Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/28/2017 AGENDA PACKET
CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 I Phone (360) 473-5280 June 28, 2017 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:00 PM in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 The Study Session is open to the public, except for Item E1, but there will be no opportunities for input or participation; no action is anticipated during the Study Session; and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by Council, the items will be placed on the July 5, 2017 Council Meeting Agenda: A. INFORMATION BRIEFING 1. Annexation Efforts & Web Tool Demonstration - Allison Satter, Senior Planner and BERK Consulting B. NO PRESENTATION PLANNED -The following items are budgeted items or subjects that have been raised by the appropriate Council Committee Members: 1. Authorize hiring David Johnson, Building Official at Pay Band 15, Rate 6 of the 2017 Management, Professional, Confidential & Fiduciary Salary Plan 2. Ordinance to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 5300 regarding the 2016 Shoreline Limited Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program 3. Mutual Aid Agreement for the Provision of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 4. Professional Services Agreement with the Bremerton School District for a full-time School Resource Officer 5. Purchase of a John Deere 450 KLT Crawler Dozer from Pape Machinery, Inc. of Tacoma, WA for the Forestry Division 6. Agreement with Golden Eagle Evergreens for the Removal and Sale of Minor Forest Products 7. Commercial Line Extension Agreement with Puget Sound Energy for Pump Station KL -2 8. Professional Services Agreement with BMcConsulting LLC for Lobbying Services C. FULL PRESENTATION PLANNED 1. Findings and Recommended Strategies of the Bremerton Parking Study — Shannon Corin, City Clerk and Jeff Arango, Project Manager, BERK Consulting D. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS Finance and Investment Committee Briefing (6/15/17 Meeting) — Chair Richard Huddy Audit Committee Meeting Briefing (6/19/17 Meeting) — Chair Pat Sullivan Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Briefing (6/23/17 & 6/26/17 Meetings) — Chair Pat Sullivan Other General Council Business (As necessary... ) E. EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. 15 -Minutes to discuss Pending Litigation under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Action is anticipated... F. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION ® Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473-5323 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. INFORMATION ONLY ITEM CITY OF BREMERTON Al CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Annexation Efforts & Web Tool Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 Demonstration Presenter: Allison Satter, Senior Planner; and BERK Consulting Phone: (360) 473-5845 SUMMARY: DCD has partnered with BERK Consulting to continue to improve the City outreach materials for potential annexations. During this information only meeting, Staff and BERK will be presenting the online calculator that has been developed for public outreach. This calculator will assist residents to dynamically estimate the impact of annexation based on their unique household circumstances. This online tool should prove to be a very useful tool for the City to utilize to help communicate the changes upon annexation. The tool was designed for mobile, tablet, and personal computers. Staff and BERK will also discuss the additional documents and efforts that are being made for potential annexations to the City. Since 2013, the City of Bremerton has contracted with BERK to conduct the fiscal analysis of all West Bremerton UGAs and West Bremerton UGA information handouts, and the scope had been expanded to include the East Bremerton UGAs (Tracyton and Enetai). HANDOUTS: None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation Form Created 5/4/15 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Authorize hiring of David Johnson, Building Official at Pay Band 15, Rate 6 of the 2017 Management, Professional, Confidential & Fiduciary Salary Plan Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 5. 2017 Department: DCD Presenter: Andrea L. Spencer Phone: (360) 473.5283 SUMMARY: The Director of Community Development proposes to fill the soon to be vacant position of Building Official with David Johnson. Mr. Johnson has more than six years' experience as a Building Official and maintains 25 specialized building code certifications. In addition to being a Certified Building Code Official, he is also a "Master Code Professional" which is the highest level of certification offered by the International Code Council (ICC). This certification is the "gold standard" for demonstrating proficiency in the building code profession. The ICC has certified thousands of individuals in various aspects of building codes, but only a select number of individuals have attained this high-level of achievement of Master Code Professional. Mr. Johnson was selected after a lengthy recruitment process both by the City and Prothman (an executive recruitment company). The Director has negotiated salary compensation with Mr. Johnson and proposes making this appointment at Pay Band 15, Rate 6. Pursuant to the appointment provisions contained in BMC 2.50.032(a) this appointment above Rate 1 requires City Council authorization. ATTACHMENTS: Mr. Johnson's resume is on file with Human Resources. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This position is fully funded. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the hiring of David Johnson, Building Official, at Pay Band 15, Rate 6, of the 2017 City of Bremerton Management, Professional, Confidential & Fiduciary Salary Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance No. to repeal and replace Ordinance No. 5300 regarding the 2016 Shoreline Limited Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 5. 2017 Department: Presenter: Phone: DCD Allison Satter (360) 473-5845 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance will complete the City's proposed limited minor amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council completed a minor update to the SMP in May 2016. The SMP was then forwarded to the Department of Ecology for their public review and approval. Ecology has recommended approval with two required and two recommended changes. The attached ordinance incorporates all recommended and required changes as can be seen in the attached Exhibits to the Ordinance. Ordinance No. 5300 was passed by Council in May 2016 and it was intended to be finalized after Ecology's review and approval. Due to the fact that Ecology required revisions this ordinance will repeal and replace Ordinance No. 5300. The new ordinance will include all of Council's adopted changes to the SMP and ecology's recommendations for the SMP limited amendments. With the adoption of this ordinance, the SMP minor update will finally be completed. ATTACHMENTS: • Proposed Ordinance and o Exhibit A: Findings and Conclusion of the Planning Commission o Exhibit B: Section 4.020 entitled "Maps" amendments o Exhibit C: Section 5.010 entitled "Applicability" amendments o Exhibit D: Section 7.010 entitled "Buffers and Setbacks" amendments o Exhibit E: Section 7.090 entitled "Use Matrix and Height Table" amendments o Exhibit F: Department of Ecology's Required Changes for Approval Attachment I: Ordinance No. 5300 adopted on May 18, 2016. FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to pass Ordinance No Program. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 to adopt the limited amendments to the Shoreline Master ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington repealing and replacing Ordinance 5300 with the adoption of this ordinance for the limited amendments to the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) by a vote of the people in 1971; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 ("GMA") (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the GMA without creating an order of priority; and WHEREAS, in 2003, The Department of Ecology adopted rules, pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, which gave procedural and substantive direction to local jurisdictions for updating shoreline uses and regulations, which became effective January 17, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 5229 on December 4, 2013, adopting the Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") after approval of Department of Ecology, to be compliant with RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-186; and WHEREAS, the City updated the Comprehensive Plan through Ordinance No. 5299 on May 18, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan update has made several land use map updates that required limited amendments to the SMP including text and mapping amendments to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11, a Determination of Significance ("DS") with adoption of existing environmental documents with an addendum was filed on November 3, with a voluntary comment period which expired on November 17, 2015, and an appeal period which expired on November 30, 2015, and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016, amendments to the SMP were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60 -day review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Planning Commission considered staff's recommendations, received testimony, and formulated a recommendation for SMP limited update to the City Council for consideration at a duly advertised public hearing on April 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2016, the public was notified by legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council on May 18, 2017; and, 2016 SMP Amendments WHEREAS, on May 18, 2017, City Council passed the Ordinance No. 5300 accepting the SMP limited amendments provided the City receives approval from the Department of Ecology; and WHEREAS, the Department of Ecology processed the City's proposed SMP limited amendments through a public process, received public comments, and provided the City two required changes and two recommended changes prior to approval of the limited amendments; and WHEREAS, this ordinance adopts the Department of Ecology's recommended and required amendments as well as the City's amendments set forth in Ordinance 5300, therefore Ordinance No. 5300 shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2017, the public was notified by legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION]. Ordinance Repeal and Replace. Ordinance No. 5300 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety. SECTION 2. Findings and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Planning Commission Findinss Adopted. The findings and conclusions of the Bremerton Planning Commission as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted. SECTION 4. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Maps and Designations Amended. Chapter 4 of the SMP as adopted by Ordinance No. 5229 is hereby amended by amending Section 4.020 entitled "Maps" as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. Chapter 5 - Permit Administration Amended. Chapter 5 of the SMP as adopted by Ordinance No. 5229 is hereby amended by amending Section 5.010 entitled "Applicability" as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. Chapter 7 -General Standards and Regulations Amended. Chapter 7 of the SMP as adopted by Ordinance No. 5229 is hereby amended by amending Section 7.010 entitled `Buffers and Setbacks" as set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 7. Chapter 7 -General Standards and Regulations Amended. Chapter 7 of the SMP as adopted by Ordinance No. 5229 is hereby amended by amending 2 2016 SMP Amendments Section 7.090 entitled "Use Matrix and Height Table" as set forth in Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION & Department ofEcology Required Process for Adoption. The City has coordinated with Department of Ecology on the limited amendments to the SMP and the Department of Ecology has provide the City their Findings and Conclusions from their public process and required and recommended amendments as set forth in Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 9. Effective Date of Provisions. The provisions set forth in Sections 1 through 6 above shall become effective and in full force upon the 14 -days from Washington State Department of Ecology final action approving the amendments of said provisions of this ordinance as set forth herein, subject to Section 9 below. SECTION 10. Severability. If anyone or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council the day of )2017. ERIC YOUNGER, Council President Approved this day of )2017. ATTEST: SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk PUBLISHED the day of EFFECTIVE the day of ORDINANCE NO. PATTY LENT, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, City Attorney R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\2016 SMP Amendment - Final.doc 2017. 2017. 2016 SMP Amendments Exhibit A Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance DRAFT FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary — The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed limited amendments to the maps and text of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for the Growth Management Act 2016 periodic update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. I. FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL 1. Project Description The primary impetus for the limited updates of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is to ensure consistency with the Growth Management Act 2016 periodic update. The limited amendments proposed to the SMP can be summarized as follows: • Updating shoreline designations on three maps, Map B, C and E. Maps B and C had Single Family Residential designation for a few parcels amended to Multi -family Residential to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation change to recognize the existing higher density neighborhood (most of those parcels are currently development with multi -family structures). Map E proposes to fix a mapping error of approximately 600' lineal feet of shoreline to be amended from Commercial Shoreline designation to Multi -Family Residential to be consistent with the current Land Use designation, in the Downtown Subarea Plan (this area is just south of the Manette Bridge, off Washington Avenue). Provide consistency to City's Critical Area Ordinance (CAO, Bremerton Municipal Code, BMC 20.14) and the SMP. The CAO was adopted in 2006 and the SMP in 2013. As best available science (BAS) was used in the SMP and CAO, the SMP had portions of the code that superseded the CAO as the adoption was later. Within this periodic update the CAO is proposing to be updated with BAS, thus the portions in the SMP related to CAO are slated for removal and the CAO will be amended separately). • Revise the 7.090 Use Matrix to allow "Single Family Residential uses" in Recreational and Commercial designations. There is a SMP policy that identifies that single family residential development is a priority use on the shoreline (SMP 8.080), thus this amendment would provide further consistency. 2. Procedural History The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updates were drafted, reviewed and recommended for adoption after a series of public workshops and a hearing. 2.1 Initial Work Program Released: Planning Commission Workshop — September 15, 2014 Discussed the Comprehensive Plan Update, including the Work Program, Public Participation Exhibit A Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Process, and overview of the schedule. Encouraging comments from the public regarding the Work Program. This sets the framework for the 2 -years including updating the functioning documents such as the Shoreline Master Program update process. o 2.1(a) Shoreline Master Program Past History — 2010 through 2013. The SMP was adopted in December 4, 2013 by Ordinance Number 5229 after a three-year extensive project with substantial public involvement and coordination of multiple agencies. • 2.2 Work Program received approval from Planning Commission Workshop — October 21, 2014 Planning Commission provided recommendation of the Work Program, Schedule and Public Participation Plan for City Council's approval. • 2.3 Work Program approved by City Council Public Hearing — November 19, 2014 City Council passed Resolution No. 3237 which set the Work Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Public Participation Program. 2.4 Planning Commission Public Process for Comprehensive Plan Update - January 20, 2015 — November 17, 2015 Planning Commission held two open houses, 7 workshops and one public hearing on the 2016 Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Public Hearing was November 17, 2015 which was approved unanimously for City Council's consideration. Updating the Shoreline Master Program was continually part of the discussion and identified in the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan. o 2.4(a) Planning Commission Workshop — July 21, 2015 During this workshop, a GAP analysis was provided for the public and Planning Commission's consideration by The Watershed Company that compared the Critical Area Ordinance with relevant sections of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to bring the two regulatory documents into alignment with each other and with best available science. This analysis was also provided at the February 2016 workshop. • 2.5 Zoning Code Amendments Planning Commission Workshop— February 16, 2016 Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Zoning Code Update related to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The specific topics were: a few Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) chapters, and limited amendments to Shoreline Master Program. • 2.6 Zoning Code and Subarea Plan Amendments Planning Commission Workshop — March 15, 2016 Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Zoning Code Update related to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The specific topics focused on Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) chapters, however an additional change to Map E in the SMP was discussed at this Workshop. • 2.7 Notice of Intent to Adopt - Department of Commerce — March 17, 2016 A 60 -day notice of intent to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Municipal Code, Subarea Plans and the Shoreline Master Program were provided to Department of Commerce and the Puget Sound Regional Council for their review of the plans. • 2.8 Planning Commission Public Hearing—April 19, 2016 Draft text and maps of the limited amendment to the SMP were release in advance of the April 19, 2016 public hearing with proper noticing. Planning Commission deliberated and made recommendation to City Council for adoption. • 2.9 Compliance with the Public Participation Program The following are actions that were taken to ensure compliance with the early and continuous public participation identified in the Public Participation Program approved by Resolution in November 2014 for the Comprehensive Plan Update (which includes further publication for the Shoreline Master Program limited amendments notice). 2 Exhibit A Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance 0 2.9(a) Adequate Noticing: For the Comprehensive Plan update: standard notification of each workshop with a letter or email notice to the interested parties and posting of the Planning Commission Workshop in the Kitsap Sun, and approximately 9,000 notices were mailed twice to all City property owners in January 2015 (prior to an first Open House) and October 2015 (prior to the Public Hearing). Specific public notice that stated "Limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program" were for the: ■ February 16, 2016 Public Workshop; and ■ April 19, 2016 Public Hearing 0 2.9(b) Website: www.Bremerton2035.com was continual referred to and updated with planning commission packets and draft documents, comments, upcoming meeting notices, etc. 0 2.9(c) Video: Staff participated in the September's Growing Bremerton Together with Potty Lent to talk about the Comprehensive Plan Update and get interested in the project (repeated on BKAT and available online, https.//vimeo.com/139257812). 0 2.9(d) Additional Outreach: Staff provide presentation on the City's Comprehensive Plan update to the following clubs to further outreach: Lions Club in May 2015, Home Builder Association of Kitsap in Summer 2015, and Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) in March 2016. 3. Public Comment Public comment was received throughout the duration of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Comments were received in various formats including letters, e-mails, postcards, and public testimony at workshops and hearings that Planning Commission considered. No public comment was received regarding the limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. 4. SEPA Determination As the City is updating the current (2004) Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Subarea Plans and the Shoreline Master Program, much of the environmental review will continue to be applicable, however additional review needed to be conducted to address the minor changes. The City provided a Determination of Significance with adoption of existing environmental documents with a supportive addendum to address the minor changes on November 3, 2015. The voluntary public comment period on the DS expired on November 17, 2015. The appeal period on the DNS expired on November 30, 2015. No appeals were filed. S. Consistency 5.1 The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update that is regulated by the Washington State Growth Management Act goals and policies as stated by Washington State's Department of Commerce Extended Checklist for planning for population and employment growth for the next 20 years (until 2036). 5.2 The proposal is consistent with Department of Ecology and the Shoreline Management Act rules per RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 for limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. 5.3 The recommended limited amendments will result in minor modifications to the development and use potential of certain areas. As there the amendments to the maps Exhibit A Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance are for areas that are already existing multi -family development, there is minimal modification potential. Modification potential will be reviewed like all other land uses to result in an overall no net loss per the City's SMP. 5.4 The proposed Update included continuous and open public involvement and adequate public notice. The Update underwent public hearings, public workshops, and review at the Planning Commission level. All public hearings and workshops at the Planning Commission were noticed with formal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun, and dates were posted on the City of Bremerton website. Drafts of the recommended Update were continuously posted to the City of Bremerton website (www. Bremerton2035.com), and paper copies were made available for review at the Community Development offices at 345 6th St. 5.5 The Planning Commission acknowledges the Department of Ecology public process for limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program that occurs after the City Council adoption. III. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, corresponding to the 2016 Growth Management Act Periodic update are consistent with the Growth Management Act, Department of Ecology requirements for limited amendments and the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission concludes that the proposed limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are adequate for consistency throughout the City documents, and appropriately updated in a limited way. Respectfully submitted by: 4 Approved by: Nick Wofford, Chk Planning Commission Exhibit B Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Chapter 4 — Shoreline Maps and Designations 4.010 — Intent 4.020 — Maps 4.030 — Designations 4.040 — Shorelines of Statewide Significance 4.020 Maps: The following maps are the official maps of the Shoreline Master Program. Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi -Family Residential Single Family Residential IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated Exhibit B Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Elwood Point Madrona Point Ostrich Bay Oyster Bay Mud Bay Phinney Bay k KITSAP WAY �1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program N Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Map B Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation January 25, 2016 may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. 