands.
(b) Defining "Urban" and "Rural" and setting acceptable density,
development, and service standards for each.
(c) Establishing Final Urban Growth Areas that achieve GMA objectives.
(d) Developing Urban Growth Management Agreements (UGMA), as
directed in our Countywide Planning Policies to guide development and
coordination of utilities and services within Urban Growth Areas.
(e) Establishing countywide annexation policies that encourage the
annexation of urban lands and the provision of municipal services by
cities rather than through the continued growth of special service
districts and County-provided utility systems.
Some of these issues are much larger than our ability to fit them all comfortably into
our Comprehensive Plans. Some may have to be decided at the State level, possibly
through follow-up legislation. In any case, Bremerton will continue to discuss and
work on them following Plan adoption and through subsequent Plan reviews and
amendments.
Implementation - Page 13
..... ..-.. .
. . ... _n
".........'... .. .. ..'...... ...
<6~.<CONCORRENGY
A. DEFINITION
"Concurrency" means that the public facilities and services needed to maintain level
of service standards adopted in the Comprehensive Plan are available simultaneous
to, or within six years of, development approval or construction.
B. APPLICATION
Washington's concurrency requirements aim primarily at transportation planning,
although each Plan should also designate other public facilities that it feels are
important enough to include in the Concurrency Management System.
Policy
In addition to transportation facilities, Bremerton's Concurrency
Management System shall apply to its sewer and water utilities.
The concept of Concurrency is based on the maintenance of specified Levels of
Service (LOS). Thus, an appropriate LOS was established for each type of facility that
will be included in the concurrency system. Obviously, some facilities were of a
regional nature and their LOS influenced by regional considerations. In addition to
consideration of regional plans, Bremerton's LOS also reflects reasonable
expectations, local priorities and our visions for the future.
WAC 365-195-835 required. our concurrency management system to set forth the
procedures and processes that would be used to determine whether relevant public
facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a proposed development. The
system identifies the responses to be taken when it is determined that capacity is not
adequate. The term "adequate capacity" refers to the maintenance of concurrency.
The City's Concurrency Management System provides a strategy for dealing with
situations in which a proposed new development would cause levels of service to fall
below the adopted standard. Denial of the project is statutorily required, but only in
the area of transportation facilities, but may occur as a result of other deficiencies.
Policy
A project denial, based on inadequate transportation, water, or sewer
LOS will be an emergency action and will be followed by amendments
to the Plan, development regulations, or physical facilities to correct the
situation or provide reasonable and effective alternatives.
Policy
An alternative system, such as septic system or well, may be approved
on an interim basis within City service areas when public sewer or water
services are not yet available.
Policy
The City shall establish and maintain a capacity monitoring system that
will show how much of the City's water, sewer and transportation
Implementation - Page 14
capacity is being used at anyone time, and which can be projected to
test the probable impacts of proposed new developments.
Policy
Based on the City's population allocations, build-out analysis,
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and other factors, available capacity may
be preassigned to specific areas of the community and plans and
regulations adjusted accordingly to achieve the most efficient and
reasonable balance.
Policy
Bremerton may reserve portions of available capacity if necessary to
achieve planning goals or specific land use objectives, or to ensure that
certain areas will have their needed capacity when development occurs.
This might be done by:
(1) Setting aside a portion of available or anticipated capacity for
specified types of development that have been identified as
important to meet defined community needs (perhaps jobs,
economic development, industry, etc.); or
(2). Adopting a first-come, first-served system of allocation,
dedicating capacity to applications in the order received (the
current procedure); or
(3) Adopting a preference system giving certain categories or .
specified types of development preference over others in the
allocation of available capacity. (Areas within the City might
have priority over areas outside the City. Infill or redevelopment
areas might have priority over other new development.)
For additional information about transportation concurrency, refer to Section V, Part C
(Concurrency Management and Implementation) of the Transportation Element.
...