0 Exhibit B Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Legend NW RIDDELL RD NE RIDDELL RD UGA Boundary City Boundary -- - -- Designations --- - Urban Conservancy - -__ ---_ -__ W , Recreation _------- - Multi -Family Residential ---- ---- -_-- W - Single Family Residential --- d - RL Downtown Commercial -- _ ----- Downtown Waterfront ---- ---- --- Industrial -- Isolated f - -- Bass Point 0 Phinney Buy 0 W Z SYLVAN WAY a SHERIDAN RD �1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra,Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department N of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation January 25, 2016 may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. Map C Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi -Family Residential Single Family Residential IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated 11TH ST Exhibit B Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance ��9A O,y �9y W z LU 4� f� 6TH ST 304 BURWELL ST let 5"I'lleldl, III ^1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program N Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Map E Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation January 28, 2016 may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Chapter 5 - Permit Administration 5.010 — Applicability 5.020 — Permit Application Types 5.030 — Noticing Requirements 5.040 — Criteria of Approval 5.050 — Appeals 5.060 — Time Periods 5.070— Violations and Penalties 5.080 — Shoreline Moratorium 5.090 — Restoration Project Relocation of OHWM 5.010 Applicability: (a) Liberal Construction: All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master Program policies establish intent for the shoreline regulations in addition to RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington Administrative Code 173-26 and 173-27. (b) Burden of Proof: The applicants for any permit shall have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria as set out in the Shoreline Management Act. (c) Development Permit Compliance: (1) For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the responsible official shall not issue a development or construction permit or an exemption for such development until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any development permit for work within the shoreline jurisdiction (200' from the OHWM) shall be subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit. (2) Critical Areas in the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (times ^nc rry )49, Ord. 5301 (exh B) (part), 2017: Ord. 4965 Section 7 art 2006), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: (i) BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; (ii) BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right -of -Way; (iii)BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; (iN,),�z 14 .200 Definition of "We ' . ( iv BMC 20.14.330(f) & (g) & (h)(3)(44 Standard Wetland Buffer Widths; ( ,�20.14.340(f) & (, Mitigation Replaeemefit-crarenraan ceiet Ratios; (vii) BN4G 20.14.730(d) Table 1 i Watef Type Btt�r- Sta-Hdafd. (}(v) BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction; Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance (d) Constitutional limitations: Regulation of private property to implement any Program goals, such as public access and protection of ecological functions, must be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to, property rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, applicable federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328 and 43.21C.060. (e) Agency coordination: The city will coordinate on issues relating to ecological conditions, functions and processes and on wetland and ordinary high water delineations with the Department of Ecology, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Suquamish Tribe, as well as other agencies with permit authority over a project to the extent that agencies are timely in their response and coordination does not interfere with meeting timelines for permit review. (f) Compliance with other regulatory requirements: Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, , Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification (Section 401) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. (Ord. 1164 § 4, 2004). (g) Permit Revisions: An application for a permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms, or conditions of a project that has an approved permit. The City may approve a revision, rather than requiring a separate shoreline permit provided the revision is within the scope and intent of the original permit, and is consistent with all applicable standards within the SMP and SMA. Should the revision be found to be within the scope and intent of the original permit the City may approve the revision and submit it to the Department of Ecology. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100 "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following: (1) No additional overwater construction is involved except that pier, dock or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less: (2) Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit; (3) The revised permit does not authorize development toe exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the SMP except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof, (4) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with the SMP; (5) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and (6) No adverse environmental impacts will be caused by the project revision. (h) Exemptions: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be required for all proposed use and development within the shoreline jurisdiction unless the proposal is specifically exempt from Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance permit requirements pursuant to WAC 173-27-040. The City issues exemptions for all work that does not meet the threshold for a shoreline permit to be required. The following list of exemptions is an exact copy from the WAC, and is located here as a courtesy to the reader. Any exemptions adopted subsequently by the legislature shall apply without amendment to this program. An exemption from a shoreline permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. Exemptions are as follows: (1) Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed five thousand dollars, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. "Consumer price index" means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The office of financial management must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials; (2) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment; (3) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. (4) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency; (5) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels: Provided, That a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations; (6) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; (7) Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single- family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance within the applicable master program. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark; (8) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single- family and multiple -family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either: (i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a Substantial Development for the purpose of this chapter. (iii) For purposes of this section salt water shall include the tidally influenced marine and estuarine water areas of the state including the Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound and all bays and inlets associated with any of the above; (9) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater from the irrigation of lands; (10) The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water; (11) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system; (12) Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RC W; (13) Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: (i) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; (ii) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; (iii) The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; (iv) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and(v) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550; Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance (14) The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW; (15) Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local government shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. (i) "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (A) A project that involves less than ten miles of stream reach, in which less than twenty-five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings; (B) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or (C) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in -stream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. (ii) "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the department of natural resources, the department of transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county, or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; (16) A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: (i) The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; (ii) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance (iii) The local government has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. (iv) Fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181 are determined to be consistent with local shoreline master programs, as follows: (A) In order to receive the permit review and approval process created in this section, a fish habitat enhancement project must meet the following and (II) of this subsection: (I) A fish habitat enhancement project must be a project to accomplish one or more of the following tasks: Elimination of human -made fish passage barriers, including culvert repair and replacement; or restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank employing the principle of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or Placement of woody debris or other in -stream structures that benefit naturally reproducing fish stocks. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall develop size or scale threshold tests to determine if projects accomplishing any of these tasks should be evaluated under the process created in this section or under other project review and approval processes. A project proposal shall not be reviewed under the process created in this section if the department determines that the scale of the project raises concerns regarding public health and safety; and (II) A fish habitat enhancement project must be approved in one of the following ways: By the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.95 or 77.100 RCW; or By the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan as provided in chapter 89.08 RCW; or • By the department as a Department of Fish and Wildlife -sponsored fish habitat enhancement or restoration project; • Through the review and approval process for the jobs for the environment program; • Through the review and approval process for conservation district -sponsored projects, where the project complies with design standards established by the conservation commission through interagency agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the natural resource conservation service; • Through a formal grant program established by the legislature or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish habitat enhancement or restoration; and • Through other formal review and approval processes established by the legislature. (B) Fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection are expected to result in beneficial impacts to the environment. Decisions pertaining to fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and being reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). (C)(I) A hydraulic project approval permit is required for projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and are being reviewed and approved under this section. An applicant shall use a joint aquatic resource permit application form developed by the Exhibit C Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Office of Regulatory Assistance to apply for approval. On the same day, the applicant shall provide copies of the completed application form to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and to each appropriate local government. Local governments shall accept the application as notice of the proposed project. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall provide a fifteen -day comment period during which it will receive comments regarding environmental impacts. Within forty- five days, the department shall either, issue a permit, with or without conditions, deny approval, or make a determination that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project. The department shall base this determination on identification during the comment period of adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the conditioning of a permit. If the department determines that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project, the department shall notify the applicant and the appropriate local governments of its determination. The applicant may reapply for approval of the project under other review and approval processes. (C)(11) Any person aggrieved by the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of a permit under this section may formally appeal the decision to the hydraulic appeals board pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (D) No local government may require permits or charge fees for fish habitat enhancement projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and that are reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section. (17) The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et sec.) or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with disabilities. Exhibit D Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendment Ordinance Chapter 7 - GENERAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS 7.010 — Buffers and Setbacks 7.20 — Vegetation Conservation 7.030 — Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Habitat Function 7.040 — Public Access 7.050 — Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution 7.060 — Archaeologically Sensitive Areas 7.070 — Lighting Requirements 7.080 — Parking Requirements 7.090 — Use Matrix and Height Table 7.010 Buffers and Setbacks, Upland areas adjacent to the shoreline perform essential functions necessary to sustain habitat and ecological processes. It is for this reason that development must be set back from the water's edge and that natural buffers must be created and or preserved. The City currently regulates such areas through the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance 4965 codified in BMC 20.14), however in areas regulated by this document within the shoreline jurisdiction, the following policies and regulations will supersede those within the Critical Area Regulations: Policies: (a) The critical areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are to be protected and managed in such a manner that the result of any use, activity, or development is no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) The City should protect critical areas and their existing shoreline ecological functions so they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem wide processes. (c) The City should promote uses and values that are compatible with other objectives of this section, such as public access and native vegetation management, provided there is no significant adverse impact to shoreline ecological functions. Regulations: (a) Critical Area Ordinance Applicability: Critical Areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ordiiia-Ree 4�09Ord. 5301 Section 3 (Exh B) (part), 2016, Ord. 4965 Section 7 (part). 2006), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: • BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; • BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right -of -Way; • BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; • BN4G 20.142200 De€initien ef "Wetlands". Widths; • BN4G 20 i n 3400 e. (g) M tig tie Replacement and a„h,,,,, efRe„t n„ti--, • BN4G 20 i n 730(d) rr.,i.ie- 1: Wat€t: Type Btt�t: St at:d. • BMC 20.14.330(f) Category III and IV Wetlands, • BMC 20.14.330(8)) Category IV Wetlands Exhibit D Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendment Ordinance • BMC 20.14.330(h)(3) Reducing Wetland Buffer Widths, and • BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction; • BN4C 20 i n 730 (av4) Habitat Gense...,,,tie f:e Btt rs• �5= 4-5� 4-5-� �5= -641 -4-0' M Wildlife Ipttfi.t;e (2i 2S) 45, �$5= High F„ t; (30 36 ;,N,ildlife peif+�S) �5= 2115' 2115' 414 �5= N�A N�A 1 I � Wetland Mitigation Type and R€plaee i ent Ratio* Wetland �',circ i$ffl Re ost.,b.l;sb.m en Re -14 -b l;t.,tiE T�„ � Y Gateeef:y4 61 &. 4-z Not allowedr' 4 J —f 1rrvr -. -4 -. -.-Y � 4 Y r-m'eeef�--u G^J f — - -2 iz—- . i r. i 4-4 Gn J 1 I � Exhibit D Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendment Ordinance (0 (bb) Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks: (1) The following table defines required buffers and setbacks for Type S waters. Buffers an setbacks for all other non -shoreline waters (Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns) are defined in BMC 10.14.730(d), Table 1. odes the bu„ rs and setbacks established fat: Fi4 afid Wildlife Habitat Gef+set=va6eii Afeas iii (BMG 20.14.730(d)) as felle;,N,si DESIGNATION Minimum Building Buffer Width Setback Standard URBAN CONSERVANCY 15 feet beyond buffer SINGLE FAMILY & MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Lot depth less than 125' 5 feet beyond buffer Lot depth 125' to 199" 10 feet beyond buffer Lot depth greater than 200' 15 feet beyond buffer RECREATIONAL 15 feet beyond buffer COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ DOWNTOWN 15 feet beyond WATERFRONT buffer ISOLATED None 175 feet 20% of lot depth 20% of lot depth 30% of lot depth (Maximum of 100') 100 feet 50 feet None 1. Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall apply: 2. Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on Commercial or Recreational lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. 3. In no case shall a buffer be less than 10' or greater than 100' in the Shoreline Residential Designation. 4. Buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. (2) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas: The distance of the buffer shall be measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department. Buffers shall be maintained along the perimeter of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, as outlined in the table above. Refuse, garbage, or debris shall not be placed in the buffers or on the beach. o . ithi b tt rs (0 (bb) Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks: (1) The following table defines required buffers and setbacks for Type S waters. Buffers an setbacks for all other non -shoreline waters (Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns) are defined in BMC 10.14.730(d), Table 1. odes the bu„ rs and setbacks established fat: Fi4 afid Wildlife Habitat Gef+set=va6eii Afeas iii (BMG 20.14.730(d)) as felle;,N,si DESIGNATION Minimum Building Buffer Width Setback Standard URBAN CONSERVANCY 15 feet beyond buffer SINGLE FAMILY & MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Lot depth less than 125' 5 feet beyond buffer Lot depth 125' to 199" 10 feet beyond buffer Lot depth greater than 200' 15 feet beyond buffer RECREATIONAL 15 feet beyond buffer COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ DOWNTOWN 15 feet beyond WATERFRONT buffer ISOLATED None 175 feet 20% of lot depth 20% of lot depth 30% of lot depth (Maximum of 100') 100 feet 50 feet None 1. Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall apply: 2. Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on Commercial or Recreational lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. 3. In no case shall a buffer be less than 10' or greater than 100' in the Shoreline Residential Designation. 4. Buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. (2) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas: The distance of the buffer shall be measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department. Buffers shall be maintained along the perimeter of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, as outlined in the table above. Refuse, garbage, or debris shall not be placed in the buffers or on the beach. Exhibit D Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendment Ordinance (3) Determining Lot Depth: Areas inundated with water are not included in the calculation for lot depth, therefore the measurement may be taken from the OHWM. For lots with varying lot depth, the average depth may be used. (4) Habitat Management Plans: Within shoreline jurisdiction, the requirements for a Habitat Management Plan as provided in BMC 20.14.730€ and depicted within Table 2: Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas shall be determined on a case-by-case basis only as needed to incorporate Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas not addressed by the requirements of 7.030 Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Ecological Functions. The provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance (BMC 20.14.740) relating to Habitat Management Plans may also be used to justify a reduction in the width of a shoreline buffer to no less than ten (10) feet provided enhancement features are installed that will provide a greater habitat function than the prescribed buffer would. (5) Setback and Buffer Averaging: The Director may grant modifications to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer and setbacks required provided: (i) Sixty (60%) percent or more of like structures along the shoreline within the same numbered block as the subject property are setback less than the required buffer/setback required by the SMP. The average of the like structures may be used as a modified buffer for the proposal; and (ii) In addition to the buffer, a minimum of a 5' setback shall be required for the structure; and (iii) No new structure may have a buffer of less than ten (10') feet. (6) Fences: Fences are allowed to be erected in the side yard abutting the fish and wildlife conservation area buffer, but are prohibited within the buffer. Fences may also be erected upland of the buffer including within the shoreline setback area. General development standards for fences are located in BMC 20.44.020. Guardrails may be erected in association with pedestrian access areas provided they do not function as a fence and comply with the International Building Code. (b}�q)_Exemptions: The following development activities are not subject to fish and wildlife habitat area buffers and setbacks, provided they are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and further provided that they comply with all the applicable regulations in BMC Title 20 and this Program: (1) Those portions of an approved water -oriented development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high water mark, and/or within their associated buffers and setbacks; (2) Development activities on lots that are physically and functionally separated from shoreline by an improved paved public or private road or railroad or similar facility and/or by one or more existing developed lots under separate ownership such that the ecological functions provided by buffers do not occur. This provision shall not apply to such a facility within a development proposal or contiguous ownership that can be feasibly relocated to accommodate buffers. Exhibit D Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendment Ordinance (3) Underground utilities; (4) Modifications to existing development that are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any agency when otherwise consistent with this Program, provided that the City determines that: (i) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and (ii) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and (iii) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non -conforming development and uses. (5) Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water -dependent development uses are subject to development standards in Chapter 8, section 090. (6) Stairs, ADA ramps, and walkways not greater than 5 feet in width or 18 inches in height above grade, not including railings. (7) Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility. Exhibit E Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance 7.090 Use Matrix and Height Table: (a) Use Matrix: The table determines which shoreline modifications and shoreline uses are allowed or prohibited in each Shoreline Designation. (1) Except for the land uses prohibited in this table, land uses allowed in the underlying zoning are allowed in the Master Program, subject to the preference for water -oriented uses and subject to specific criteria for uses included in these regulations. This chart is not exhaustive of all uses addressed in the zoning code. When referring to unlisted uses, the code is referring neither to uses listed here nor in the zoning code. If a use is prohibited in the underlying zoning district, it is also prohibited within the shoreline. (2) Aquatic Uses are determined by the adjacent Designation and are limited to water -dependent uses and public access. (3) Land uses in the underlying zoning that require a Conditional Use Permit, require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (4) Land uses are defined in BMC 20.42 the definitions section of the zoning code. Shoreline activities are defined in the definitions section of this code. (5) A use located within the "Isolated" designation shall not be governed by the performance standards within SMP Chapter 7, General Standards and Regulations; Chapter 8, Shoreline Use Regulations, or Chapter 9 Shoreline Modifications, however the Director may determine the proposed development or use is clearly contrary to the intent of this program, and relevant elements of this program may be applied. Development and land use within this designation shall be governed by all other regulations of BMC Title 20 Land Use. The mandatory permit and procedural requirements of this program contained in Chapter 5, Permit Administration, shall apply to said development or uses. KEY: ct CG X= Prohibited o P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use Cd a O Cd cp CG v U w ; o Cd Z3 o o vi U Unlisted Uses: I CU ICU CU CU I CU CU CU UPLAND USES Boat Sales, Storage and Repair X X X CU P P P Commercial uses such as but not limited to: general retail, general office, clinics, restaurants, drinking places, personal services athletic fields, restaurants, community X X X X P P P facilities, and entertainment uses. (See Zoning Code for specific allowed uses by zone) Exhibit E Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance KEY: ct _CG X= Prohibited o P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use ct O ct c p ctv o o -:) v� U Community, Cultural, Educational Facilities CU P P P P P X Golf Courses X CU CU X X X X Hotels and Lodging X X X X P P X Industrial X X X X X X P Worship and Religious Facilities X CU P CU 1 P P tLx-- PARKING & UTILITIES Parking Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction P P P P P P P Parking Not Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction X X X X CU CU CU Transportation facilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P Utilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P RESIDENTIAL Adult Family Homes, Daycare, & Bed and Breakfasts CU P P X P P X Commercial/Residential mixed X X X X P P X Multi -Family Residential X X P X P P X Single Family Residential P P P XP XP P X SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS (All uses must meet applicable code criteria see Ch. 9) Boat Launch CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Aquaculture (including commercial, non- commercial, and geoduck) CU X X CU CU CU CU Ecological Restoration / Enhancement P P P P P P P Docks, Piers and Other In -Water Structures P P P P P P P Dredging P P P P P P P Flood Hazard Reduction P P P P P P P Mooring Buoys P P P P P P P Marinas CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Stabilization - New and Replacement P P P P P P P Stormwater Management Facilities P P P P P P P RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS Recreation, Non -Water -Oriented CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Recreation, Water -Oriented P P P P P P P Trails, public pedestrian and bicycle not P P P P P P P Exhibit E Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance KEY: ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION ct _CG 35 feet Downtown Waterfront 175 feet Industrial X= Prohibited Multi -Family Residential 40 feet Over -Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation o Single Family Residential P= Permitted Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building physically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. CU= Conditional Use ct O ct c p v ct vi U including overwater trails OUTRIGHTLY PROHIBITED USES Adult Entertainment X X X X X X X Agriculture X X X X X X X Automobile Sales Service & Repair X X X X X X X Figure 7.090 (b) Height Restrictions: Table 7.090(b) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION HEIGHT Commercial 35 feet Downtown Waterfront 175 feet Industrial 35 feet Multi -Family Residential 40 feet Over -Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation 35 feet Single Family Residential 30 -35' feet Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building physically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. This table establishes the allowable height in each designation based on the type of use. All the applicable City standards still apply. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of other regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Height measurement is defined in Chapter 3. (a) Heights in the commercial & industrial districts may be increased to the zoning district height limit through a Conditional Use Permit provided: (1) The increase does not substantially block views from upland residential properties; (2) Greater height is demonstrated to be needed for an essential element of an allowed use. (3) The project may be required to include compensating elements that substantially enhance the visual and physical public access to the shoreline. (4) It is demonstrated that No Net Loss of habitat function will be achieved. Exhibit E Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance (b) Single Family Residential heights may be increased to 35' with the employment of a pitched roof when: (1) The pitch of the roof is not less than 6:12 (2) The pitched roof is oriented perpendicular to the shoreline. Minor gables or other roof features parallel to the shoreline may be permitted on a case by case basis provided such features do not extend past the pitched roof where views are intended to be preserved. (3) The pitched roof covers the entire structure. Exhibit F Shoreline M STAT Program Limited Amendments Ordinance 0� d x yn O 1889 � STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service o Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 April 25, 2017 The Honorable Patty Lent City of Bremerton 345 Sixth Street, Suite 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 Re: City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendment — Conditional Approval, Ordinance 5300 Dear Mayor Lent: I would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Bremerton (City) for its efforts in developing the proposed amendments to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). It is obvious that a significant effort was invested by your staff. The amendments make changes to the City's SMP in order to make it consistent with the City's recently updated Comprehensive Plan and incorporate updated provisions from the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. We have completed our review of the proposal for consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and implementing guidelines. As we have already discussed with your staff, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) identified specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable. These required changes are detailed in Attachment B. Additional recommended changes are included in Attachment C. Ecology's findings and conclusions related to the City's proposed SMP amendment are contained in Attachment A. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may: • Agree to the proposed changes, or • Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally developed by Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act. Final Ecology approval will occur after the City responds to Ecology communicating the City's decision on the required and recommended changes. Ecology's final approval will be in the form of a letter, and will be sent upon receipt of the City's written notification that the required changes are acceptable to the City, or after the City and Ecology have reached an agreement on alternative language that meets the statutory and Guidelines requirements. Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance The Honorable Patty Lent April 25, 2017 Page 2 Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following address: WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Thank you again for your efforts to continue to improve the City's SMP. We look forward to receiving your written response and concluding this SMP amendment in the near future. If you have any questions or would like to discuss Ecology's proposed changes, please contact our regional planner, Misty Blair, at Misty.Blair@ecy.wa.g_ov/(425) 649-4309. Sincerely, y G�� Maia D. Bellon Director Enclosures By Certified Mail [91 7108 2133 3939 7125 5436] cc: Allison Satter, City of Bremerton Misty Blair, Ecology Joe Burcar, Ecology Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR PROPOSED LIMITED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON'S SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM SMP Submittal accepted July 13, 2016, Ordinance No. 5300 Prepared by Misty Blair on April 17, 2017 Brief Description of Proposed Amendment: The City of Bremerton has submitted to Ecology for review a limited amendment to its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council adopted the amendment (Ordinance No. 5300) on May 18, 2016. The purpose of the limited amendment is to incorporate updated Critical Areas regulations and ensure consistency between the SMP and recently updated Comprehensive Plan. The Critical Areas regulations were recently updated to incorporate best available science, eliminating the need for separate critical areas regulations within the SMP. The City has opted to remove the redundant regulations from the SMP and incorporate more of critical areas regulations as a means to provide the same level of critical areas protection. SMP environment designation maps were amended to match recent Land Use Map changes, particularly to recognize the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Multifamily Designation (MR) within the shoreline jurisdiction and accurately reflect the existing and planned multifamily residential development in these areas. Regional staff recommends approval of the proposed limited amendment subject to both required changes (Attachment B) and recommended changes (Attachment Q. FINDINGS OF FACT Need for amendment. The proposed changes are intended as minor adjustments to portions of the City of Bremerton SMP. According to the City, the proposed amendments are needed: to provide consistency between the SMP and the Comprehensive Plan; for ease of implementation of the critical areas regulations; and to accurately reflect the existing and planned development patterns within SMP Map areas B, C, and E. The original City SMP was approved by Ecology in 1977 with major amendments in 1989, 1992 and with amendments for the Downtown Development Standards in 2003. The City's SMP comprehensive amendment process pursuant to RCW 90.58.080 and 100 was completed in December 2013. SMP provisions to be changed by the amendment as proposed: The following sections of the existing City SMP are proposed for change: Section 4.020 Maps Map B & Map C — Re -designating a portion of shoreline from "Single Family Residential" to "Multi -Family Residential" shoreline designation. Map E — Re -designating a portion of shoreline from "Commercial" to Multi -Family Residential" shoreline designation. Section 5.010, incorporating the following updated Critical Areas Regulations BMC 20.14.200, Definitions of "Wetlands" BMC 20.14.330(f)(1) Standard Wetland Buffer Widths BMC 20.14.340(f) & (g) Mitigation Replacement and Enhancement Ratios BMC 20.14.730(d) Table 1: Water Type Buffer Standard Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance City of Bremerton SMP Limited Amendment, Attachment A April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 5 BMC 20.14.730(d)(5) Buffer Reduction BMC 20.14.730(d)(8) Habitat Conservation Area Buffer Section 7.010, deleting the above referenced Critical Areas Regulation exclusions and the following Regulations: (b) Wetland Buffers, and (c) Wetland Mitigation, Section 7.090, modifying the Use Matrix Table to permit Single Family Residential within the Recreation and Commercial shoreline environment designations. Amendment History, Review Process: The city indicates the proposed SMP amendments originated from a local planning process related to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) updates. This process began with a Planning Commission Workshop on September 15, 2014. The City commissioned a CAO Gap Analysis that was completed by The Watershed Company on July 7, 2015. The stated secondary purpose of this analysis was to compare the CAO with relevant sections of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to bring the two regulatory documents into alignment with each other. Affidavits of publication provided by the City indicate notice of the hearing was published in the Kitsap Sun on April 7, 2016. The record shows that a public hearing regarding the SMP Amendment before the Planning Commission was held on April 19, 2016. The City received one comment on May 18, 2016 from the Suquamish Tribe, this comment was subsequently submitted again during the state public comment period and is included in the comment response summary (Attachment D). The associated Critical Areas Amendment, effecting the provisions of Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) 20.14 were provided to Ecology for review and all recommendations contained within Paul Anderson's May 11, 2016 comment letter were incorporated into the final adopted version. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the proposed limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. City Council held an additional public hearing and considered the proposed SMP limited amendment on May 18, 2016. With passage of Ordinance No. 5300, on May 18, 2016, the City authorized staff to forward the proposed amendments to Ecology for approval. The proposed SMP amendments were received by Ecology for state review and verified as complete on July 13, 2016. Notice of the state comment period was distributed to state task force members and interested parties identified by the City on August 3, 2016, in compliance with the requirements of WAC 173-26-120, and as follows: The state comment period began on August 3, 2016 and continued through August 19, 2016. No public hearing was held during the state comment period. Four (4) comment letters were received during the comment period. Ecology sent all written comments it received along with a summary matrix table to the City on September 16, 2016. The City requested and was provided additional time to respond to comments. On January 3, 2017 the City submitted to Ecology its responses to issues raised during the state comment period. A copy of the City's response along with Ecology's response to public comments is included as Attachment D. Consistency with Chapter 90.58 RCW: The proposed amendment has been reviewed for consistency with the policy of RCW 90.5 8.020 and the approval criteria of RCW 90.58.090(3), (4) and (5). The City has also provided evidence of its compliance with SMA procedural requirements for amending their SMP contained in RCW 90.58.090(1) and (2). Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance City of Bremerton SMP Limited Amendment, Attachment A April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Consistency with "applicable guidelines" (Chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III): The proposed amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the applicable Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and 173-26-020 definitions). Consistency with Limited Amendment Criteria: The proposed amendment has also been reviewed for compliance with WAC 173-26-201(1)(c) of the SMP Guidelines. The amendment is necessary to improve consistency with the Act's goals, policies and implementing rules applicable to shorelines of the state within the local government (WAC 173-26-201(1)(c)(i)(D) and to correct errors and omissions (WAC 173- 26-201(1)(c)(i)(E). The City of Bremerton is not currently conducting a comprehensive shoreline master program (WAC 173-26-201(1)(c)(ii). The proposed amendments will not foster uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines (WAC 173-26-201(1)(c)(iii). The amendment is consistent with all applicable policies and standards of the Act (WAC 173-26-201(1)(c)(iv). All procedural rule requirements for public notice and consultation have been satisfied (WAC 173-26-201(1)(v). The master program guidelines analytical requirements and substantive standards have been satisfied, as applicable to the amendments. The amendments will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions (WAC 173- 26-201(1)(c)(vi). Consistency with SEPA Requirements: The City submitted evidence of SEPA compliance in the form an issued Addendum to a Determination of Significance with Adoption of Existing Environmental Document for the City of Bremerton 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update which included the proposed SMP amendments on November 3, 2015. Ecology did not comment. Other Studies or Analyses supporting the SMP update: Ecology also reviewed the following documents prepared by the City in support of the SMP amendment: • A July 14, 2015 technical memorandum to the City from The Watershed Company providing a Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis, Identified as Attachment VI; and, • The City's updated Critical Areas Ordinance, identified as Attachment VII (Portions of Ordinance 5301 effective June 3, 2016), as well as the entirety of Ordinance 5301; and, • The City's updated Land Use Maps, identified as Attachment VIII (Portion of Ordinance 5299 effective June 3, 2016); and, Summary of Issues Raised During The Public Review Process: The City's SMP limited amendment drafting/public review process coincided with the City's Comprehensive Plan Update and Critical Areas Regulations update. During the local public participation period, only one comment was received related to the SMP limited amendment. During the Ecology public comment period four (4) comment letters were received. Public comments centered on the following topics: • One comment was received supporting the limited amendment and requesting no changes. • One comment was received requesting the limited amendment be denied based on a lack of information regarding the Chico Creek and Gorst Creek Watersheds, specifically related to their contributing and draining basins. • One comment was received requesting that the City add a statement to the Applicability section (BMC 20.16.5 10) acknowledging that the Navy does not have to comply with the City's SMP requirements. • One comment letter contained several concerns related to CAO provisions which are proposed for incorporation into the SMP. Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance City of Bremerton SMP Limited Amendment, Attachment A April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW After review by Ecology of the complete record submitted and all comments received, Ecology concludes that the City's proposed limited SMP amendment, subject to and including Ecology's required changes (itemized in Attachment B), is consistent with the policy and standards of RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.090 and the applicable SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-171 through 251 and .020 definitions). This includes a conclusion that the proposed SMP amendment, subject to required changes, contains sufficient policies and regulations to assure that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions will result from implementation of the new master program amendments (WAC 173-26- 201(2)(c)(5) and WAC 173-26-186(8). Ecology also concludes that a separate set of recommended changes to the submittal (identified during the review process and itemized in Attachment C) would be consistent with SMA policy and the guidelines and would be beneficial to SMP implementation. These changes are not required, but can, if accepted by the City, be included in Ecology's approved SMP amendments. Consistent with RCW 90.58.090(4), Ecology concludes that those SMP segments relating to critical areas within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.100 regarding the SMP amendment process and contents. Ecology concludes that the proposed amendments satisfy the criteria for approval of limited amendments found in WAC 173-26-201(1)(c). Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the requirements of RCW 90.58.130 and WAC 173-26-090 regarding public and agency involvement in the SMP amendment process. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with the purpose and intent of the local amendment process requirements contained in WAC 173-26-100, including conducting public hearings, notice, consultation with parties of interest and solicitation of comments from tribes, government agencies and Ecology. Ecology concludes that the City has complied with requirements of Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. Ecology concludes that the City's SMP amendment submittal to Ecology was complete pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and WAC 173-26-201(3)(a). Ecology concludes that it has complied with the procedural requirements for state review and approval of shoreline master program amendments as set forth in RCW 90.58.090 and WAC 173-26-120. Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance City of Bremerton SMP Limited Amendment, Attachment A April 17, 2017 Page 5 of 5 DECISION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Based on the preceding, Ecology has determined the proposed amendments to this SMP are consistent with the policy of the Shoreline Management Act, the applicable guidelines and implementing rules, once required changes set forth in Attachment B are approved by the City. Ecology approval of the proposed amendments, with required changes, is effective 14 days from Ecology's final action approving the amendment. As provided in RCW 90.58.090(2)(e)(ii) the City may choose to submit an alternative to all or part of the changes required by Ecology. If Ecology determines that the alternative proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of Ecology's original changes and with RCW 90.58, then the department shall approve the alternative proposal and that action shall be the final action on the amendment. Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance CD O O 0 W O CD Cn N CD CD n CD Cn Cn v O n O \CC G. CD Cn D C0 O C31 Cb N CL CD G) C. CD ICIDA VJ /1 n v W N O rNr AA ^w � J `/ 3 CD0 fMF W M 0 tIj �0 CL 0 N � � M K 0 (D (n (D O CL O (D 70 C to c Cn 3 3m •om Oto CD� --o. o f35H n CCD CD v O (D I Z ;aDo 5 XD° -,, cCDCD00 CD C-) ..OD ° -° 00 m .,: -c 0)o 0 —� 0 — o Cf) o CCD n nL < C'����� (D N Q W w� C) a) W� Co CD a cc - 0-01 �X acs n �'� WW00 n ��� —0 v -- o' -n cp o 0 7.=.,�D� n� C�CiC)-0 � 0 C-1) WN (D c� � o aW� 000-o rj C:) ��� �w C m am sv m � ���o 4h. CD � D�O0)07 !'m X00 �m D n•~ o c =r m 0) w�0-� U1 �. A �N 0 sa (D O A. Q• Cn w� CD -, Q N . (a 0 c ., w w o o cn cQ (n A Cn 0 n n ?_ n m v°�� v vmQ- v Q• mo CL CL 3� 3•m cp �:• Oy Cnwrn m U1s0m �,m mm 0 cn v m c m -pn0 �a CD m m --40-10 >= moo 3@.-1. 0 p� � m °•o m a� CLCn 0a Q -' (D CD � CD v 0 O N w :3 c 3'< �� 0U)"a �wC=6.cn (n o � 3 0� m �_ � °i M. o C) Q• m o o v° 3. 0 -A cc c cQ c �. O a CD -4 (D m a -' x v Q• n Cn -„- o 0) a O `G CD -0 - CL ° �+ v. D CD r+ n 0 m < m cD O X ai m S CA CD "� � O O OF 0 CL 0• II O cc Q (D Covm0M��DmDm-'"0C D c Qu)cn E.0 j 'tai O� 9'CL 0fl:c X Q K Oa m= 3 d 0 Q (D con Q - w N Qym 3 c w• ,, C=DT _� 0 ,CLCD � Z v m om° 0 �mv�m �. I v o r' � m -1 rs m 03.E r m v W��°—CD .�--�g`�.o�, C mm= CD 3� n Cr Cn Ch Q "0 G 5-0 Cn cD = � (D O p) �.'G CD �, mOoo0n�w cD mCn D MOo•>>cn Q `. 7— -43Q° ° 0 3 '. m� d n CD°• m m° mom° 5. � CA =: N CL—. (D � n O � 0 (3D � 0 C !v _= = N O (D c N R' O (0 m O- d-0 0 Q.�a�fl-n•m ° 0 �� o C Q.�2;v� fl.° m °•nom (n'° o -ti o ,� O -4 < 0.ao m (D c 3 (D � m 0 0 O (D 0. O a 0 O Q r.0 Q -W C CM) 0 Sm �m �•�� �K CQ ! o �(n 00 � �. =W'ao3• _ °-�,� v �< �mmD CDD CD o� 0 w Q �+ Z cn Xw a -0 3 m � N E r-9. CD O O 0 W O CD Cn N CD CD n CD Cn Cn v O n O \CC G. CD Cn D C0 O C31 Cb N CL CD G) C. CD ICIDA VJ /1 n v W N O rNr AA ^w � J `/ 3 CD0 fMF W M 0 tIj �0 CL 0 Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance Z O Ln w O O • • • • • • • 0o ao 00 00 � oo m ao g oo � ao P PPaC)UP Pm P _a Q -..% � y � = � - _a S 0 ���� 3 -th,"' wP-4�-, W-- W W Co U7 CDD � � O O O O M a 07 U1 U7 W 0 N w CD' Ip 3 m W (D (D O i� CD 0 3 X CDCD N N C O O 0 0 _ = <= (D 0) 0 C� N O CD G C aC CD p �+ Cn O < CD CD O a G n O N O O Q Q Z' N v? cD N Z O Ln w O O Exhibit F Shoreline Master Program Limited Amendments Ordinance 0� CD (n o_ rr — � �C ? n D� CD CD c0 CD O O coo 3 CDD O = n' Q CD N Q O CL n CD v Cn,Z �CD CD �3 C CD CD Cn r -r _• 0 CD ap Cn =r CD C7 C) Cn -4 C -4 CD � N T CL N =r CD CD CD CZ CD CD =' CD Q. P !rt 0 0 X CD0 0 M CL CL 0 CD U) M O O a' 0 O 3 ��=tnootn� m-o�oCntn � = v Qr° 000 CD o < Cr0 c°n�r:� m CD c 3 0 3 cn� Q) °Cn n cDv�cn��-0Cn a Cn CD o =3 j O 3 CD a �CC Cn CDv 0 O � CD p N 0 � Cn 0 n 0 X. CL CA N 0 3 CD C3D C n 3 u Q= Ch a � �_o S. Cn m m v = s° -n Cr ° 0 3 z m 3 Z 0- = w ,°�' a� m � .� �o 0 3 0 acn 3 P, v _- C) Cn CD 0) ,� o m Co °.w CD s •m0 co m Cr-, CD c° O r 3 ° o =.ate ° v �'" °Cn'3:3 CD C) �� CD c � � D N N c°n�"ain CD w 7 Q O N 3 N D 3 :3 O VD °' nQ3 (DCL � < < cam o 3= 3' O 0) 01 Q. cn n�+o(D .-. v .� M. m Cll 0 @ (Mn O CLCD 3 CD pO 3 3 oQLin C CD CD - 0 D C Cr CD v 0= 0 . ,, 3 OCD W O? D CD N -� 3 2 C7 D - .� z v 0 CD N O Crm � 0 -n or � O'er► N 3 � 3 ? CD 3' (ii D "' 0)CD fnoCD CD 3 um (n -. v � c �' N ow a o- a � go v N o * 3 0 - Cn � W �' X X� N o O O w _, -K0-no c� ��D r, D3 C 0 C1 v, sll -� �Cn 3 c CD C � Q 3 CD a .-. O a c O O 3 a 3 3 Co' n Q Cll N CD q� !v 0 O fn O 0 tD 3 -s 3 a Q' CD 3 .n_• M Q �; Fn• fn N a O G�� S O -_ Co 3 Cll 0•w CT Cn CD 7 ° 0 =� 3 c r (D O cn Q' 3 CD o .3� �+ Q. CD Cn 0 O .+ cn a c 3 (D m� 0 3cD�'',� �� 3O=' 0 oCDCD ��O n O N CD K O-4 n n CD Cn 0 (n Cn -UO3 000-0 =a0 v 0 o CD 70 C7 N) 0 S•smm n ., Cr 3 Q 3• -°p `C ,rt c ,_: Sv 0 M 3 `< a Cr 3 0 v 0 0 m o o ,rt v v < ' `< n m x cQ O c CD 3 amino o cn c o -- ;:w ac v, m cr 3 �.-•w fn Q C)3 v 0 v a0<< Quo ==3 Cn a)a�cL E cn o m w° v 33305' 6- o c Z am 0 cn �0, <•a ��,�0 �Co0 D n°v3io�C���°=DQ'3 rva-0°n� °oma 3�cu°`� CL m CD CD .. �D z 0 3 3 a<cn 3 w CD CD n -Dov° " c c o m x � -°gym _� sll C m vc°n -amm3c1~ v0 sv w 70 CD �'Q= a CD ,SCD a� M3"w� O �mow.w CL CD CD 0) CD < N � > < CD CD Z 0" 3 _ _ — 1< Cr v Cn = CD 0 N D 0 N 0 0 CD M 0��� 0 3" N 0 D ar Cn CD O� CD � m Q CD 0 es o D3 �0Cn01 Ln.nvCDmcoCLCn S•' vinto Cn �, 03 � .o < go co n CL 0 3 T CD 0 ^ � O° a c c 3 r. CD <• CD 0 CD -0 CD x: W �Q<o�m3'*���D3vcn�i�CL w --h(D SCDD om�w 3 .n. CD 3 v 00 w = CDO a3�`< CD 3 (n a 3 N 3 n O= CD °» 3° O 0'N W s CD Q a(D =� -"_� O CD �.-. CD c 0 3 0- "O co ch =a. (D CD CD m 0,c v 0 "O " W 3 v� (D •_~ rn x, " (D n m n to O 0 � � � Cr O 0 p - � Cn CD CD 0_ w 3 o N O O N cc n CSD = r= O CD N x CD W J.n 3 Cn 3 0 0 S. Q- (0 z 0 to n Q �. (n CD O 0 93 C) aim° CD v0 [7� h cDPQ o D = w m a CD 3 p Fn. 3. 0� CD (n o_ rr — � �C ? n D� CD CD c0 CD O O coo 3 CDD O = n' Q CD N Q O CL n CD v Cn,Z �CD CD �3 C CD CD Cn r -r _• 0 CD ap Cn =r CD C7 C) Cn -4 C -4 CD � N T CL N =r CD CD CD CZ CD CD =' CD Q. P !rt 0 0 X CD0 0 M CL CL 0 CD U) Attachment I ORDINANCE NO. 5300 AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington providing limited amendments to the City of Bremerton Shoreline Master Program. WHEREAS, the people of the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) by a vote of the people in 1971; and WHEREAS, The Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.480) adds the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 as one of the goals of the Growth Management Act without creating an order of priority; and WHEREAS, in 2003, The Department of Ecology adopted rules, pursuant to RCW 90.58.200, which gave procedural and substantive direction to local jurisdictions for updating shoreline uses and regulations, which became effective January 17, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 5229 on December 4, 2013 adopting the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) after approval of Department of Ecology, to be compliant with RCW 90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-186; and WHEREAS, the 2013 SMP adoption included widespread public notice and involvement held over fourteen (14) workshops and a public hearing at the Planning Commission and a series of four televised City Council workshops; and WHEREAS, the City is concurrently updating the Comprehensive Plan (under a separate ordinance) pursuant to the GMA and the schedule provided in RCW 36.70A.130 that requires an update of the Comprehensive plan by no later than June 30, 2016; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan update has made several land use map updates that required limited amendments to the SMP including text and mapping amendments to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11, a Determination of Significance (DS) with adoption of existing environmental documents with an addendum was filed on November 3, with a voluntary comment period which expired on November 17, 2015 and an appeal period which expired on November 30, 2015 and no appeals were filed; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016, amendments to the SMP were circulated to the State Agencies for the requisite 60 -day review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton Planning Commission considered staff's recommendations, received testimony, and formulated a recommendation for SMP limited update to the City Council for consideration at a duly advertised public hearing on April 19, 2016; and 2016 SMP Amendments Page 1 of 28 Attachment I WHEREAS, On May 7, 2016 the public was notified by legal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun of the opportunity to make comment and participate in the public hearing by the City Council; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinzs and Recitals Incorporated. The findings and recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Planning Commission Findings Adopted. The findings and conclusions of the Bremerton Planning Commission as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted. SECTION 3. Chapter 4 - Shoreline Maps and Designations Amended. Chapter 4 of the Shoreline Master Program as adopted by Ordinance No. 5299 is hereby amended by amending Section 4.020 entitled "Maps" as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. Chapter S - Permit Administration Amended. Chapter 5 of the Shoreline Master Program as adopted by Ordinance No. 5299 is hereby amended by amending Section 5.010 entitled "Applicability" as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION S. Chapter 7 - General Standards and Regulations Amended. Chapter 7 of the Shoreline Master Program as adopted by Ordinance No. 5299 is hereby amended by amending Section 7.010 entitled "Buffers and Setbacks" as set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. Chapter 7 - General Standards and Regulations Amended. Chapter 7 of the Shoreline Master Program as adopted by Ordinance No. 5299 is hereby amended by amending Section 7.090 entitled "Use Matrix and Height Table" as set forth in Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 7. Effective Date of Provisions. The provisions set forth in Sections 1 through 6 above shall become effective and in full force and effect upon the date of approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology of said provisions of this ordinance as set forth herein, subject to Section 9 below. SECTION 8. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9 Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force ten (10) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. 2 2016 SMP Amendments Page 2 of 28 Attachment I PASSED by the City Council the day of , 2016 — /,, Y,= ERIC YOU ER, C ncil President Approved this —L day of %%? , 2016 ATTEST: (%44 SHANNON CORIN, City Clerk ff / � U 4, ,���►6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: qROGR A. LUBOVICH, ivy ttomey PUBLISHED the day of , 2016 EFFECTIVE the — day of , 2016 ORDINANCE NO. v0D R:\Legal\Legal\Ordinances\Community Development\2016 SMP Amendment - Final.doc 2016 SMP Amendments Page 3 of 28 Exhibit A Shoreline Master Progravht0chnnmidd DRAFT FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON PLANNING COMMISSION Summary — The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed limited amendments to the maps and text of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for the Growth Management Act 2016 periodic update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. I. FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL 1. Project Description The primary impetus for the limited updates of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is to ensure consistency with the Growth Management Act 2016 periodic update. The limited amendments proposed to the SMP can be summarized as follows: • Updating shoreline designations on three maps, Map B, C and E. Maps B and C had Single Family Residential designation for a few parcels amended to Multi -family Residential to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation change to recognize the existing higher density neighborhood (most of those parcels are currently development with multi -family structures). Map E proposes to fix a mapping error of approximately 600' lineal feet of shoreline to be amended from Commercial Shoreline designation to Multi -Family Residential to be consistent with the current Land Use designation, in the Downtown Subarea Plan (this area is just south of the Manette Bridge, off Washington Avenue). Provide consistency to City's Critical Area Ordinance (CAO, Bremerton Municipal Code, BMC 20.14) and the SMP. The CAO was adopted in 2006 and the SMP in 2013. As best available science (BAS) was used in the SMP and CAO, the SMP had portions of the code that superseded the CAO as the adoption was later. Within this periodic update the CAO is proposing to be updated with BAS, thus the portions in the SMP related to CAO are slated for removal and the CAO will be amended separately). • Revise the 7.090 Use Matrix to allow "Single Family Residential uses" in Recreational and Commercial designations. There is a SMP policy that identifies that single family residential development is a priority use on the shoreline (SMP 8.080), thus this amendment would provide further consistency. 2. Procedural History The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updates were drafted, reviewed and recommended for adoption after a series of public workshops and a hearing. 2.1 Initial Work Program Released: Planning Commission Workshop — September 15, 2014 Discussed the Comprehensive Plan Update, including the Work Program, Public Participation Page 4 of 28 Exhibit A Shoreline Master Progravht0chnmidd Process, and overview of the schedule. Encouraging comments from the public regarding the Work Program. This sets the framework for the 2 -years including updating the functioning documents such as the Shoreline Master Program update process. o 2.1(a) Shoreline Master Program Past History — 2010 through 2013. The SMP was adopted in December 4, 2013 by Ordinance Number 5229 after a three-year extensive project with substantial public involvement and coordination of multiple agencies. • 2.2 Work Program received approval from Planning Commission Workshop — October 21, 2014 Planning Commission provided recommendation of the Work Program, Schedule and Public Participation Plan for City Council's approval. • 2.3 Work Program approved by City Council Public Hearing — November 19, 2014 City Council passed Resolution No. 3237 which set the Work Program for the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Public Participation Program. 2.4 Planning Commission Public Process for Comprehensive Plan Update - January 20, 2015 — November 17, 2015 Planning Commission held two open houses, 7 workshops and one public hearing on the 2016 Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Public Hearing was November 17, 2015 which was approved unanimously for City Council's consideration. Updating the Shoreline Master Program was continually part of the discussion and identified in the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan. o 2.4(a) Planning Commission Workshop — July 21, 2015 During this workshop, a GAP analysis was provided for the public and Planning Commission's consideration by The Watershed Company that compared the Critical Area Ordinance with relevant sections of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to bring the two regulatory documents into alignment with each other and with best available science. This analysis was also provided at the February 2016 workshop. • 2.5 Zoning Code Amendments Planning Commission Workshop— February 16, 2016 Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Zoning Code Update related to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The specific topics were: a few Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) chapters, and limited amendments to Shoreline Master Program. • 2.6 Zoning Code and Subarea Plan Amendments Planning Commission Workshop — March 15, 2016 Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Zoning Code Update related to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The specific topics focused on Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) chapters, however an additional change to Map E in the SMP was discussed at this Workshop. • 2.7 Notice of Intent to Adopt - Department of Commerce — March 17, 2016 A 60 -day notice of intent to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, Bremerton Municipal Code, Subarea Plans and the Shoreline Master Program were provided to Department of Commerce and the Puget Sound Regional Council for their review of the plans. • 2.8 Planning Commission Public Hearing—April 19, 2016 Draft text and maps of the limited amendment to the SMP were release in advance of the April 19, 2016 public hearing with proper noticing. Planning Commission deliberated and made recommendation to City Council for adoption. • 2.9 Compliance with the Public Participation Program The following are actions that were taken to ensure compliance with the early and continuous public participation identified in the Public Participation Program approved by Resolution in November 2014 for the Comprehensive Plan Update (which includes further publication for the Shoreline Master Program limited amendments notice). Page 5 of 28 Exhibit A Shoreline Master Progravht0chn d 0 2.9(a) Adequate Noticing: For the Comprehensive Plan update: standard notification of each workshop with a letter or email notice to the interested parties and posting of the Planning Commission Workshop in the Kitsap Sun, and approximately 9,000 notices were mailed twice to all City property owners in January 2015 (prior to an first Open House) and October 2015 (prior to the Public Hearing). Specific public notice that stated "Limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program" were for the: ■ February 16, 2016 Public Workshop; and ■ April 19, 2016 Public Hearing 0 2.9(b) Website: www.Bremerton2035.com was continual referred to and updated with planning commission packets and draft documents, comments, upcoming meeting notices, etc. 0 2.9(c) Video: Staff participated in the September's Growing Bremerton Together with Potty Lent to talk about the Comprehensive Plan Update and get interested in the project (repeated on BKAT and available online, htt s: vimeo.com 139257812). 0 2.9(d) Additional Outreach: Staff provide presentation on the City's Comprehensive Plan update to the following clubs to further outreach: Lions Club in May 2015, Home Builder Association of Kitsap in Summer 2015, and Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council (KRCC) in March 2016. 3. Public Comment Public comment was received throughout the duration of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Comments were received in various formats including letters, e-mails, postcards, and public testimony at workshops and hearings that Planning Commission considered. No public comment was received regarding the limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. 4. SEPA Determination As the City is updating the current (2004) Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Subarea Plans and the Shoreline Master Program, much of the environmental review will continue to be applicable, however additional review needed to be conducted to address the minor changes. The City provided a Determination of Significance with adoption of existing environmental documents with a supportive addendum to address the minor changes on November 3, 2015. The voluntary public comment period on the DS expired on November 17, 2015. The appeal period on the DNS expired on November 30, 2015. No appeals were filed. S. Consistency 5.1 The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan update that is regulated by the Washington State Growth Management Act goals and policies as stated by Washington State's Department of Commerce Extended Checklist for planning for population and employment growth for the next 20 years (until 2036). 5.2 The proposal is consistent with Department of Ecology and the Shoreline Management Act rules per RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26 for limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. 5.3 The recommended limited amendments will result in minor modifications to the development and use potential of certain areas. As there the amendments to the maps 3 Page 6 of 28 Exhibit A Shoreline Master PrograAtOchnnmidd are for areas that are already existing multi -family development, there is minimal modification potential. Modification potential will be reviewed like all other land uses to result in an overall no net loss per the City's SMP. 5.4 The proposed Update included continuous and open public involvement and adequate public notice. The Update underwent public hearings, public workshops, and review at the Planning Commission level. All public hearings and workshops at the Planning Commission were noticed with formal advertisement in the Kitsap Sun, and dates were posted on the City of Bremerton website. Drafts of the recommended Update were continuously posted to the City of Bremerton website (www. Bremerton2035.com), and paper copies were made available for review at the Community Development offices at 345 6th St. 5.5 The Planning Commission acknowledges the Department of Ecology public process for limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program that occurs after the City Council adoption. III. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission concludes that the proposed limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program, corresponding to the 2016 Growth Management Act Periodic update are consistent with the Growth Management Act, Department of Ecology requirements for limited amendments and the draft 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission concludes that the proposed limited amendments to the Shoreline Master Program are adequate for consistency throughout the City documents, and appropriately updated in a limited way. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Nick Wofford, Char; Planning Commis, on 4 Page 7 of 28 Chapter 4 — Shoreline Maps and Designations 4.010 — Intent 4.020 — Maps 4.030 — Designations 4.040 — Shorelines of Statewide Significance 4.020 Maps: The following maps are the official maps of the Shoreline Master Program. Attachment I Page 8 of 28 Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi -Family Residential Single Family Residential IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated Elwood Point Madrona Point Ostrich Bay OA 7A fn Z� w 2� Oyster Bay Attachment I Mud Bay Phinney Bay C KITSAP WAY �1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program N Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Map B Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation January 25, 2016 may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. Page 9 of 28 Attachment I Legend NW RIDDELL RD NE RIDDELL RD UGA Boundary City Boundary -- - -- Designations --- - Urban Conservancy - -__ ---_ -__ W , Recreation _------- - Multi -Family Residential ---- ---- -_-- W - Single Family Residential --- r1 - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- Commercial -- _ ----- Downtown Waterfront ---- ---- --- Industrial -- Isolated f - -- Bass Point 0 Phinney Buy 0 W Z SYLVAN WAY a SHERIDAN RD �1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department N of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Map C Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation January 25, 2016 may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. Page 10 of 28 Legend UGA Boundary City Boundary Designations Urban Conservancy Recreation Multi -Family Residential Single Family Residential IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Commercial Downtown Waterfront Industrial Isolated 11TH ST Attachment I W z LU 4� f� 6TH ST 304 BURWELL ST let 5"I'lleldl, III ^1 Data Sources: Kitsap County, City of Bremerton, Parametra, Bremerton Shoreline Master Program N Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 0 0.25 National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) Map E Note: Shoreline jurisdiction boundaries depicted on this map are approximate Miles and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site-specific evaluation January 28, 2016 may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map. Page 11 of 28 Attachment I Chapter 5 - Permit Administration 5.010 — Applicability 5.020 — Permit Application Types 5.030 — Noticing Requirements 5.040 — Criteria of Approval 5.050 — Appeals 5.060 — Time Periods 5.070— Violations and Penalties 5.080 — Shoreline Moratorium 5.090 — Restoration Project Relocation of OHWM 5.010 Applicability: (a) Liberal Construction: All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. Shoreline Master Program policies establish intent for the shoreline regulations in addition to RCW 90.58 and Chapter 173 of the Washington Administrative Code 173-26 and 173-27. (b) Burden of Proof: The applicants for any permit shall have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria as set out in the Shoreline Management Act. (c) Development Permit Compliance: (1) For all development within shoreline jurisdiction, the responsible official shall not issue a development or construction permit or an exemption for such development until compliance with the Shoreline Master Program has been documented. If a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, no permit shall be issued until all comment and appeal periods have expired. Any development permit for work within the shoreline jurisdiction (200' from the OHWM) shall be subject to the same terms and conditions that apply to the shoreline permit. (2) Critical Areas in the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ordinance 4965 2008), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: (i) BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; (ii) BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right - of -Way; and (iii)BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception_, 20.14.200 Definitien ef "Wetlands". (v) BN4G 20.14.330(f)(1) Standaf:d Wetland Btt�t: Widths; Page 12 of 28 Attachment I (viii) m 4G 20 i n 730(d)(5) Rtc r— Rc titian-; (d) Constitutional limitations: Regulation of private property to implement any Program goals, such as public access and protection of ecological functions, must be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations. These include, but are not limited to, property rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, applicable federal and state case law, and state statutes, such as RCW 34.05.328 and 43.21C.060. (e) Agency coordination: The city will coordinate on issues relating to ecological conditions, functions and processes and on wetland and ordinary high water delineations with the Department of Ecology, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Suquamish Tribe, as well as other agencies with permit authority over a project to the extent that agencies are timely in their response and coordination does not interfere with meeting timelines for permit review. (f) Compliance with other regulatory requirements: Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, , Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification (Section 401) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. (Ord. 1164 § 4, 2004). (g) Permit Revisions: An application for a permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms, or conditions of a project that has an approved permit. The City may approve a revision, rather than requiring a separate shoreline permit provided the revision is within the scope and intent of the original permit, and is consistent with all applicable standards within the SMP and SMA. Should the revision be found to be within the scope and intent of the original permit the City may approve the revision and submit it to the Department of Ecology. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100 "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following: (1) No additional overwater construction is involved except that pier, dock or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less: (2) Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the provisions of the original permit; (3) The revised permit does not authorize development toe exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the SMP except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a part thereof, (4) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with the SMP; (5) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and Page 13 of 28 Attachment I (6) No adverse environmental impacts will be caused by the project revision. (h) Exemptions A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be required for all proposed use and development within the shoreline jurisdiction unless the proposal is specifically exempt from permit requirements pursuant to WAC 173-27-040. The City issues exemptions for all work that does not meet the threshold for a shoreline permit to be required. The following list of exemptions is an exact copy from the WAC, and is located here as a courtesy to the reader. Any exemptions adopted subsequently by the legislature shall apply without amendment to this program. An exemption from a shoreline permit is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the Shoreline Master Program, or from any other regulatory requirements. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process. Exemptions are as follows: (1) Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed five thousand dollars, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 1, 2007, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. "Consumer price index" means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, United States Department of Labor. The office of financial management must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials; (2) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment; Page 14 of 28 Attachment I (3) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. (4) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency; (5) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels: Provided, That a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations; (6) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; Page 15 of 28 Attachment I (7) Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of normal appurtenances which shall be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark; (8) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-family and multiple -family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either: (i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a Substantial Development for the purpose of this chapter. (iii) For purposes of this section salt water shall include the tidally influenced marine and estuarine water areas of the state including the Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound and all bays and inlets associated with any of the above; (9) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored groundwater from the irrigation of lands; (10) The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water; (11) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system; Page 16 of 28 Attachment I (12) Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW; (13) Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: (i) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; (ii) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; (iii) The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; (iv) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and(v) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550; (14) The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW; (15) Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local government shall review the projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. (i) "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (A) A project that involves less than ten miles of stream reach, in which less than twenty-five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings; (B) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or (C) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or in -stream habitat enhancement structure associated with Page 17 of 28 Attachment I the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. (ii) "Watershed restoration plan" means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, the department of natural resources, the department of transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county, or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re- creation, or enhancement of the natural resources, character, and ecology of a stream, stream segment, drainage area, or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act; (16) A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: (i) The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; (ii) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and (iii) The local government has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. (iv) Fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181 are determined to be consistent with local shoreline master programs, as follows: (A) In order to receive the permit review and approval process created in this section, a fish habitat enhancement project must meet the following and (II) of this subsection: (I) A fish habitat enhancement project must be a project to accomplish one or more of the following tasks: Elimination of human -made fish passage barriers, including culvert repair and replacement; or restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank employing the principle of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing water; or Placement of woody debris or other in -stream structures that benefit naturally reproducing fish stocks. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall develop size or scale threshold tests to determine if projects accomplishing any of these tasks should be evaluated under the process created in this section or under other project review and approval processes. A project proposal shall not be reviewed under the process created in this section if the department determines that the scale of the project raises concerns regarding public health and safety; and (II) A fish habitat enhancement project must be approved in one of the following ways: By the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to chapter 77.95 or 77.100 RCW; or By the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan as provided in chapter 89.08 RCW; or Page 18 of 28 Attachment I • By the department as a Department of Fish and Wildlife -sponsored fish habitat enhancement or restoration project; • Through the review and approval process for the jobs for the environment program; • Through the review and approval process for conservation district -sponsored projects, where the project complies with design standards established by the conservation commission through interagency agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the natural resource conservation service; • Through a formal grant program established by the legislature or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for fish habitat enhancement or restoration; and • Through other formal review and approval processes established by the legislature (B) Fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection are expected to result in beneficial impacts to the environment. Decisions pertaining to fish habitat enhancement projects meeting the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and being reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). (C)(I) A hydraulic project approval permit is required for projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and are being reviewed and approved under this section. An applicant shall use a joint aquatic resource permit application form developed by the Office of Regulatory Assistance to apply for approval. On the same day, the applicant shall provide copies of the completed application form to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and to each appropriate local government. Local governments shall accept the application as notice of the proposed project. The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall provide a fifteen -day comment period during which it will receive comments regarding environmental impacts. Within forty-five days, the department shall either, issue a permit, with or without conditions, deny approval, or make a determination that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project. The department shall base this determination on identification during the comment period of adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the conditioning of a permit. If the department determines that the review and approval process created by this section is not appropriate for the proposed project, the department shall notify the applicant and the appropriate local governments of its determination. The applicant may reapply for approval of the project under other review and approval processes. (C)(II) Any person aggrieved by the approval, denial, conditioning, or modification of a permit under this section may formally appeal the decision to the hydraulic appeals board pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (D) No local government may require permits or charge fees for fish habitat enhancement projects that meet the criteria of (p)(iii)(A) of this subsection and that are reviewed and approved according to the provisions of this section. Page 19 of 28 Attachment I Chapter 7 - GENERAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS 7.010 — Buffers and Setbacks 7.20 — Vegetation Conservation 7.030 — Mitigation Sequencing for No Net Loss of Habitat Function 7.040 — Public Access 7.050 — Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non -Point Pollution 7.060 — Archaeologically Sensitive Areas 7.070 — Lighting Requirements 7.080 — Parking Requirements 7.090 — Use Matrix and Height Table 7.010 Buffers and Setbacks: Upland areas adjacent to the shoreline perform essential functions necessary to sustain habitat and ecological processes. It is for this reason that development must be set back from the water's edge and that natural buffers must be created and or preserved. The City currently regulates such areas through the Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance 4965 codified in BMC 20.14), however in areas regulated by this document within the shoreline jurisdiction, the following policies and regulations will supersede those within the Critical Area Regulations: Policies: (a) The critical areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are to be protected and managed in such a manner that the result of any use, activity, or development is no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) The City should protect critical areas and their existing shoreline ecological functions so they continue to contribute to existing ecosystem wide processes. (c) The City should promote uses and values that are compatible with other objectives of this section, such as public access and native vegetation management, provided there is no significant adverse impact to shoreline ecological functions. Regulations: (a) Critical Area Ordinance Applicability: Critical Areas that are within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated by the Critical Areas Regulations, (Ordinance 4965 2008), codified under BMC 20.14 which is herein incorporated into this SMP however, the following sections of the Critical Area Ordinance do not apply: • BMC 20.14.145(d) Exemptions for Forest Practices; • BMC 20.14.145(f) Exemptions for activities within improved Right -of -Way; • BMC 20.14.155 Reasonable Use Exception; •NCz l .200 Definition of "Alet Page 20 of 28 Attachment I seef:e Ratio*mitigation Weiland GategE)F�` Eiietion D„ esta .lisli .,,n Rehabilitation Efir[ 04Y on r ft�r 4-549-1 O --J GO S4nl LagOORSGate � r'rr J 34 O --J z—. i -2-.4-r. i -eri Gategofy4V1.5:1 ^^^^`` G O --J E s Gft�egofy lip -A4 4W- 451 165' N�4 Gatego.- -40Y i'YtA _N_�A i'YtA (e) MleflaHd b ' standaf:ds shall s"et:sede these established in the Gtitieal At:ea Of4iflaftee 1 I � Weiland GategE)F�` Eiietion D„ esta .lisli .,,n Rehabilitation Efir[ 04Y gefH &4 44 r'rr J 34 i`ft�e gef1 --ri r J z—. i -2-.4-r. i -eri Gategofy4V1.5:1 1 1 I � 1 01 !�Jllji 111 Ell Page 21 of 28 Attachment I WAhLShoreline Buffers and Setbacks: (1) The following table defines required buffers and setbacks for Type S waters. Buffers and setbacks for all other non -shoreline waters (Type F, Type NP, and Type Ns) are defined in BMC 20.14.730(d), Table LsffpeF ede h uff r& ara (BM -,- 20.14.730(d)) as follows -.L DESIGNATION Minimum Building Buffer Width Setback Standard URBAN CONSERVANCY 15 feet beyond 175 feet buffer SINGLE FAMILY & MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Lot depth less than 125' 5 feet beyond 20% of lot buffer depth Lot depth 125' to 199" 10 feet beyond 20% of lot buffer depth Lot depth greater than 200' 30% of lot 15 feet beyond depth buffer (Maximum of 100') RECREATIONAL 15 feet beyond 100 feet buffer COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL/ DOWNTOWN 15 feet beyond 50 feet WATERFRONT buffer ISOLATED None None 1. Please note: For all designations, setbacks and buffers listed above the following shall apply: a. Where lot depth is less than 150 feet on Commercial or Recreational lots, the buffers listed above may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. b. In no case shall a buffer be less than 10' or greater than 100' in the Shoreline Residential Designation. c. Buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. (2) Buffers and Associated Building Setback Areas: The distance of the buffer shall be measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Buffers shall remain undisturbed natural beach or vegetation areas except where the buffer can be enhanced to improve its functional attributes, as approved by the Department. Buffers shall be maintained along the perimeter of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, as outlined in the table above. Refuse, garbage, or debris shall not be placed in the buffers or on the beach. (3) Determining Lot Depth: Areas inundated with water are not included in the calculation for lot depth, therefore the measurement may be taken from the OHWM. For lots with varying lot depth, the average depth may be used. Page 22 of 28 Attachment I (4) Habitat Management Plans: The provisions of the Critical Area Ordinance (BMC 20.14.740) relating to Habitat Management Plans may reduce the width of a shoreline buffer to no less than ten (10) feet provided enhancement features are installed that will provide a greater habitat function than the prescribed buffer would. (5) Setback and Buffer Averaging: The Director may grant modifications to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer and setbacks required provided: (i) Sixty (60%) percent or more of like structures along the shoreline within the same numbered block as the subject property are setback less than the required buffer/setback required by the SMP. The average of the like structures may be used as a modified buffer for the proposal; and (ii) In addition to the buffer, a minimum of a 5' setback shall be required for the structure; and (iii) No new structure may have a buffer of less than ten (10') feet. (6) Fences: Fences are allowed to be erected in the side yard abutting the fish and wildlife conservation area buffer, but are prohibited within the buffer. Fences may also be erected upland of the buffer including within the shoreline setback area. General development standards for fences are located in BMC 20.44.020. Guardrails may be erected in association with pedestrian access areas provided they do not function as a fence and comply with the International Building Code. (d) Exemptions: The following development activities are not subject to fish and wildlife habitat area buffers and setbacks, provided they are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and further provided that they comply with all the applicable regulations in BMC Title 20 and this Program: (1) Those portions of an approved water -oriented development that require a location waterward of the ordinary high water mark, and/or within their associated buffers and setbacks; (2) Development activities on lots that are physically and functionally separated from shoreline by an improved paved public or private road or railroad or similar facility and/or by one or more existing developed lots under separate ownership such that the ecological functions provided by buffers do not occur. This provision shall not apply to such a facility within a development proposal or contiguous ownership that can be feasibly relocated to accommodate buffers. (3) Underground utilities; (4) Modifications to existing development that are necessary to comply with environmental requirements of any agency when otherwise consistent with this Program, provided that the City determines that: Page 23 of 28 Attachment I (i) The facility cannot meet the dimensional standard and accomplish the purpose for which it is intended; and (ii) The facility is located, designed, and constructed to meet specified dimensional standards to the maximum extent feasible; and (iii) The modification is in conformance with the provisions for non -conforming development and uses. (5) Roads, railways, and other essential public facilities that must cross shorelines and are necessary to access approved water -dependent development uses are subject to development standards in Chapter 8, section 090. (6) Stairs, ADA ramps, and walkways not greater than 5 feet in width or 18 inches in height above grade, not including railings. (7) Shared moorages shall not be subject to side yard setbacks when located on or adjacent to a property line shared in common by the project proponents and where appropriate easements or other legal instruments have been executed providing for ingress and egress to the facility Page 24 of 28 Attachment I 7.090 Use Matrix and Height Table: (a) Use Matrix: The table determines which shoreline modifications and shoreline uses are allowed or prohibited in each Shoreline Designation. (1) Except for the land uses prohibited in this table, land uses allowed in the underlying zoning are allowed in the Master Program, subject to the preference for water -oriented uses and subject to specific criteria for uses included in these regulations. This chart is not exhaustive of all uses addressed in the zoning code. When referring to unlisted uses, the code is referring neither to uses listed here nor in the zoning code. If a use is prohibited in the underlying zoning district, it is also prohibited within the shoreline. (2) Aquatic Uses are determined by the adjacent Designation and are limited to water -dependent uses and public access. (3) Land uses in the underlying zoning that require a Conditional Use Permit, require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. (4) Land uses are defined in BMC 20.42 the definitions section of the zoning code. Shoreline activities are defined in the definitions section of this code. (5) A use located within the "Isolated" designation shall not be governed by the performance standards within SMP Chapter 7, General Standards and Regulations; Chapter 8, Shoreline Use Regulations, or Chapter 9 Shoreline Modifications, however the Director may determine the proposed development or use is clearly contrary to the intent of this program, and relevant elements of this program may be applied. Development and land use within this designation shall be governed by all other regulations of BMC Title 20 Land Use. The mandatory permit and procedural requirements of this program contained in Chapter 5, Permit Administration, shall apply to said development or uses. KEY: ct CG X= Prohibited o P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use Cd a O Cd cp CG v U w ; o Cd Z3 o o vi U Unlisted Uses: I CU ICU CU CU I CU CU CU UPLAND USES Boat Sales, Storage and Repair X X X CU P P P Commercial uses such as but not limited to: general retail, general office, clinics, restaurants, drinking places, personal services athletic fields, restaurants, community X X X X P P P facilities, and entertainment uses. (See Zoning Code for specific allowed uses by zone) Page 25 of 28 Attachment I KEY: Ed —Cd X= Prohibited o P= Permitted CU= Conditional Use Cd O Cd C p v Cd v� U Community, Cultural, Educational Facilities CU P P P P P X Golf Courses X CU CU X X X X Hotels and Lodging X X X X P P X Industrial X X X X X X P Worship and Religious Facilities X CU P CU P P X PARKING & UTILITIES Parking Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction P P P P P P P Parking Not Serving Primary Use Within the Shoreline Jurisdiction X X X X CU CU CU Transportation facilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P Utilities that serve uses within the shoreline P P P P P P P RESIDENTIAL Adult Family Homes, Daycare, & Bed and Breakfasts CU P P X P P X Commercial/Residential mixed X X X X P P X Multi -Family Residential X X P X P P X Single Family Residential P P P XP XP P X SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS (All uses must meet applicable code criteria see Ch. 9) Boat Launch CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Aquaculture (including commercial, non- commercial, and geoduck) CU X X CU CU CU CU Ecological Restoration / Enhancement P P P P P P P Docks, Piers and Other In -Water Structures P P P P P P P Dredging P P P P P P P Flood Hazard Reduction P P P P P P P Mooring Buoys P P P P P P P Marinas CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Stabilization - New and Replacement P P P P P P P Stormwater Management Facilities P P P P P P P RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS Recreation, Non -Water -Oriented CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Recreation, Water -Oriented P P P P P P P Trails, public pedestrian and bicycle not P P P P P P P Page 26 of 28 Attachment I KEY: ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION Ed —Cd 35 feet Downtown Waterfront 175 feet Industrial X= Prohibited Multi -Family Residential 40 feet Over -Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation o Single Family Residential P= Permitted Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building physically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. CU= Conditional Use Cd O Cd C p v Cd vi U including overwater trails OUTRIGHTLY PROHIBITED USES Adult Entertainment X X X X X X X Agriculture X X X X X X X Automobile Sales Service & Repair X X X X X X X Figure 7.090 (b) Height Restrictions: Table 7.090(b) ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION HEIGHT Commercial 35 feet Downtown Waterfront 175 feet Industrial 35 feet Multi -Family Residential 40 feet Over -Water Structures (All Designations) 15 feet Recreation 35 feet Single Family Residential 30 -35' feet Urban Conservancy 25 feet Table Notes: The height limit is restricted to that portion of the building physically located within the shoreline jurisdiction. This table establishes the allowable height in each designation based on the type of use. All the applicable City standards still apply. In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of other regulations, the more restrictive shall prevail. Height measurement is defined in Chapter 3. (a) Heights in the commercial & industrial districts may be increased to the zoning district height limit through a Conditional Use Permit provided: (1) The increase does not substantially block views from upland residential properties; (2) Greater height is demonstrated to be needed for an essential element of an allowed use. (3) The project may be required to include compensating elements that substantially enhance the visual and physical public access to the shoreline. (4) It is demonstrated that No Net Loss of habitat function will be achieved. Page 27 of 28 Attachment I (b) Single Family Residential heights may be increased to 35' with the employment of a pitched roof when: (1) The pitch of the roof is not less than 6:12 (2) The pitched roof is oriented perpendicular to the shoreline. Minor gables or other roof features parallel to the shoreline may be permitted on a case by case basis provided such features do not extend past the pitched roof where views are intended to be preserved. (3) The pitched roof covers the entire structure. Page 28 of 28 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Mutual Aid Agreement for the Provision of Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services Study Session Date: COUNCIL MEETING Date: Department: Presenter: Phone: 3�? June 28, 2017 July 5, 2017 Fire Chief David Schmitt (360) 473-5380 SUMMARY: This is an agreement between the City of Bremerton and every fire district/department including Navy Region Northwest to provide mutual aid. The current mutual aid agreements are outdated. The agreements did not define the specific services rendered and are among specific entities. The new consolidated agreement is between all parties and specifically identifies the services rendered and received from each entity. ATTACHMENTS: Mutual Aid Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): N/A STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Mutual Aid Agreement; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action N68436-20170601-2066 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMMANDER, NAVY REGION NORTHWEST 1100 Hunley Road, Silverdale, WA 98315 AND CITY OF BREMERTON FIRE DEPARTMENT NORTH KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE CENTRAL KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE SOUTH KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT POULSBO FIRE, DISTRICT 18 KITSAP COUNTY, OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMNAVREG NW 7050 Ser N8/ This agreement, entered into this XX day of Month YYYY, by and between Commander, Navy Region Northwest (COMNAVREG NW), on behalf of Commanding Officer, Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), Bremerton Fire Department, North Kitsap Fire and Rescue, Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue, South Kitsap Fire and Rescue, Bainbridge Island Fire Department, Poulsbo Fire District 18, and Kitsap County Office Of The Fire Marshal, (hereinafter, "Kitsap County Fire Protection Agencies") acting pursuant to the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1856a, DoDI 6055.06, and OPNAVINST 11320.23G, is for the purpose of providing the benefits of mutual aid to the other entity, for the protection of life and property from wild land fires, as well as firefighting and fire suppression support. The anticipated support includes; but is not limited to; emergency services of basic medical support, basic and advanced life support, hazardous material containment and confinement, and special rescue events involving vehicular and water mishaps, and trench, building and confined space extractions. It is the policy of the Department of the Navy and COMNAVREG NW to enter into Mutual Aid Agreements (MAA) with non-federal fire departments located in the vicinity of naval installations whenever practicable. The parties have mutually concluded that it is desirable, practicable, and beneficial for the parties to enter into this MAA to document their willingness and ability to render assistance to one another in order to enhance the safety and security of the civilian community and naval facilities. FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Hereinafter, the term "COMNAVREG NW Fire and Emergency Services (F&ES)" refers specifically to the F&ES organization located on and servicing NBK. It is agreed that: 1. Upon request from Kitsap County Fire Protection Agencies, firefighting equipment and personnel of COMNAVREG NW F&ES will be dispatched; subject to operational requirements and resource availability; to any location within the area for which the Kitsap County Fire Protection Agencies are responsible to provide fire protection and emergency medical services. 2. Upon request from the COMNAVREG NW F&ES, firefighting equipment and personnel of the Kitsap County Fire Protection Agencies will be dispatched; subject to operational requirements and resource availability; to any location within the area for which COMNAVREG NW F&ES is responsible to provide fire protection and emergency medical services. 3. The party receiving a request for assistance shall endeavor to immediately inform the requesting party if assistance can or cannot be provided, and the type and quantity of resources available for dispatch. 4. Neither party shall hold the other party liable or at fault for being unable to respond to a request for assistance nor being able to respond in a timely manner, or responding with less than optimum equipment/personnel, as the parties understand that each is primarily and ultimately responsible for providing fire suppression and hazardous material incident response within their own jurisdictions. 5. The requesting and rendering of assistance under the terms of this MAA shall be per detailed operational plans and procedures developed by the individual parties. All parties shall work together to implement such plans and procedures in a manner compatible with their respective operational authorities. It is understood that the rendering of assistance under the terms of this MAA is not mandatory. 6. Under the authority of 15 U.S.C. § 2210 and 44 C.F.R § 151, Kitsap County Fire Protection Agencies are permitted to seek reimbursement for direct expenses and losses (defined as additional firefighting costs over normal operational costs) incurred in fighting fires on property under the jurisdiction of the United States Government. 2 N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 7. Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1856a, either party may seek reimbursement from the other for the costs incurred by it in providing services to the other party in response to a request for assistance. Further, all parties agree to waive all claims against every other party for compensation for any loss, damage, personal injury, or death occurring in consequence of the performance of this agreement. 8. All equipment used by any party in carrying out this agreement will; at the time of action; be owned by it. All personnel acting under this agreement will; at the time of such action; be an employee or volunteer member of the party. 9. Any dispatch of equipment and personnel pursuant to this agreement is subject to the following conditions: a. Any request for aid shall include the amount and type of equipment and personnel requested and specify the location where the equipment and personnel are to be dispatched. b. Upon receipt of a request for assistance, equipment and personnel will be immediately dispatched along with instructions as to their mission, use, and deployment in quantities and amounts that can be provided without jeopardizing the mission of the fire department providing the resources, per the judgment of the senior officer of the responding party. C. The senior officer of the requesting fire department shall normally assume full charge of the operations at the scene of the fire or other emergency. However, under procedures agreed to by the heads of the fire departments involved, a senior officer of a fire department furnishing assistance may assume responsibility for the coordination of the overall operations at the scene of the fire or emergency. d. A responding fire department shall be released by the requesting party when the services are no longer required or when the responding fire department is needed in its own jurisdiction. 