6-A:IMPLE.E-K
Implementation - Page 15
Bremerton Comprehensive Plan
GLOSSARY
Prepared by:
BREMERTON PLANNING
Adopted: April 5, 1995
GLOSSARY
Terms commonly used in comprehensive planning
under the Washington Growth Management Act
Acronyms
Adequate Public Facilities
Annexation
Available Public Facilities
Build-out
Capital Facilities Program
Capital Facility
Capital Improvement
Carrying Capacity
City
Comprehensive Plan
Concurrency
Consistency
Coordination
Critical Areas
Density
Density Bonus
Development Permits
Development Regulations
Domestic Water System
Downzoning
Ecosystem
Elements, of Comprehensive Plans
Environmental Buffer
Financial Commitment
Five-year Comprehensive Water Plan
Fully Contained Communities
Geographic Information System
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Greenbelt
Growth Management Act (GMA)
Growth Planning Hearings Board
Home Occupation
Infill Development
Infrastructure
Land Use Inventory
Level of Service
Local Improvement District (LID)
. .
.... .
. . . ..
. .
CO NTENT.S
Master Planned Resorts
Natural Resource Lands
Neighborhood
Open Space
Parcel
Pedestrian Pocket
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Private Open Space
Public Facilities
Public Services
Public Open Space
Public Service Obligations
Public Services
Rural
Sanitary Sewer Systems
Service Connection
Six-year Finance Plan
Six-year Street Plan
Solid Waste Handling Facility
Special Assessment District
Special Purpose District
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Transportation Facilities
Transportation LOS Standards
Town
Urban
Urban Governmental Services
Urban Growth
Urban Growth Area
Urban Growth Area Boundary
Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA)
Urban Sprawl
User Fees
Utilities or Public Utilities
Utility Local Improvement District (ULlD)
Utility System Development Fee
Vesting
Village
Glossary .-- Page 1
Acronyms:
BACON
BANANA
ISTEA
LULU
NIMBY
NI MFYE
NIMTO
NOPE
TAZ
Bremerton Area Council of Neighborhoods
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
Locally Unwanted (or undesirable) Land Use
Not In My Back Yard
Not In My Front Yard Either
Not In My Term of Office
Not On Planet Earth
Transportation Analysis Zone (Also: KTAZ = Kitsap Trc;l.nsportation
Analysis Zone)
Adequate Public Faciltiies: Facilities which have the capacity to serve development without
decreasing levels of service below locally established minimums. [WAC 365-195-210]
Annexation: The process most commonly involves the bringing of an unincorporated
land area into the jurisdiction of an adjacent incorporated city. It is also possible for
one city to annex another, although this is rare. Most annexations are initiated by a
petition signed 'by the owners of the properties involved. The annexing city may then
choose the most appropriate method of annexation. The most common methods
used in Washington are the 75 Percent Petition Method and the Election Method.
Available Public Facilities: The circumstance that facilities or services are in place or that a
financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified
time. [WAC 365-195-210]
Build-out: The sum of all existing development within a specified area and the development
potential of all underdeveloped and vacant lands, within the parameters of existing or
proposed development regulations. An optional method of determining build-out,
which is especially applicable to older urban areas, is to assume total redevelopment
and not include existing development patterns.
Capital Facilities Program: A six-year financing plan for capital expenditures to be incurred
each year.
Capital Facility: A structure, improvement, piece of equipment or other major asset,
including land that has a useful life of at least ten years. Capital facilities are provided
by or for public purposes and services including, but not limited to; airport; City
administration/public buildings, fire and rescue, law enforcement, parks, recreational
facilities, open space, roadways, sanitary sewer systems, schools, solid waste
facilities, stormwater facilities, transit (including ferries), and water distribution systems.
Glossary --- Page 2
Capital Improvement: 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 a pre-determined amount, set by the City.
Carrying Capacity: The limits of growth and development within a specified area, as
determined by the availability of potable water, sewage treatment capacity,
transportation limitations, legal limits on the amount of pollutants and waste materials
which may be discharged into the environment, or other factors that will define the
limits to growth.
~ A large important town, usually incorporated, within which the highest densities and
intensities of land use are accommodated by the full provision of utilities and other
urban level services. Cities are often characterized by high volumes of traffic, rush
hour congestion, local and regional governmental services, neighborhood parks and
schools, specialized or higher educational opportunities, concentrated shopping and
financial districts, and designated industrial centers. The city also usually serves as a
regional center for culture and entertainment.
Comprehensive Plan: As defined in the Growth Management Act of 1990, a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan is "a generalized coordinated land use poliqy
statement of the governing body of a county or city that is adopted pursuant to this
chapter." Comprehensive plans are legal documents adopted by local officials
establishing policies that will guide the future physical development of their
communities and regions. They will be used by local officials, planning commissions,
private firms and individuals when making decisions about land use, capital
improvements programming, and the enactment of development regulations and
related growth management legislation. Zoning and other development regulations
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Periodic update and revision is
required to assure that the plan adequately provides for growth, while reflecting
community desires and changed conditions.
Concurrency: Following adoption of the comprehensive plan, jurisdictions are required to
prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a
transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted by that jurisdiction,
unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of
development are made "concurrent with the development". This means that the
improvements or strategies will be in place at the time of development, or that a
financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six
years.
Consistency: No feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any other feature of a
plan or regulation. The Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with other plans
within our area and must also be internally consistent with itself. Internal "elements" of
the Plan must not conflict with each other.
Coordination: Consultation and cooperation among jurisdictions, neighborhoods,
organizations and/or others involved in comprehensive planning.
Glossary --- Page 3
Critical Areas: Natural areas and ecosystems, including (a) wetlands; (b) areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically
hazardous areas.
Density: In land use planning, density is the term used most often to describe the degree to
which residential development is concentrated. Residential density is usually
expressed as the numbers of dwelling units per acre of land. For example, a one
hundred acre area containing 300 dwellings would have a density of three dwellings
per acre, calculated by dividing the number of dwellings by the total acreage. This is
"gross" density. "Net" density is determined by using the acreage total after all
undevelopable areas (streets, open space, wetlands, etc.) are removed. The U.S.
Census Bureau defines rural density as 200 persons per square mile or about one
dwelling per ten acres. .
Density Bonus: Incentives offered by a local jurisdiction that are designed to encourage the
provision of affordable housing, open space, or other amenities or improvements
having a public benefit, in exchange for approval of a residential density that is higher
than otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance on that particular site.
Development Permits: Any active order or permit granting, denying, or granting with
conditions an application for a land development approval including, but not limited
to; building permits, variances, special use permits, subdivision plats, planned unit
developments, and site plans.
Development Regulations: Any controls placed on development or land use activities by a
county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, official controls,
planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan
ordinances.
Domestic Water System: Any system providing a supply of potable water which is deemed
adequate pursuant to state law for the intended use of a development. [WAC 365-
195-210]
Downzoning: A change in the designation of a property or area to a zone that allows less
intense development than allowed under the previous zoning, or that alloWs only
developments of a lesser value. In Bremerton, a change from "General Business"
zoning to "Neighborhood Business" would reduce the number of land use options and
would, therefore, be considered a downzone. Although sometimes viewed as a
negative action, downzoning is often justified when needed to meet changing
community or neighborhood needs.
Ecosystem: A community of living organisms interacting with one another and with their
physical environment, such as a rain forest, pond, or estuary. An ecosystem, such as
Puget Sound, can be thought of as a single complex system. Damage to any part
may affect the whole. Puget Sound can also be thought of as the sum of many
interconnected ecosystems such as rivers, wetlands and bays.
Glossary --- Page 4
Elements. of Comprehensive Plans: The text of the Comprehensive Plan document
addresses goals, objectives, principles and standards, as well as more specific project
proposals and recommendations needed to implement the Plan. This text is divided
into chapters, or "elements", each of which deals with a specific issue. The Growth
Management Act currently requires all comprehensive plans to have, at a minimum,
the following elements: (a) Land Use Element, (b) Housing Element, (c) Capital
Facilities Plan Element, (d) Utilities Element, and (e) Transportation Element. In
addition, the County Plan must have a Rural Element.
Environmental Buffer: A strip of land, in its natural form and vegetation, designed to
provide a margin of environmental safety along streams and shorelines, or around
wetlands. Although some recreational use may be suitable within a buffer, the primary
objective is environmental protection.
Financial Commitment: Identified public or private funds, or combination thereof, that are
sufficient to finance the necessary public facilities that will serve a new development.
Five-year Comprehensive Water Plan: The Washington State Department of Social and
Health Services (DSHS) requires all water utilities with 1 ,000 or more service
connections to evaluate their current and future needs, prepare comprehensive water
plans, and update the plans every five years. Those plans must be approved by
DSHS.
Fully Contained Communities: The County may establish a process to authorize the
creation of new "fully contained communities", located outside initially designated
urban growth areas. The population allocation for such communities will come from
the County's "urban" population allocation and the design and siting must address
specific criteria, including (a) new infrastructure and impact fees, (b) transit-oriented
site planning and traffic demand management programs, (c) buffers, (d) a mix of
uses to provide a balance of jobs, housing and services, (e) affordable housing, (f)
environmental protection, (g) growth containment regulations, (h) mitigation of any
impacts on designated resource lands, and (i) protection of critical areas.
Geographic Information Systems: A manual or automated system that is capable of
organizing, storing, analyzing, and retrieving geographically-related (mapped)
information in a manner that will support sound decision-making regarding the
management of community or regional resources. Increasingly, the term is applied to
computerized systems which combine comput~rized mapping with automated land
use date files.
Geologically Hazardous Areas: Areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion,
sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of
commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or
safety concerns.
Greenbelt: A linear strip of land consisting largely of its natural vegetation. A greenbelt
may be provided for recreational purposes as an element of the parks system, or to
protect an environmentally sensitive area such as a stream corridor or wildlife
Glossary --- Page 5
migration route. Greenbelts can be useful in connecting neighborhoods, providing
pedestrian or bikeway linkages, dividing urban areas from rural or natural resource
lands, or for separating incompatible land uses such as an industrial district from a
residential neighborhood: (Also see: Environmental Buffer)
Growth Management Act (GMA): This legislation forms the basis for statewide
comprehensive planning in Washington and is generally considered to include the
combination of Substitute House Bill No. 2929 (Effective July 1, 1990); Reengrossed
Substitute House Bill No. 1025 (Effective July 16, 1991); and any subsequent
amending or follow-up legislation.
Growth Planning Hearings Board: A three-member board appointed by the Governor for
the purpose of hearing and determining petitions alleging either: (a) That a state
agency, county, or city is not in compliance with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act or related laws pertaining to plans, regulations and amendments, or
(b) that the twenty-year growth management planning population projections adopted
by the Office of Financial Management should be adjusted. A petition may be filed by
the state, a county, a city, or a person who has either participated in the matter being
reviewed or has been certified by the Governor.
Home Occupation: A non-residential business activity that is carried out for monetary gain
within a residence and within a residential zone. The home occupation must be
secondary to the residential use and conducted in accordance with performance
standards contained in the Bremerton Zoning Ordinance.
Infill Development: Development of vacant skipped-over parcels of land in otherwise built-
up areas. Infill development is generally associated with cities and other "urban" areas
as a way of containing energy costs and minimizing the costs related to the extension
of new utilities or services into newly developing areas further away. Infill
opportunities provide an alternative to development in less suitable areas and often
help strengthen older urban neighborhoods.
Infrastructure: Streets, water and sewer lines, and other public facilities that are basic and
necessary to the functioning of urban areas.
land Use Inventory: A study of how land is currently being used within a particular area,
such as a neighborhood, community or region. The inventory can catalog the types,
distribution, and intensities of land uses and activities. Major categories might include
residential, commercial, industrial, public, etc., each of which may be further
subdivided to provide'more specific information. The Land Use Inventory is one of
the first and most important basic tasks in land use planning and provides information
that is essential to the development of a Comprehensive Plan.
Level of Service (LOS): A quantifiable measure of the amount of public facility that is
provided. Typically, measures of levels of service are expressed as ratios of facility
capacity to demand (Le., actual.or potential users).
Glossary --- Page 6
Local Improvement District (LID): A special area formed by a local jurisdiction within which
property is assessed to pay for specific improvements. Each parcel's assessment can
be no greater than the amount by which that property is benefitted by the
improvements. Revenue raised through assessments may be applied directly to
improvement costs or pledged for payment of debt service on bonds issued to pay for
improvements. (See: "Special Assessment District" and "Utility Local Improvement
District")
Master Planned Resorts: A self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in
a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort
facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of
developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. Other residential uses may
be included, but only if they are integrated into and support the on-site recreational
nature of the resort.
Natural Resource Lands: Agricultural, forest and mineral resource lands that are not
already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the
commercial production of food or other agricultural products, timber, or the extraction
of minerals (including gravel, sand, and valuable metallic substances).
Neighborhood: Neighborhoods exist in both urban and rural settings. The physical size of
a neighborhood usually shrinks as the urban density increases until some central city
neighborhoods are perceived (by their occupants) as being as small as a single block.
A neighborhood is generally an area that has an important feature or quality to which
its residents relate. The neighborhood is usually identified by, or contained within,
specific physical features such as a major highway, a river or shoreline, the limits of a
valley, etc. Neighborhoods often include a school, park or other type of center at
which gatherings and activities can take place. The design and function of a
neighborhood is not always limited to residential uses, but must also deal with
commercial, industrial, or other uses that are important to the community, but not
necessarily compatible in all ways.
Open Space: Any area which provides physical or visual relief from the developed
environment. It may consist of lands that are improved or unimproved, and public or
private. Within the urban environment, open space may include linear streetscapes,
view corridors, shoreline areas, mini-parks, pedestrian corridors, and areas reserved
or used for stormwater retention, drainage, wetland protection, etc.
Parcel: A continuous quantity of land, in single ownership or under single control, and
usually considered a unit for the purposes of development.
Pedestrian Pocket: An integrated mixed-use development that may include a combination
of residential, commercial and other uses designed to be pedestrian efficient while
also having multi modal features such as direct access to mass transit, bikeways,
peripheral parking, etc. A pedestrian pocket may be designed as a neighborhood
within an existing city or as the development around a transportation node, such as
along a transit or freeway route. Pedestrian pockets may have very high residential
densities, but must also remain physically compact to retain the pedestrian emphasis.
Glossary --- Page 7
Planned Unit Development (PUD): A permitting process that encourages innovative
design while allowing code requirement flexibility, the combining of approval
processes and site plan review, and that can be used for a variety of residential,
commercial, industrial or mixed-use developments. The PUD process is also used to
allow density transfers, clustering, TDR programs, and bonuses for creative design or
in exchange for features with community or public benefits.
Private Open Space: Privately owned lands, including forests and agricultural lands may be
considered private open space, as well as unbuildable lands, such as steep slopes or
wetlands. Private open space can be preserved for the benefit of the general public
through donation to land trusts, through tax incentives, through public purchase of
development rights, or through outright purchase of the land. Such areas might also
be retained in their present "natural resource" use or environmentally sensitive or
critical nature through development regulations.
Public Facilities: Facilities provided for the benefit of the general public including streets,
roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic
water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities,
and public schools, and other public buildings.
Public Service Obligations: Obligations imposed by law on utilities to furnish facilities and
supply service to all who may apply for and be reasonably entitled to service. [WAC
365-195-210]
Public Services: Services provided for the benefit of the general public, including fire
protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, information,
recreation, environmental protection, development assistance/permitting, etc.
Public Open Space: Open land held by the public, for the use of the public, and which may
include traditional public parks, areas for active or passive recreation,
waterfront/shoreline areas, greenbelts, environmental buffers, scenic road corridors, or
other open space applications.
Public Services: Government-provided services for the benefit of the general public,
including fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education,
recreation, environmental protection, and others.
Rural: Rural areas, for purposes of planning in Kitsap County, consist of all areas not
determined to be "urban". Rural areas are typically unincorporated, although it is not
uncommon for a city to contain areas that meet the definition of rural and are not yet
needed to accommodate urban development. Thus, some pockets of "rural
development" will likely exist within cities and within defined Urban Growth Areas.
Such areas may be targeted for preservation (if unique in some way) or for future
urban development. In addition to large lots, low-density development, and general
lack of urban level services, a rural environment should be expected to include
commercial or industrial activities that are natural resource related (agriculture,
logging, recreation,gravel eXtraction, etc.), as well as small-scale rural services and
schools that do not require urban governmental services or utilities.
Glossary --- Page 8
Sanitary Sewer Systems: All facilities, including approved on-site disposal facilities, used in
the collection, transmission, storage, treatment or discharge of any waterborne waste,
whether domestic in origin or a combination of domestic, commercial or industrial
. waste. [WAC 365-195-210]
Service Connection: A utility connection or hook-up between the main line and the service
recipient; more specifically, a connection between a house, another building or lot to
the main utility line which is typically located in the street, alley or easement.
Six-year finance Plan: A six-year program for capital expenditures to be incurred each
year.
Six-year Street Plan: Washington State law requires that each city and county develop a
six-year plan for the repair and reconstruction of streets, roads, and bridges. The plan
is updated annually and a copy is filed with the Secretary of Transportation.
Solid Waste Handling Facility: Any facility for the transfer or ultimate disposal of solid
waste, including land fills and municipal incinerators. [WAC 365-195-210]
Special Assessment District: Districts which utilize compulsory levies made against certain
properties to defray part or all of the cost of a specific improvement or service
deemed to primarily benefit those properties; e.g., Local Improvement Districts (LIDs)
and Road Improvement Districts (RIDs).
Special Purpose District: Any sewer district, water district, fire protection district, drainage
improvement district, drainage and diking improvement district, flood control zone
district, irrigation district, metropolitan park district, drainage district, or public utility
district engaged in water distribution is considered a Special Purpose District. (RCW
36.93.020(2)) .
Town: A relatively concentrated group of houses and other private and public buildings,
larger than a village but smaller than a city. A village is considered "urban", would be
within an Urban Growth Area, and would be expected to provide a full range of utilities
and services within its area. It also may provide a variety of products and services to
its surrounding service area and is often the center of activity and commerce for its
rural region when located some distance from a city.
Transfer of Development Rights (TOR): A program intended to allow the transfer of the
"right" to a particular type or density of development (usually residential density), as
allowed by current development codes, from a property that is important as a natural
resource or critical area or as open space, to another property that is more suitable
for the type of development proposed. A TOR program generally includes rural
"sending" areas and urban "receiving" areas where higher densities are acceptable.
Transportation Facilities: Capital facilities related to air, water or land transportation, such
as streets and highways, rail, rapid transit, multimodal terminals, airports and ferry
facilities. Bikeways and pedestrian walkways are also considered to be transportation
facilities.
Glossary m Page 9
Transportation Level of Service Standards: A measure which describes the operational
condition of the travel stream and acceptable adequacy requirements. Such
standards may be expressed in such terms as speed and travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, geographic accessibility and
safety. [WAC 365-195-210]
Urban: Physical development that makes intensive use of land for buildings, other
structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the
continued use of that land for natural resources, and which typically requires a
combination of urban governmental services (see following definition).
Urban Governmental Services: Services that are typically needed and provided in urban
areas and that are historically provided by cities, but also often provided by counties
or special districts in the case of designated unincorporated Urban Growth Areas.
Such services include, but are not limited to; neighborhood parks, sewer, water and
storm drainage facilities, public sidewalks, street cleaning, full-time professional fire
and police protection, frequent public transit services, and other services common to
urban areas or provided for the convenience of urban area residents. Electricity,
telephone, cable television, natural gas, basic roads, and some other services that are
common throughout both urban and rural areas should not be used as criteria for
distinguishing urban areas from rural areas.
Urban Growth: Growth that is characterized by the types and intensities of development
that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, other structures, and
impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of
such land for the protection of food, other agricultural products or fiber, or the
extraction of mineral resources. The provision of "urban governmental services" as
infrastructure needed to accommodate new growth is also considered "urban growth".
Urban Growth Area: An area designated by the County, after consultation with affected
cities, within which urban growth will be encouraged and supported with urban level
services. The County's urban growth areas must include sufficient areas and densities
to accommodate the County's projected urban growth over the succeeding 20-year
period. Planning and provision of needed services and infrastructure within the UGA
will be coordinated through the provisions of the Urban Growth Management
Agreement (UGMA) between the County and affected city.
Urban Growth Area Boundary: The boundary or line separating the urban growth area
from adjacent rural areas where urban growth is restricted.
Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA): In order to clearly define jurisdictional
expectations and responsibilities within established Urban Growth Areas, Urban
Growth Management Agreements (UGMA) will be entered into by Kitsap County and
each of its cities. The contents will vary according to the needs of each jurisdiction,
but will focus on important urban growth issues, including (a) annexation procedures,
(b) provision and coordination of needed public services and utilities, including
consistent standards, (c) cost/revenue sharing and other fiscal disparities, and (d)
designation of levels of service standards for transportation facilities.
Glossary --- Page 10
\
Urban Sprawl: Scattered, poorly planned urban development that occurs particularly in
urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades land that is important for
environmental and natural resource protection. Sprawl typically manifests itself in one
or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development - when new development
is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels that are closer to
the urban area and more suitable for development; (2) strip development - when
large amounts of commercial, retail, and sometimes multifamily residential
development are located in a linear pattern along both sides of a major arterial and
which typically access that arterial directly; and (3) large expanses of low-density
development of a single type, such as residential, industrial; etc. The State of Florida
determined that residential densities between one unit per 10 acres and 2 units per
acre constitute sprawl and cautions that this type of development .promotes an
inefficient and unattractive use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant
environmental and natural resources."
User Fees: Charges for services provided (rendered) and which are intended to recover the
capital and operating costs associated with the level of usage.
Utilities or Publie Utilities: Enterprises or facilities serving the public by means of an
integrated system of collection, transmission, distribution, and processing facilities
through more or less permanent physical connections between the plant of the
serving entity and the premises of the customer. Included are systems for the delivery
of natural gas, electricity, telecommunications services, water, and for the disposal of
sewage. [WAC 365-195-210]
Utility Loeallmprovement District (ULlD): A ULlD is created only for improvements to
sewer, water, and other utilities, and differs from a LID in that all assessment revenues
must be pledged for payment of debt service of bonds issued to finance the
improvements. (See: "Special Assessment District" and "Local Improvement District")
Utility System Development Fee: A charge imposed at the time of connection for water,
sewer, or drainage services which is designed to represent the proportionate share of
the cost of the capital system benefitting the connection. Some utilities refer to this as
a "connection charge".
Vesting: When a property owner has the right to proceed with development, his project is
considered to be "vested". Land in Washington can be developed consistent with the
building permit, zoning, and subdivision regulations in effect at the time a "fully
completed" application is submitted (RCW 19.27.095 and 58.17.033).
Village: A grouping of houses in a rural area, smaller than a town and usually having few, if
any, urban level utilities (sewer or water systems). A village is considered a "rural" .
form of development and is not located within an Urban Growth Area. Similar
development that is within a designated urban area and included within a UGA will
usually fall into the definition of "Urban Sprawl". Villages generally have electricity,
telephone, and often cable television, as well as limited rural commercial or industrial
enterprises related to the types of commerce found in the surrounding areas (farms,
forests, etc.). (Also see: "Town" and "City")
Glossary --- Page 11