10. Training: a. Whenever either party hosts fire protection training for its own personnel (host department) it may; to the maximum extent practicable and subject to its sole discretion; offer the training to personnel of the other party (guest department). Training will be provided on a space available basis only. 3 N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES b. The host department will not charge the guest department for training coursework provided pursuant to this MAA unless there is a cost that cannot be covered by the host department, such as an individual student fee/tuition or cost of a certificate. C. The guest department or its personnel will be responsible for the payment of any and all logistic costs necessary to attend training provided by the host department, including; but not limited to; lodging, meals, and travel expenses. d. This MAA is entered into voluntarily by the parties with no obligation on their part to either provide training or to participate in any offered training. e. The guest department is responsible for ensuring that its personnel observe all rules, regulations, and guidelines for training provided by the host department. Neither party shall hold another party liable or at fault for damage or injury incurred during joint training activities. f. The host department reserves the right to deny training to any guest department personnel who do not meet the prerequisites necessary to attend the offered training. 11. Execution of this Agreement: a. This MAA shall become effective upon the date annotated above, and shall remain in full force and effect for a period not to exceed five (5) years, or until cancelled by mutual agreement of the parties, or upon the provision of at least sixty (60) days advance written notice from the party desiring to terminate this agreement to the other. b. Following the 5 years, the agreement will either automatically terminate or be renegotiated. I N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 12. Signatures: North Kitsap Fire & Rescue: GILLIAN GREGORY Board Chair STEVEN NEUPERT Commissioner PATRICK PEARSON Commissioner Date FERNANDO ESPINOSA Date Commissioner Date WILSON STEWART Commissioner Date CINDY MORAN District Secretary Date Date 5 N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Central Kitsap Fire & Rescue: DICK WEST Board Chair NATE ANDREWS Commissioner BOB MUHLEMAN Commissioner Date KEN ERICKSON Commissioner Date DAVE FERGUS Commissioner Date KENNETH BAGWELL District Secretary 0 Date Date Date N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES South Kitsap Fire & Rescue: MIKE ESLAVA Board Chair DUSTY WILEY Commissioner DAVE GELSLEICHTER Commissioner Date GERALD PREUSS Commissioner Date PAUL GOLNIK Commissioner Date KENNETH BAGWELL District Secretary 7 Date Date Date N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Bainbridge Island Fire Department: SCOTT ISENMAN Board Chair Date YONGSUK CHO Commissioner BRUCE ALWARD Date FRITZ VON IBSCH Commissioner Commissioner TIM CAREY Date Commissioner 11 Date Date N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Poulsbo Fire Department: MARTIN SULLIVAN Board Chair DARRYL MILTON Commissioner JAMES INGALLS Commissioner Date DAVID ELLINGSON Date Commissioner Date CONRAD GREEN Commissioner Date LISE ALKIRE District Secretary 0 Date Date N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Kitsap County: ROBERT GELDER Commissioner EDWARD E. WOLF Commissioner Date CHARLOTTE GARRIDO Date Commissioner Date DANA DANIELS TINA R. ROBINSON Kitsap County Prosecutor 10 Date Date N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Kitsap County Office of the Fire Marshall: DAVID LYMAN Fire Marshall Date XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Title) Date 11 N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES City Of Bremerton: PATTY LENT Date SHANNON L. CORIN Mayor City Clerk ROGER A. LUBOVICH Date City Attorney 12 Date N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Commander, Navy Region Northwest EDWARD SCHRADER, CAPT, USN Date A. P. VERHOFSTADT, P.E. Date Commanding Officer Executive Director Naval Base Kitsap Commander, Navy Region Northwest 13 N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Points of Contact Commander, Navy Region Northwest: a. Fire Chief Kurt Waeschle (360) 396-0135, kurt.waeschle@navy.mil b. Regional Support Agreement Manager Mussetta Enos (360) 396-1935, Mussetta.enos@navy.mil North Kitsap Fire and Rescue: a. Fire Chief, Dan Smith (360) 297-3619, smith@nkfr.org b. Assistant Chief, Richard Lagrandeur (360) 297-3619, lagrandeur@nkfr.org Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue: a. Fire Chief Scott Weninger (360) 447-3556, sweninger@ckfr.orq b. Deputy Chief John Oliver (360) 447-3566, joliver@ckfr.org City of Bremerton: a. Fire Chief David Schmitt (360) 473-5381, david.schmitt@ci.bremerton.wa.us Bainbridge Island Fire Department: a. Fire Chief Hank Teran (206) 451-2032, hteran@bifd.o b. Finance Manager Ed Kaufman (206) 451-2037, ekaufman@bifd.org South Kitsap Fire and Rescue: a. Fire Chief Stephen Wright (360) 895-6501, SWright@skfr.or Poulsbo Fire District 18: a. Fire Chief Jeffrey Griffin 14 N68436-20170601-2066 FOR THE PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (360) 516-8813, jgriffin@poulsbofire.org b. Deputy Chief Bruce Peterson (360) 535-2510, bpeterson@poulsbofire.org Kitsap County Office of the Fire Marshall: a. Fire Marshall David Lyman (360) 337-5777, DLynam@co.kitsap.wa.us 15 N68436-20170601-2066 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with the Bremerton School District for a full-time School Resource Officer Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 5. 2017 Department: Presenter: Phone: Police Steven Strachan (360) 473-5224 SUMMARY: Provide a full-time School Resource Officer to work with the District and building administrators to provide a positive, safe environment for students and employees in 2017 and 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement with the Bremerton School District FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The Bremerton School District will pay the City $61,500 to offset the costs of the program for 2017, and $70,500 for 2018. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with the Bremerton School District for a full- time School Resource Officer; and to authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018 The City of Bremerton ("City") and the Bremerton School District 100-C ("District"), referred to collectively as the "Parties," enter into the following Agreement for security services: L Scope: The City will provide a full-time School Resource Officer (SRO) to assist faculty, staff, students, and families within the Bremerton School District. The SRO's primary service areas will be Bremerton High School and Mountain View Middle School. Assistance at other Bremerton Schools will be provided as requested. The SRO will assume regular police duties outside of the scheduled academic calendar. The SRO, along with the Chief of Police or his designee, will work with the District and building administrators to provide a positive, safe environment for students and employees. City officials will work with the District to plan and carry out in -services for staff which will help staff learn to identify safety risks and learn appropriate responses in unsafe situations. The SRO will work with individual students and groups of students to encourage positive behavioral choices. The SRO will at all times follow the procedures laid out by building principals. District and SRO will work closely to plan and implement specific activities designed to improve student behavioral choices at each site. All parties agree to meet together on a regularly scheduled basis. II. Term: This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the District shall pay the City of Bremerton Treasurer Sixty-one Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($61,500) in total for the calendar year of services for 2017. The District shall make payments of Forty-one Thousand Dollars ($41,000) on or before April 30, 2017 and Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($20,500) on or before September 30, 2017. The District shall pay Seventy Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($70,500) for the calendar year of 2018 as follows: Forty-eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000) on or before January 30th 2018 and Twenty-two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) on or before September 30, 2018. IV. Relationship of Parties: The SRO is an employee of the City of Bremerton Police Department and will answer to the Police Chief. V. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. School Resource Officer Page 1 of 3 VI. Nondiscrimination: The Parties shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation or disability. VII. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated without cause at any time by mutual agreement of the parties hereto, or by either party after 30 days following the other party's receipt of a written intent to terminate. Each party shall have the right to cancel and immediately terminate this Agreement without prior notice upon breach of the Agreement by the other party. VIII. Indemnification: The School District shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of any act or omission of the School District, its officers, agents, and employees or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of the Agreement; however, the School District shall not defend, indemnify or hold the City harmless from any claims, actions or suits for injury, damage or loss of any kind caused by either intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the City, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them. In any action for which the School District defends the City, the School District shall have the right to select counsel; however, the City may associate additional counsel at the City's own expense. If final judgment be rendered against the City and the School District and their respective officers, agents and employees, or any of them, the School District shall satisfy the same; however, in the event that the final judgment contains any award for injury, damage or loss of any kind caused by the intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the City, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, the City shall pay that portion of the judgment. In executing this Agreement, the City does not assume liability or responsibility for, or in any way release the School District from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of School District policies, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action, or administrative proceeding is commenced, in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such School District policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the School District shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the School District, the City or both, the School District shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. The City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the School District and its officers, directors, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, out of any act or omission of the City, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them in the performance of this Agreement; however, the City shall not defend, indemnify or hold the School District harmless from any claims, actions or suits for injury, damage or loss of any kind caused by either intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the School District, its officers, directors, agents and employees or any of them. In any action for which the City defends the School District, the City shall have the School Resource Officer Page 2 of 3 right to select counsel; however, the School District may associate additional counsel at the School District's own expense. If final judgment contains any award for injury or loss of any kind caused by the intentional act(s) or the sole negligence of the School District, its officers, directors, agents and employees or any of them, the School District shall pay that portion of the judgment. IX. Venue Stipulation: The laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to the construction and enforcement of this Agreement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement or any provision herein shall be instituted in Kitsap County, Washington. CITY OF BREMERTON PATTY LENT, Mayor Date Steven Strachan, Police Chief Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney School Resource Officer Page 3 of 3 Date BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 100-C By: Its: Date Board Member Date AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Purchase of a John Deere 450 KLT Crawler Dozer from Pape Machinery, Inc. of Tacoma, WA for the Forestry Division Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 5. 2017 Department: Presenter: Phone: PWU/ERR Milenka Hawkins -Bates (360) 473-5333 SUMMARY: The approved 2017 budget shows a replacement in the Forestry Department of a 1989 John Deere 4000 Dozer. The requested replacement is a John Deere 450 KLT Crawler Dozer per NJPA Contract in the amount of $117,924.44 including Washington State sales tax of 9%. The authorized dealer is Pape' Machinery, Inc. of Tacoma, WA. ATTACHMENTS: 1) NJPA Contract Quote No. 032515-JDC; 2) Justification FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Budgeted within the 510 fund at $200,000 STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the purchase of a John Deere 450 KLT Crawler Dozer per NJPA Contract in the amount of $117,924.44 including Washington State sales tax; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Pape' Machinery, Inc. 3607 - 20th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424 (253) 922-8718 (800) 621-7636 fax # (253) 922-3562 TO: CITY OF BREMERTON DATE: May 23, 2017 QTY PROPOSAL AMOUNT 1 NEW JOHN DEERE 450KLT CRAWLER DOZER EQUIPPED AS FOLLOWS: FINAL TIER 4 $112,649.00 ROPS CANOPY WITH HEATER, AIR SUSPENSION SEAT, ADDITIONAL WORK LIGHTS, 97" ALL HYDRAULIC BLADE, 16" SHOES ON SEALED AND LUBRICATED RAILS, ROCK GUARDS, ENGINE PRECLEANER, OIL SAMPLING PORTS, QUICK SERVICE ALL OTHER STANDARD EQUIPMENT NJPA CONTRACT # 032515-3DC 30% OFF LIST PRICE ($33,794.70) FACTORY FREIGHT AND DELIVERY TO BREMERTON SHOP $2,950.00 PRE DELIVERY AND 500 HOUR SERVICE $1,750.00 REAR SCREEN $942.00 NJPA FEE $1,126.49 OPTIONS 1 REAR RIPPER 5 POCKET 5 SHANK ADD $7,635.60 $7,635.60 1 PIN AND BRUSH RAKE INSTALLED ADD $5,275 $5,275.00 1 CAB WITH AC ADD $10,366.30 $10,366.30 1 JOHN DEERE 4000 SERIES WINCH POWER IN FREE SPOOL OUT ADD $13,051.50 $0.00 Sub Total: $108,899.69 RENTAL INVOICES without tax: Finance Options: (OAC, $500.00 Document fee) SALES TAX if applicable: 1 9.0% $9,024.75 CASH DOWN: $0.00 RENTAL INTEREST CHARGE: $0.00 F.E.T. $0.00 PAYOFF: $0.00 DOC FEE: $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL: $117,924.44 ENTER OUR ORDER FOR THE ABOVE: Purchaser Signature Title Date Conditions: Prices subject to change. Proposal subject to Management Approval. CHAD LANGIS TERRITORY MANAGER Manager Annroval O 00 a aD E c� aD U 0 70 z0 L M C O o U Q N � � V NC) }' � N H U co LL C 0 LO ' ) Q N v Q O ++ N Q to V s O C) i V 00 W a d LO N � a � o 00Q �0 m o U C E y i y N OCL m W ? O D • r ' Ci L Ur Z N 2 O (D mO coo Q M Ike 00 LL N 0 U 0 � o � N � U W LU QLami H O m cn s Lc).. 00 -• D ILL Cl) H o AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON B6 CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Agreement with Golden Eagle Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 Evergreens for the Removal and Sale of COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 5, 2017 Minor Forest Products Department: PW&U/Forestry Presenter: Pat Coxon Phone: (360)473-5448 SUMMARY: The current agreement with Golden Eagle Evergreens for the removal and sale of Minor Forest Products expires in June 2017, and a new agreement needs to be in place. The Forestry Division has negotiated directly with Golden Eagle Evergreens for the removal and sale of Minor Forest Products, as they have proven to be the most careful and skilled at what they do. Because the watershed is a unique and sensitive property, it is in the best interest of the City to negotiate directly with the company that has proven their skill and respect for the nature of the property. Staff believes that the proposed prices Golden Eagle will pay the City under this agreement are substantially consistent with fair market value. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Director Memorandum; 2) Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): $25,000 minimum annual payment to the City. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the agreement for the removal and sale of Minor Forest Products with Golden Eagle Evergreens; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action June 6, 2017 Director Memorandum Re: Sole Source Procurement, Minor Forest Products The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written finding for utilizing sole source procurement methodology for minor forest products harvesting and trimming. This is a unique service and involves the City's watershed, which is a sensitive area. The City will sell minor forest products under the agreement, but will also receive a service. The purpose of the "minor forest product" removal is the overall health of the forest and fire prevention. The City has used Golden Eagle and other contractors in the past. Golden Eagle has proven to be the most careful and skilled. Because the watershed is a unique and sensitive property, it is in the best interest of the City to negotiate directly with the company that has proven its skill and respect for the nature of the property. We believe that the proposed prices Golden Eagle will pay the City under this agreement are substantially consistent with fair market value. For instance, the DNR currently receives $0.08 per pound for cedar boughs, $0.06 per pound for white pine boughs, and $0.04 per pound for Douglas fir boughs. This contract pays $0.08 per pound for pine and cedar boughs and $0.04 for Douglas fir. The City may terminate this agreement at any time if circumstances change, with thirty days' notice. Z Chal A Martin, P.E. Director Public Works & Utilities 1 100 Oyster Bay Ave. N., Bremerton, WA 98312 * Phone (360) 473-5920 * Fax (360) 473-2330 Working for and with our residents to establish Bremerton as Puget Sound's most beautiful and livable waterfront cityl AGREEMENT FOR THE REMOVAL AND SALE OF MINOR FOREST PRODUCTS This is an agreement for the sale of minor forest products ("Agreement") made and entered into this day of 2017, by and between the City of Bremerton, hereinafter "City" and Golden Eagle Evergreens, hereinafter "Contractor", each referred to as a "Party" and collectively as "Parties". WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to provide harvest and sale of salal and huckleberry brush, Western White Pine and Western Red Cedar boughs, and other secondary forest products ("minor forest products") from selected Bremerton Water Utility lands to the Contractor, and to meet that purpose, the City grants permission to the Contractor to enter upon certain property owned by the City as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof for the Iimited purpose of harvesting these minor forest products; and WHEREAS, the removal of minor forest products is important to the health of the forest and aids in fire prevention. In addition, the sale of the minor forest products provides a source of income for the City; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained therein, and attached and incorporated and made a part thereof, the City and Contractor mutually agree that the Contractor shall provide harvest and payment for minor forest products to the City as follows: I. Scope. Contractor shall provide all performance of work for minor forest products harvest, marketing, and payment for harvested volume to the City, including all labor, materials, transportation, equipment, supplies, and services necessary for and reasonably incidental to the completion of all work as set out in the scope of work, which is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Il. Term. The tern of this Agreement commences on July 1, 2017 and terminates on June 30, 2020, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section X of this Agreement. Upon expiration of the term, the Parties may agree to extend the Agreement for three (3) years, with substantially the same terms and conditions except those set forth in Exhibit C, which may be negotiated based on fair market value. III. Payment. The Contractor agrees to pay the City according to the terms and at a time and in a manner provided for in the payment schedule attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. The payment schedule contained in Exhibit C may be periodically modified by mutual consent of the Parties based on market and harvest conditions. The Contractor shall make its harvest volume records available for inspection upon written request of the City. IV. Relationship of Parties: Contractor represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise. Contractor and its personnel are independent contractors and not employees of the City. Contractor and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's employees and other Contractors. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not Iimited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub -contractors of the Contractor. Contractor will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Contractor's agents, employees, representatives and sub -contractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work. As an independent contractor, Contractor is responsible for its own management. The City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of managerial control over Contractor or its personnel. V. Licenses & Taxes. Contractor shall possess a current Bremerton Business License and regulatory licenses required to fulfil Contractor's obligations under this Agreement. As an independent contractor, Contractor is responsible for payment of all taxes and licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Contractor. VI. Indemnification. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence. The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Contractor's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACTOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE_ TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. VII. Insurance: The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, sub -consultants or sub -contractors. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Contractor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: Automobile Liabilitv insurance with limits no less than $I,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single Iimit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operationstbroad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer's liability; and Worker's Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 Revised Code of Washington, and employer's liability with limits not less than $1,000,000. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which may be provided on a "claims -made" basis. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Contractor's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Contractor to advise the City's Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 6`h Street, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of contract. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. VIII. General Conditions: A. Entry Exceptions. No entry shall be allowed in the vicinity of water intakes, wellhead protection zones, or the Bremerton Police Range, see Exhibit A, unless authorized by the Forestry stab. No entry shall be allowed during Industrial Fire Precaution Levels (IFPLs) of III or higher. No entry shall be allowed during a High Threat Level as issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Contractor shall be responsible for checking the status of the above entry levels. No entry shall be allowed during inclement weather when vehicular travel on forest roads has the potential for damaging roads or streams. Access. Contractor is allowed entry for the above express purpose only and is allowed ingress and egress to specified work locations only by the most direct route. Harvesting and removal operations shall not cause damage to water courses, soils, roads, standing timber or reforested areas. No cedar products, other than boughs, or other merchantable material other than those specifically named, shall be cut or taken. Fire Precautions. No smoking on Water Utility forest lands during the closed season as defined by State of Washington regulations. No open fires at any time. All other closed season regulations as defined by the State of Washington regulations that pertain to this operation shall be observed. Firearms. No firearms are allowed in Contractor's possession or in Contractor's vehicle($) while on Water Utility lands. B. Reports & Infgrmation. When requested by the City, Contractor shall furnish periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Contractor shall maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). C. Entire Agreement This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. D. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. E. Mod'ficnt'an. This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. nNWSUVI ►{1,. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the Parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. City Address: Forestry Division Manager Bremerton Public Works & Utilities 1600 Oyster Bay Ave. S, Bremerton, WA 98312 Contractor Address: I.E.F. Corporation Golden Eagle Evergreens 870 W. Golden Pheasant Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 IX. Nondiscrimination: Contractor shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, or disability, or sexual orientation except for employment actions based on bona fied occupational qualification. X. Termination: This Agreement shall remain in force until completion and acceptance of the services, terminated by written instrument upon mutual consent, or by either Party for convenience or cause with 30 days written notice. Any notice by Contractor shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work current through the termination date. CITY OF BREMERTON By: its: Date: Approved as to form: CONTRACTOR By: its: Date: Attest: Bremerton City Attorney City Clerk 0 V a Ea�� �,r m` X G LCL v� Z3 00 9 9 0 s m S a a" S v ui v a 3 1=®AIIIA r N , 0 a M osu to . y cocm r aS kfi CD N D L�0 cn O N H o N 4� �dcrpp f V o .y sy o 0 Is soo-> oovs O N O LO r � N n � M N N M M Q g vi o r N N N M un co r 0I T ca cq r M EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF WORK 1. Permittee shall not disturb, hinder, interfere in or otherwise inhibit the operations of the City of Bremerton. The City of Bremerton reserves for itself the right to make any use of Property entered by Permittee. 2. Prior to entering upon the Property, Permittee shall obtain a Specialized Forest Products Harvesting Permit from the State of Washington and provide a copy to the City of Bremerton. Any person entering the Property shall be required to carry a copy of the Permit on his/her person at all times while on the Property. 3. Permittee shall not build any fire on the Property or on any other City of Bremerton property and shall report any fire or signs of fire seen while on any City of Bremerton property. Permittee shall use reasonable efforts to suppress any fire that is non -threatening. 4. General Rules and Regulations: (a) Harvesting and removing secondary forest products is allowed only during daylight hours. (b) City of Bremerton access permit must be displayed on the dash in aII authorized vehicles. (c) All gates must be kept locked upon entering and leaving Property. (d) Permittee agrees to report any illegal, unauthorized, or suspicious activities that they find on the Property to Forestry Manager or a City of Bremerton representative. (e) All vehicles must stay on existing roads, as shown on map (Exhibit A) and vehicles shall not pass `road closed' signs. (f) Access onto City of Bremerton Property is only allowed for the purpose of harvesting brush/bough/other secondary forest products as agreed to by both parties, and no other activities , (g) Harvesters must wear bright orange hats or vests during hunting season. 6. Permittee shall obtain all governmental approvals, licenses, and permits required in connection with the Permitted Activities. 7. Alterations and Maintenance. Permittee shall maintain the Property in a clean and undamaged state and shall make no alterations to the Property without prior written approval of the City of Bremerton. 8. Title and risk of loss to the specialized forest products harvested hereunder shall pass when the products are severed from the s t e m . 9. Signs. Owner shall allow Permittee to erect reasonable signs prohibiting the harvesting by others on the Property and Permittee shall remove said signs upon the termination of this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to review location and size of signs prior to placement. 10. Property Condition and Clean up. Permittee shall be responsible for removal and cleanup of all garbage, debris, and other materials associated with Permittee's use of the Property. At the time of termination or expiration of this Agreement, Permittee shall leave the Property in a neat and clean condition. 11. Owner or its assigns shall have the right to terminate this lease on 30 days notice and pro -rated refund of Agreement fee. EXHIBIT C PAYMENT SCHEDULE I . Agreed payment for salal and huckleberry brush, to be paid to the City of Bremerton is $25,000 per year. This is a required flat fee, not a minimum or maximum. 2. Payment to be made to the City by July 1, 2017 and thereafter by each July 1"during the tern of this Agreement. 3. Agreed payment for Western White Pine and Western Red Cedar boughs, to be paid to the City of Bremerton is 8 cents per pound, and Douglas fir boughs 4 cents per pound. 4. Payment is to be made to the City after boughs are weighed and before end of quarter they were harvested in. 5. Other secondary forest products that maybe harvested, which are agreed upon by both Parties, will be paid at the agreed fair market value to the City of Bremerton. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Commercial Line Extension Agreement with Puget Sound Energy for Pump Station KL -2 Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 COUNCIL MEETING Date: Julv 5. 2017 Department: Presenter: PW&U/WWTP Pat Coxon Phone: (360)473-5448 SUMMARY: The current electrical power at Pump Station KL -2 (1976 Price Road) is 480v corner grounded delta, and it needs to be upgraded to a true "Y" 277/480v connection.The existing power is inherently unsafe for staff to work on and has continued to cause motor/pump and generator issues at the station. We requested a proposal from PSE (Puget Sound Energy), and they provided a quote of $39,616.86 to install the new pad mounted transformer and electrical conductors. This electrical upgrade will ensure a much more efficient electrical system and it will be a lot safer to work on. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Puget Sound Energy Quote FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): This electrical upgrade at pump station KL -2 is budgeted through the 2017 WW CIP, and has a budget of $250,000. The total cost for the electrical upgrade is $39,616.86 STUDY SESSION AGENDA: x❑ No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the Commercial Line Extension Agreement with Puget Sound Energy for $39,616.86; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve Form Updated 01/07/15 ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action DocuSlgn Envelope ID 48FA083A-775D-117A-9E78-3F9B13ASCSA7 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Puget Sound energy PO. Boz 91034 Sellevue, WA 9811(19.9733 F'.com June 13, 2017 Ty Loper City of Bremerton 345 6th St, Ste 600 Bremerton, WA 98337 PSE Order No.: 105084652 Dear Ty Loper Thank you for the opportunity to provide electrical service for your project at 1976 Price Rd, Bremerton We look forward to serving you and your project's energy needs This agreement outlines the costs for performing the needed work per the attached PSE drawing and scope description These costs represent doing the work during normal working hours and exclude trenching and other excavation related work that is your responsibility to provide 3 phase primary underground line extension PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN — LINE EXTENSION Construction Costs $ 0.00 Transformer Charge +50.00 Less. Applicable Margin Allowance _S 0'00 Sub -Total (Eligible for partial refund under certa..n conditions) $0.00 —0) Permitting Fees $327.32 Relocation/removal of existing facilities +$3,670.91 Other Non -Refundable Construction +$ 35,618.63 Other Costs +$0.00 Costs Sub -Total (Non -Refundable Costs) =$39,616.86 (2) Amount to Be Billed tinder This Agreement =$39,616.86 (1+2) Customer Initials PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SERVICE CHARGES ARE N[1TJNCLUDED IN YOUR LINE EXTENSION Any applicable charges listed below will be billed after your servica line Installation. Current costs effective 09/112015 c„rh rl,nrt..a -0 h. hind .e.. 1..—.w.— o....t c......a r--.. Merl ia.xr M. 0.- c.. ".ae ee Sqrvice Type Base Cos Single wire run to handhole or transformer $54400 Each additional nun of wire(per circuits $126.05 Each additional trip beyond 1 trip due to customer requirements $372.62 per tri Hourly rate for additional engineering $162.54 Underground Temporary Service Charge $18600 Overhead Temporary Service Charge I $248.00 Overhead Permanent Service Charge 1 $694.39 Customer Initials DoouSign Envelope ID- 48FA083A-775D-417A-9E78-3F9B13A5C5A7 All costs are calculated in accordance with Puget Sound Energy's (PSE) Tariff G Rate Schedule 65 "Line Extensions', available at pse.com. This cost information is valid for 90 days from the date of this letter Should we receive your agreement after this period, the costs will be subject to changes The amount noted on this agreement Is an estimated cost. however PSE's Schedule 85 line extension tariff requires customers to pay the actual cost of construction PSE will determine the actual cost of the job once construction is complete. If the actual cost of the job is 10% above or below the estimated cost, an additional billing or refund will result to account for the difference PROJECT CHECKLIST 1. The attached PSE drawing shows the proposed scope of your project including the location of permanent, above ground electrical facilities required to provide electrical service to your project Fault current Information for transformers associated with your project is noted on the work sketch drawing. Please review this drawing as soon as possible to ensure there are no unforeseen conflicts between PSE's design and your project If you determine there are conflicts or if you identify a discrepancy while reviewing the drawing for your project, please contact meat the number below. 2. Additional construction -related information and information on metering and service entrance requirements are provided In PSE's Electric Service handbook for commercial projects. If you would like a copy of the handbook please contact me at the number below It is your responsibility to provide your project manager, site superintendent, andlor subcontractors with any relevant information from this correspondence that apply to their work In support of your project 3. The Excavation Requirements & Final Grade Certification must be signed by the project owner or designee and returned to me along with a signed copy of this letter and your payment. 4. If a project Is developed by a Limited -Liability Companies (LLC), you are required to provide contact information for all managing members in addition to a copy of your Master Business Application. This Information must also be provided prior to commencing construction of your project. 5. Transformers have been sized for diversified commercial loads only, and shall not be used for high load factor (continuous) temporary power uses, such as electric heaters for dry -out. Fault currents for non- residential transformers In your project are noted on the attached PSE design drawing. Please notify the PSE representative listed on this agreement immediately if you believe there are conflicts between this design and your project. It Is your responsibility to provide your project manager, site superintendent, and subcontractors with any information from this correspondence and it's attachments that apply to their work. POTENTIAL REFUNDS If PSE has not provided a Margin Allowance or if your Margin Allowance exceeds $75,000, PSE agrees to calculate and refund the Margin Allowance, subject to Schedule 85, up two (2) years after the line extension is energized. Other refunds associated with the line extension charge may be available if additional permanent service hook-ups are made to your line extension. These service hook-ups must be made within five (5) years of the date on which your project is initially energized Customers are responsible for making all refund requests. A refund may be requested one (1) time within six (6) years of the date on which your line extension Is initially energized. Your refund request should be directed to PSE's Customer Accounting Coordinators at schedule85refundreuuests aar)se.wm or your project manager. UNDERGROUND CONVERSIONS & STRFF_T LIGHTING COSTS This agreement does not cover underground conversions or street lighting To obtain these services please contact your project manager for further details or information. By signing this agreement you are authorizing PSE to continue with all the needed elements to complete your project. Please do not send payment with this agreement. Upon receipt of a signed agreement, PSE will bill you for the amount Indicated at the mailing address shown on the agreement PSE requires payment prior to firming up a construction date; delaying payment may result in a construction delay Changes in the scope of the project requested by you may result in either additional charges or refunds to the amount billed on this agreement. I have read and agree to the terms and conditions described in this agreement and the corresponding attachments. Ty Loper Customer Name: Customer Signature: Date: Regards Jeremy Paz, Project Manager 360-333-7056 jeremy.paz@pse.com DocuSi n Envelope ID: 48FA083A-775D-417A-9E78.3F9B13A5C5A7 fV PUGE 1 SOUND ENL-RGY Puget Sound Energy PA. Box 97034 Bc Ievue WA NW19734 PSEcom PSE ELECTRICAL FACILITIES EXCAVATION REQUIREMENTS AND FINAL GRADE CERTIFICATION PURPOSE This document is an agreement between Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and the OwnerlDeveloper (Developer) who is providing excavation for the installation of PSE's facilities. This document does not provide an easement for operating rights. If PSE determines that a recordable easement on the Developer's property or other property is necessary, it shall be the Developer's responsibility to obtain such easements in a form acceptable to PSE prior to construction. EXCAVATION REQUIREMENTS The requirements and conditions outlined below apply when you provide the excavation for PSE's electrical facilities as a condition of receiving electrical service for your project. If you need additional information, please call the PSE contact person listed below. 1. Developer is responsible for acquiring utility locates by calling One -Call, 1-800-424-5555 at least 48 hours (two full working week days) prior to digging. The excavation must meet the requirements of the Washington Administrative Code and Safety Standards. 2. Developer shall call the PSE contact person noted below for trench and route approval prior to starting excavation. 3. The electrical primary trench shall be excavated to provide a minimum of 36 inches of facility coverage, to a maximum trench depth of 48 inches. The electric service trench shall be excavated to provided a minimum of 24 inches of facility coverage, to a maximum trench depth of 36 inches. A 12 inch horizontal separation is required between PSE electrical facilities and other utilities within a joint trench. 4. All back fill must be free of sharp objects and construction debris. Developer shall provide and install sand bedding and shading for electrical facility protection as directed by PSE's contact person. Developer is responsible for any damages caused by improper backfill or compaction. 5. Developer agrees to maintain a minimum of 2 feet of horizontal clearance between PSE conduit, pipe or conductors and any foundation on Developer's property. 6. The vault excavation shall be dug to the dimensions noted on the attached work sketch. Vault holes shall have a solid level bottom with a 6 inch deep layer of crushed rock bedding. 7. Developer shall provide the excavation for PSE electrical facilities within the designed location. Developer shall identify and provide final grade, property lines, and utility easements prior to installation of PSE's electrical facilities. 8. Developer will be financially liable for the relocation of PSE's facilities which are inadequately covered, located outside the area where PSE has adequate operating rights, improperly graded inhibiting standard access and/or any damages resulting from dig -ins due to changes or variations in grade that are made after the installation of PSE's facilities. FINAL GRADE CERTIFICATION By my signing below, I certify that the electrical facilities work area shall be at final grade prior to excavation. I assume full responsibility for my excavation work and the resulting location of these facilities. I also agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Puget Sound Energy from all liability arising out of, or in connection with my work, including but not limited to all claims, losses, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, which result from my failure to excavate within easement areas or rights-of-way, or from digging without adequate rights on adjoining properties. Date: Ty Loper Owner or Developer: Signature: PLEASE PRtM Project Address: 1976 Price Rd, Bremerton PSE Contact person: Jeremy Paz, Project Manager PSE Work Order: 105084652 2606 08115 DocuSign Envelope ID 48FA083A-775D-417A-9E78-3F9B13A5C5A7 40 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Puget F� P.O. B+ Bellevue:, W w,„ PSE.com REQUIREMENTS FOR TRENCHING BY CUSTOMERS ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND/OR ON PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. EASEMENTS The following outlines most local governmental guidelines and company standards for trenching on a public right-of-way or Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE) easement. Any trenching performed by the customer, or their contractor, under a PSE permit or easement must comply with these requirements. 1. All trench construction must be performed by a Washington State licensed and bonded contractor. 2. Trench excavation, backfill, restoration, and facility placement must be coordinated with a PSE designated representative, and receive on-site approval by that representative, and local jurisdiction. 3. Right-of-way easement trenching and backfill must be performed during normal business hours, Monday through Friday. Same day excavation and backfill is required for all trenching. Job start notification to the local jurisdiction is the responsibility of Puget Sound Energy. Customer shall notify PSE Project Manager three working days prior to trenching. Penalties for failure to comply with this requirement will be bome by the customer. 4. If the job scope requires excavation beyond a single day, fencing and barricading must be installed around utility facilities exposed above the trench, if allowed, must be in accordance with local regulatory requirements. 5. PSE, all participating utilities, and One -Call Locate, must be notified a minimum of 72 hours in advance of the date and time for right-of-way trenching and facility placement. The One -Call Locate number is 1-800-424-5555. State law requires locating service notification. 6. Excavated material must remain clear of the roadway whenever possible. Excavation material, spoils, and debris shall be removed off-site each day, in accordance with local regulatory requirements. All erosion control requirements in accordance with local regulatory requirements are the responsibility of the customer. 7. Material excavated from the shoulder of the right-of-way shall be properly disposed, and replaced with select backfill material in accordance with local regulatory requirements. 8. Proper compaction is required to comply with local regulatory specifications. if the permit requires compaction testing, the cost of said testing is the responsibility of the customer. 9. All permit requirements, traffic control plans, traffic control and flagging shall meet local regulatory specifications and satisfaction. 10. In the event of failure to abide by the above requirements, PSE reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to assume trenching. In the event of delays due to equipment failure, PSE may assume trenching to meet regulatory and joint construction requirements. The customer is responsible for all trenching costs, and will reimburse the company for costs should PSE perform the trenching. (initial) 11. The customer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless PSE from all liability (including reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of, or in connection with, the above mentioned trenching activities. (initial) R 08-23-2015 DocuSign Envelope ID 48FA083A-775D-417A-gE78-3F9B13A5C5A7 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Puget Sound Energy P.O. Box 97034 Bellevue. WA 88009-9734 PSE.com Job Number: 105084652 Trench Location: 1976 Price Rd, Bremerton Customer Name: Ty Loper I AGREE TO ADHERE TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS Customer Signature Date Title R 08-23-2015 AGENDA BILL �� CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Professional Services Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 Agreement with BMcConsulting LLC for COUNCIL MEETING Date: July 5, 2017 Lobbying Services Department: Mayor Presenter: Patty Lent Phone: (360)473-5266 SUMMARY: This Consulting Agreement with BMcConsulting LLC will provide lobbying services from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement; and Exhibit A (Scope of Work) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The contract extension would require a budget adjustment in the amount of $24,000 in the Non -Departmental, General Fund Budget. There is sufficient fund balance in the General Fund to cover the additional expenditure. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: 0 No Presentation ❑ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ General Business ❑ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor to extend the Professional Services Agreement with BMcConsulting LLC for substantially the same terms and conditions as presented; and increase the 2017 Non - Departmental, General Fund expenditure budget by $24,000. COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ Approve ❑ Deny ❑ Table ❑ Continue ❑ No Action Form Updated 01/07/15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BMcConsulting LLC The City of Bremerton ("City") and BMcConsulting LLC ("Consultant"), referred to collectively as the "Parties," enter into the following Agreement for professional services: L Scope: The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of Work, including any attachments thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference herein. The Scope of Work may be modified only pursuant to Section VII.H of this Agreement. If the Scope of Work provides for unspecified additional services such services shall only be performed upon the express written request of the City. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time such services are performed. II. Term: The City and the Consultant agree that the term of this Agreement will be for one year beginning on July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2018. This Agreement may be terminated pursuant to Section IX. III. Compensation: In consideration of the services provided pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall pay Consultant $4,000.00 per month from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 and $5,000.00 per month from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018. The Consultant shall submit regular billing statements detailing work performed and amount charged on each task or portion thereof. The descriptions shall conform to and fall within the categories set out in the Scope of Work and/or Fee Schedule. Upon receipt of a conforming billing statement, the City shall promptly process payment. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to prioritize scoped work and accelerate and/or delay work tasks under the time frame set forth in Section II herein. The Consultant's labor rates and billing fees shall be as delineated in Exhibit C. Consultant shall not perform work beyond the Scope of Work, nor shall be compensated for such work, unless the Scope of Work or amount of compensation is modified pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall only be compensated for additional services if requested pursuant to Section I and, if not otherwise provided, such compensation shall be in accordance with Exhibit C. If a billing statement does not conform to this Agreement, the City may withhold payment until the statement is brought into compliance. Such withholding does not relieve Consultant of its obligations under this Agreement. IV. Relationship of Parties: Consultant represents that it is skilled in the matters addressed in the Scope of Work and is performing independent functions and responsibilities within its field of expertise. Consultant and its personnel are independent Consultants and not employees of the City. Consultant and its personnel have no authority to bind the City or to control the City's employees and other Consultants. None of the benefits provided by the City to its Bremerton/BMcConsulting LLC Lobbying Services Page 1 of 6 employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub -Consultants of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and sub -Consultants during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent Consultants to perform the same or similar work. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for its own management. The City's administration and enforcement of this Agreement shall not be deemed an exercise of managerial control over Consultant or its personnel. As an independent Consultant, Consultant is responsible for payment of all taxes and licensing fees necessary to perform its obligations under this Agreement. These taxes and fees include but are not limited to State industrial insurance, Business & Occupation, State professional licensing, and City business licensing. If any taxes or fees due the City have been declared delinquent, the City may withhold the delinquent amount, plus any additional charges arising from the delinquency, from any payments due Consultant. V. Indemnification: A. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's sole negligence, unless Consultant is conducting work pursuant to Subsection B below. The City's review or acceptance of any of the work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. B. Architects, Engineers and Any Other Professional Listed In and Performing Services Defined in RCW 4.24.115. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that Consultant's services provided pursuant to this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. VI. Insurance: The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in BremertonBMcConsulting LLC Lobbying Services Page 2 of 6 connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub -consultants or sub -Consultants. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence/claim. 2. Workers Compensation insurance as statutorily required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. All required policies shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which may be provided on a "claims -made" basis. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of an endorsement that is acceptable to the City, which names the City as an additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies and endorsements. The City further reserves the right to reject any unacceptable policies and/or endorsements. The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Consultant's insurance shall be primary and non-contributory insurance as respects the City and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the City for claims arising out of any operations, liabilities and obligations to which coverage applies. It shall be an affirmative obligation upon Consultant to advise the City's Risk Manager by fax at (360) 473-5161, or by certified mail, return receipt requested to City of Bremerton, attn: Risk Management, 345 6 t Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 within two days of the cancellation, suspension or substantive change of any insurance policy set out herein, and failure to do so shall be construed to be a breach of this Agreement. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. VII. General Conditions: A. Reports and Information: When requested by the City, Consultant shall furnish periodic reports and documents on matters covered by this Agreement. The reports and documents shall be furnished in the time and form requested. Consultant shall maintain Bremerton/BMcConsulting LLC Lobbying Services Page 3 of 6 accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to substantiate all billed amounts. B. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents: Original documents, drawings, designs and reports, including those in electronic format, developed under this Agreement are the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant's possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's office in , Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. All documents, including all reports, drawings, specifications, computer software or other items prepared or furnished by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service with respect to the project and are the property of the City. Any reuse by the City for other than the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk. C. Use of Photographs and Images. Consultant shall not use or distribute photographs or images depicting City officials, personnel, property, or equipment whether prepared by Consultant or provided by City without prior written consent of the City. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent. D. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk: Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and sub -consultants in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. E. Place of Work: The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in , Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. F. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, and the Parties acknowledge that there are no other agreements, written or oral, that have not been set forth in the text of this Agreement. BremertonBMcConsulting LLC Lobbying Services Page 4 of 6 G. Severability: Should any part of this Agreement be found void, the balance of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. H. Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written instrument signed by both Parties. I. Written Notices: All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. City Address Consultant Address J. Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be deemed waiver of any other right or power. K. Non -Waiver of Breach: The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. L. Compliance with Laws: Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement. M. Choice of Law and Venue: This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of Washington. Any judicial action to resolve disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Kitsap County Superior Court. N. Attorneys' Fees: In the event of litigation to enforce any of the terms or provisions herein, each party shall pay all its own costs and attorney's fees. O. Assignment: Any assignment of this agreement by the Consultant without the written consent of the City shall be void. VIII. Nondiscrimination: Consultant shall not discriminate in employment or services to the public on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation except for employment actions based on bona fide occupational qualification. IX. Termination: Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, subject to those obligations set forth in this Agreement Bremerton/BMcConsulting LLC Lobbying Services Page 5 of 6 which arise upon or survive termination. Any Notice by Consultant shall include a report showing the status of all items listed in the Scope of Work current through the termination date. A. Rights Upon Termination: In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. X. Suspension & Debarment. For contracts involving Federal funding, Consultant hereby certifies, by signing this agreement, that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. Consultant shall provide immediate written notice to the City if at any time it learns that it is or has become ineligible for certification. Should Consultant enter into a covered transaction with another firm, Consultant agrees by signing this agreement that it will verify that the firm with whom it intends to do business is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, excluded or disqualified. CITY OF BREMERTON CONSULTANT its: its: Date: Date: Approved as to form: Bremerton City Attorney R:\Legal\Legal\Contracts\EXECUTIVE\BMcConsulting 2017.doc BremertonBMcConsulting LLC Lobbying Services Page 6 of 6 Attest: City Clerk EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK Consultant shall provide the City of Bremerton with the following governmental affairs services: • Work with the Mayor and City Council to develop a holistic legislative agenda. • Meet with Legislators to promote city legislative agenda items. • Develop 2018 legislative agenda in conjunction with the Bremerton Mayor and City Council. • Develop and lobby for Transportation and Capital Budget funding requests identified by the Council and the Mayor. • Lobby the Legislature on all issues developed under the legislative program. • Lobby defensively on legislation that is introduced that would negatively impact the City. • BMcConsulting would register as the City's lobbyist with the Public Disclosure Commission. • Attend and, as needed, help organize, West Sound Alliance meetings to ensure City of Bremerton interests are addressed. • Attend/monitor Puget Sound Coordinating Council to ensure City of Bremerton interests are addresses. If Consultant is hired to support the City of Bremerton during session, the following will be included to the scope of work: • Provide the Mayor and City Council with a weekly legislative report during the legislative session that includes weekly hearing schedules and a summary of bills important to the City. Identify legislation that would impact the City of Bremerton specifically. • Attend all relevant legislative hearings. • Develop talking points and testimony, as needed, for meetings with Legislators and testimony before legislative committees; help coordinate such visits with city officials. 1 INFORMATION ONLY ITEM CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL C 1 SUBJECT: Findings and Recommended Study Session Date: June 28, 2017 Strategies of the Bremerton Parking Study Presenter: Shannon Corin, City Clerk; and Jeff Arango, Project Manager with BERK Consulting Phone: (360) 473-5323 SUMMARY: Jeff Arango, Project Manager with BERK Consulting will be presenting the findings and recommended strategies of the Parking Study. HANDOUTS: The Parking Study Report is available online at www.bremertonwa.gov/parkingstudy STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ❑ No Presentation 0 Full Presentation Form Created 5/4/15 F -0 N F— z W F— Z O V N H Z w w l7 D w J 3 0 z Y V Q d U(D o cz o a; um ,1i � U d � � o x •� 0 ,� �+ � c� N .moi 5 U U Q dl -1 i ~.w o M � V 2 ? cn U C o � Q o a� ll d U U U d E0 i ~.w M � V 2 o � Q o a� ll ^^ d y ?1 W ¢ d x U �ma�°,c7Qzw" i 2 o � Q o a� d y ?1 W ¢ d x X U1 0 1j, cz Q u o o CJ o C rq u p p 3 C vOOi ° o O Q u o w° 'bA •5 ou cz p p C `" `"75 5 CZ 75 v "75 y P. p 41CNC `a 75 C M C o u 275 ° w b l -q w " o ty Q w o O U s, nn s, p b nn 1911 v�v bA 'N C CZ bz C Z,� un ate.+ tin .0 � u �' o ; r. cl ' a mZ ����w��mo��� c", O � F- V V ° U U a ca O C � N N un p a° o o 0 �% b o 'b n p p cz Z Z � 'j.�p� p p b cud bA cz O •G CC o p tincC s, �a p o O e°n -d ;� Ucz H° a v ° w b 1j, r M xx W v s x w 0 b O U ° N i w OU •bA O N •°n '� ate.+ N � y N � °; � � � '� bA G � ° w O ° O O x. o z 'xs, o s, s", o Q tD o d u ca a u u own u o cz °' s, r � b o v ,b C wcz b cca �� cca 4� y O ca P!N bA o r p Q p! cz P. b C �^ cV cVu ~p O v� cV �cz u ° u c' u o " �" ° ° U V u O °? O •� O Or�O b ' " a s, C w p uq uq O u u 9 " a w " pi w C d N u u O p c� '+' N bA C N bA b O v u b u t d u Z211 u a m X.O.., .b . y U P. u O b C " u cz u x. a o u 'a y u ° a, �4 v o o - O u o�n N'l7 oU M •iva � o � ti > i) ° a p b bn cn v 7C O rl 5 OQj • c V bA �E v 0 b V ° v on -o4 r 00 a � con • o o o Qj H 5 F ° r o cQ 0 0 o ,010 o o abz > o a° v b oo�n v :5 a v Y o N b o on o° d o' p N °� v o o Q o v ° 7S (; -t-, onv N —o N c°n coffin N 0 5 O oa •� p v O p ° a b Q) $, � ,� o cn •� � � cin � v � � � G,, � •� con ,� a � � °: o a, � ° ;� � � � '� '� � � ° °" '° -o V°7Sa v F� o ca a u F_% 0 V bA E " 14-, 7C ° C) -d v v v `° 314 0 v u v a m v o N ° v 0 O 7s q O 'V N bA tvy c bD a; V N 81 Q., 7V� It v v a o 7s o b N N bA bz bz V bz bbz bA ,v ,Sti �, 'y 'C •N O ° N •t-. %V'r xuw V O a v o a U o a bn ' U S N bn bb db o a v Y N ^ u y N y N aj a b g o ti o a aj • ° H u a $ $ a bb bb bz a �bn v � `� v `� h c�a v v��� � o� o q� v� •5 0 7s u 3 a b a a N V C VV W " J OA L V Z o Q p o ~ ZC Z Q Q Z b a a N VMS An V O N O ZQ \' gyp: o o : E Zl: v E � a >. v C rt E � a � o � v /- 3AbN01 Nlli$b I �o � o x M V I LL 3A N3dd ,, M x x 3AV d31S3HD O o 41 Ln o o o 0 0 0 0 V O a Ln W S: Q o Q V C VV W o J J (/ L OVI Q o Q 0 v VMS V a 0 IT o 0 0 O o m 0 0 0 0 m 0 z z .2 0 r•� xx w .o o. It0 r Cl) N N N ON ol Lf) Cl) N O V to to Lr) V o oc) 1-1 0 V) W x 7 00 L x w q H b d b v o v � v 3 v v 0 0 o v Q) H 14 z 0 V) W x 7 00 L x w $ \ \ / q u ¢ \ \ \ \ �\ C \ u / \ � .5 7_- \ tA \ \ \ { \ .j u zD \ \ Z � _ zj \\ ' - � { ( / \ e / ( ( / ) 7 ` \ 2)c(z/ t ( 2 /i \ \ \ \ LL.(a ./} $ \ 3 Cyt o m o a a N 1 m vN o. o v N °O rU M cs• ° o\° \ o\° \ o\° \ o\° \ o\° ° °° i 00 N N O 'n O c N n n 00 'D a, 'n N M Ln fl 'i M N M c M n n Y n \O W N cn o0 o0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o c \ off° off° off° off° \ \ \ oe c '..;..,. ro M Io cn 7 00 cn 00 'n o Lo o O N ro Lo �o N O Lo N N n N n M 0 00 Ln ��rn ro N 0 0 vn Co O1 7 M Lo � WVu oIn 'y \c O °M° N M N 00 N N M 01N \O o h o. M N m Q, N h 'n o co of N N \o oo cn o0 V .Y N 61 Y1 61 rt O u O N u u u U ro pq U 7 h U U "d u cud ca O i 4 ppw a~i p w R U cd ~ m Cd U w u N q U v u v q Cd cqv W b W U v p W ( j Nv p v U 0. w w w c~v w Cd u p p U R b h bA L.' R ,4; ,cd Ly v o �v o a~iy N w R x U C7 C7 a° a° cd U w C7 w x Ocn W � U � v o o m CP Q � v m r o a O u o u � W O m �A 3 Cyt o m o a a N 1 m vN o. o v N °O rU M cs• ° o\° \ o\° \ o\° \ o\° \ o\° ° °° i 00 N N O 'n O c N n n 00 'D a, 'n N M Ln fl 'i M N M c M n n Y n \O W N cn o0 o0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o c \ off° off° off° off° \ \ \ oe c '..;..,. ro M Io cn 7 00 cn 00 'n o Lo o O N ro Lo �o N O Lo N N n N n M 0 00 Ln ��rn ro N 0 0 vn Co O1 7 M Lo � WVu oIn 'y \c O °M° N M N 00 N N M 01N \O o h o. M N m Q, N h 'n o co of N N \o oo cn o0 V .Y N 61 Y1 61 rt O u O N u u u U ro pq U 7 h U U "d u cud ca O i 4 ppw a~i p w R U cd ~ m Cd U w u N q U v u v q Cd cqv W b W U v p W ( j Nv p v U 0. w w w c~v w Cd u p p U R b h bA L.' R ,4; ,cd Ly v o �v o a~iy N w R x U C7 C7 a° a° cd U w C7 w x Ocn W § � _© c � � U � \ � UM � § VMS a 0 o 0 i I o I I N L W I E II z I- 0 0 0 0 o m 0 C 0 V O a O N d 2 0 2 E -L R c O � � w D - 00 � \ Q UM � d 2 0 2 E -L R 0 V 0 0 w c 0 .4,� 7 cl Q v Q 0 V N 0 V Q) v C 0 a-+ O C N G � x Ln_ A/ Y W U x Wcn° M N N cz i N °' o m m U N O C u o ;, o o 0 N U O n cz a � w o X. cz O014. a yo cz p w a 'u y O SC p bA c V 0 0 w c 0 .4,� 7 cl Q v Q 0 V N 0 V Q) v C 0 a-+ O C N G � x Ln_ A/ Y W U x Wcn° M N I r. / \ / _ \ 7 § , , & / / { •� 2 ( \ \ » \ ® \ \ ` \ 2 2 c A \ \ ) % / \ g a \ ± ®\ \ / (1) \ % • § b. cz : ( a q q ( & \ \ \ ( / \ \ \ \ y ƒ A % }\ . \ 5 a 2 cz /lz 5 \ 7 § , , & tA W C� W Q F— tA E N 0 ° p 0 .................... • U o 'b W 0 vUi c N p bA p b ° • 1 a. N Q 5 d N 0 ' p W p cz • � • un as � p bA s, O ° P" ° b • " ai Z o p � p "3 •� � wo � � ° sem, � •� � p _ b ° (D w U U C c tD W p • � � o 0 0 0 0 't7 P. .� ~a • 1 � 'b a' o � "" � • W � � sp, .o d � sp, ° p 0 .................... N U W 0 vUi c N �> bA b ° • 1 a. N Q 5 d N 0 ' p W p cz • � a • as a; O ° P" ° b • " ai Z o p � "3 •� � wo � � ° sem, � •� � p _ b ° (D w U U C c tD W p P. ~a • 1 � 'b a' o � "" � t o o o ° • a v 04 U czE/) cz `�� Q tea, o s, o a • a..) O a) .ate' o .- cq ;:, • b u b o Qp o ° amiU, ° p 0 .................... N U W O b • 1 a. N Q 5 d N 0 ' p W p cz • � a • as a; O ° P" ° b • " ai Z o p � "3 •� � wo � � ° sem, � •� o _ b ° (D w U U c tD W p C ~a • 1 � 'b a' o � "" � t o o o ° • a v 04 U czE/) cz ° 0 N U W O b • 1 a. N Q 5 d N 0 ' p W p cz • � a • as a; 1 ° • " � Z o p � "3 • � • ° �; o _ a, O ° 0 N U s, 3 N Q 5 d N 0 ' p W 1 ° • " an "3 • � y ° �; ° c oi Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report Bremerton Parking Study Introduction................................................................................................................................1 BremertonParking Inventory......................................................................................................1 Off -Street Parking....................................................................................................................................... 1 On -Street Parking Inventory......................................................................................................................4 On -Street Restrictions and Permits.............................................................................................6 ResidentialPermit Program........................................................................................................8 Downtown Regional Center Subarea Plan Parking Goals.........................................................9 Audit of Parking Management, Regulations, and Agreements................................................10 Code and Design Standards Audit.........................................................................................................10 Impark Enforcement Service Agreement................................................................................................15 ParkingAgreements..................................................................................................................................16 Parking Revenues and Expenditures........................................................................................17 Enforcement Costs and Revenues............................................................................................................18 Introduction This existing conditions report provides a summary of the baseline conditions of the parking system in Bremerton and supports the Bremerton Parking Study efforts. An inventory of the current on -street and off-street parking facilities is included, as well as an audit of policies and regulations that currently guide the parking system in Bremerton. Bremerton Parking Inventory This inventory includes sections on Downtown Bremerton's on - and off-street parking facilities and select residential neighborhoods. OFF-STREET PARKING The City of Bremerton has 13A off-street lots in the Downtown Subarea. These surface and structured parking lots serve employees, residents, and retail businesses throughout the city. The following section describes the off-street facilities currently available in Bremerton. All Off -Street Facilities Aside from the five City -owned parking lots and garages, there are 129 privately -owned parking lots in Downtown Bremerton, for a total of 13A lots. Of these lots, 58 charge for parking, 75 are free, and one is restricted to Federal employees. Exhibit 1 shows the locations of all lots, distinguished by paid, unpaid, and restricted status. Paid lots are mainly concentrated around the ferry terminal and near Downtown employment, particularly at Naval Base Kitsap and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. mm" 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report HBO Exhibit 1. Downtown Bremerton Off -Street Facilities, Cost Status Free Parking Paid Parking _ Restricted Parking - Federal Downtown Subarea Boundary Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 ■ ■ f ♦ ♦♦ N Esn, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community :11I JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 2 City -Owned Facilities The City owns five off-street facilities. A map of the City -owned facilities is shown in Exhibit 2. Current parking rates and operating agreements for parking facilities in the City of Bremerton are listed in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 2. Downtown Bremerton Off -Street Parking Facilities, by Ownership ........... I ■ ■■■diLlar■■ ■ Ownership - Private Public ■ MEN 0 ■ .: Downtown Subarea Boundary Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 A Esn HERE. DeLorme, Mapmy I ndi a CL Open StreetMap contrituutors, and the GIS user community :111 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 1 Exhibit 3. Bremerton Parking Rates City Lot 95 (4r" Street and Park Avenue) City Lot 98 (800 5'" Street) Harborside Garage (15}Street and Washington Avenue) ■ 0-10 Hours: $6.25 ■ 10-24 Hours: $8.00 ■ 0-10 Hours: $5.50 ■ 10-24 Hours: $6.50 ■ 0-2 Hours: $3.00 ■ 2-4 Hours: $6.00 ■ 4-1 2 Hours: $8.00 ■ Extended Rates (12-72 Hours): $11.00 - $48.00 ■ Extended Rates (4-7 Days): $64.00 - $112.00 Park Plaza Garage ■ 0-2 Hours: $3.00 (622 Burwell Street and 300 Park Avenue) ■ 2-4 Hours: $5.00 ■ 4-1 2 Hours: $7.00 ■ Evenings (5PM — 1 2AM): $3.00 ■ Extended Rates (12-72 Hours): $10.00 - $42.00 ■ Extended Rates (4-7 Days): $56.00 - $196.00 ■ *Free Parking on Level P2 for SeeFilm Bremerton Cinema patrons Washington Garage (405 Washington Avenue) Source: City of Bremerton, 2016 ON -STREET PARKING INVENTORY ■ 0-3 Hours: $2.50 ■ 3-10 Hours: $6.00 ■ 10-24 Hours: $7.00 ■ Evenings (5PM — 2AM): $3.00 ■ Weekends (8AM — 8PM): $5.00 ■ Extended Rates (24-48 Hours): $12.00 ■ Extended Rates (48-72 Hours): $18.00 The City of Bremerton has over 1,000 on -street parking spaces within the Downtown Subarea boundaries. Exhibit 4 shows the on -street inventory for the residential data collection area. 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 4 Exhibit 4. Downtown Bremerton On -Street Parking Inventory ■ N ■ Ln ■ ■ r-1 ■ ■■ ■ 0 LO ■ 01 ■ v 4 6 2 10 qr ri � ■ Z,,� ►�' ■ to00 ti a ■ 16 6 4 ' 3 ,. o � ' 5 00 5 5 12 ■ tt ' ■ ~ 6TH 12M ■ ■ • r 16 14 24 n 29 :■ NJ 12 Ll 2:2 3 22 a 9 ■ ■ 19 4 14 Al ■ ' 30 y , ■ ■ M � � ■ 5 � * ♦ On -Street Parking Inventory, By Block �+ ;'Downtown Sub -Area Plan Boundary (DSAP) Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017; Kimley Horn, 2017 :11I JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report Exhibit 5. Residential Collection Area On -Street Parking Inventory 3 8 4 0 17 15 i LM o N Utv r -4N a. DO 00 2 B 7 45 4 LM n 8 n 9�� J 1__� N 5 00 LJ LTLoa HIM 7 v 1216 9 38 1 1 17 14 18 m 14 12 8 J 12 N I NI MI NNII 14 N On -Street Inventory (by block) A Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017; Kimley Horn, 2017 On -Street Restrictions and Permits There are a variety of restrictions associated with the on -street spaces in Downtown, which include time restrictions between 30 minutes and 10 hours in length, which are enforced during various days and hours depending on the restriction zone. See Exhibit 6 for the specific locations of the various restriction areas. ",4,11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report UP Exhibit 6. Downtown On -Street Restrictions ..% . N ■ two ■ ■ • PM 0 ■ ♦ ■ • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ • ■ ■ n • ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a • ■ • ■ ■ -P■ ■ �ior ■ ■ r Downtown Sub -Area Plan Boundary (DSAP) 30 minute parking ■ • 1 hour parking, 7 days a week "■ 2 hour parking, 5am - 7pm, M -F •♦♦� i w 2 hour parking, 6am - 5pm, M -F i 2 hour parking, 7 days a week 3 hour parking, 4am to 5pm, 7 days a week • •• 3 hour parking, 7 days a week 10 hour parking (Paid) Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 There are two streets downtown that have paid long-term on -street parking. The rates charged at those metered spaces are identified in Exhibit 7 below. "14,11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report II 7 UP Exhibit 7. Bremerton Parking Rates On -Street Parking (Varies, Downtown) Source: City of Bremerton, 2016 Residential Permit Program ■ 4th Street 0-10 Hours: $5.75 ■ 5'h Street 0-10 Hours: $5.00 Residential Parking permits are offered to those living in residential areas that are impacted by heavy commuter parking. Permits are issued on a yearly basis. Two permits and one visitor pass per address are available for free. Visitor permits are also issued and offer temporary parking options for guests of residents, repair vehicles, care providers, and others needing access to the residential neighborhoods. Exhibit 8 provides an audit of the parking regulations related to restricted parking zones in the City of Bremerton. Exhibit 8. Parking Zones Audit Nonresidential ■ New Restricted Parking Zone areas may be initiated by the Director of Restricted Parking Public Works and Utilities, or designee, after finding that the change is in Zones — Zone Creation the best interest of the community or by motion, resolution, or ordinance of the City Council. Residential Restricted ■ New Restricted Parking Zone areas or changes to boundaries may be Parking Zones — Zone initiated by a verified petition of property owners, decision of the Director Creation of Public Works and Utilities following a finding that the change is in the best interest of the community, or by motion, resolution, or ordinance of the City Council. ■ Permit only zones cannot be created or changed. Permit only zones existing before January 1, 2013 are grandfathered in and may remain in effect. Residential Parking ■ Vehicles 22 feet or less and 10,000 pounds or less. Permits —Eligibility ■ Legal residents of an existing residential zone with vehicles registered in their name or vehicles in their control. ■ Persons who own or lease a commercial property within a residential restricted parking zone. ■ Permits are issued for one year and renewed at expiration, assuming residency requirements are still met. ■ Limit of two parking permits per dwelling/business location, unless parking supply allows a greater number, not to exceed four permits per dwelling. ■ Not subject to hourly time restrictions but are subject to five-day parking restrictions. mm" 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report II 8 HBO Visitor Parking Permits ■ Visitor permits are allowed for residents of a residential restricted parking - Eligibility zone for temporary use of visitors to the residence (visiting guests, babysitters, repair persons, and similar). ■ No residence or business can be issued more than one visitor permit. ■ The resident controls the use of the permit. ■ Visitor parking does not allow for parking in excess of seven days in any 30-day period. ■ Visitor permit must be used for parking within one block of the residence. ■ Visitor permits are only allowed to be used by visitor vehicles, not resident vehicles. ■ Not subject to hourly time restrictions but are subject to five-day parking restrictions. Service Parking Permits ■ Service parking permits can be issued on a short-term temporary basis. - Eligibility ■ May be issued to landlords or contractors for building improvements, individuals contractors, or other short-term use for providing services to a residence or business in a parking zone. ■ Service permits cannot be issued for a period longer than 30 days unless it is determined warranted by the Director. ■ Not subject to hourly time restrictions but are subject to five-day parking restrictions. Source: City of Bremerton Municipal Code, Title 10 Downtown Regional Center Subarea Plan Parking Goals The City of Bremerton adopted a Subarea Plan for the Downtown area in 2007. The Plan creates a long-term vision for revitalization and regeneration of Downtown and supports the City's Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. Goals for strategic parking management, as well as long- term and short-term strategies are identified in the Plan. Section 3.9 Strategic Parking Management ■ Parking standards should not be a barrier to development. ■ Standards include a more flexible set of requirements to make better use of locational advantage of Downtown to transit and employment centers. ■ Alternative parking methods such as satellite parking and shared parking are encouraged. ■ Design standards apply to parking lot and garage design. ■ Implement a Parking Management Strategy with the following goals: o Provide enough parking to sustain economic viability and vitality of commercial areas and discourage commuting by single occupant vehicles Parking requirements shouldn't create "411 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report II 9 NO barriers to development. o Make use of limited street space through balancing competing uses and protecting neighborhoods from the impacts of overflow traffic and parking. o Create a park -once strategy for Downtown. Long-term parking strategies include: ■ Increasing transit use, walking, and cycling and decreasing dependence on cars. ■ Create flexible parking standards which are updated every three to five years and based on market demand. ■ Utilize centralized structures to serve the Downtown and allow for parking structures as parking in -lieu for new development meeting other Employment District goals. ■ Introduce residential parking permits in heavily impacted areas to reduce parking spillover from commuters. ■ Develop better communication between the City, employers, and Kitsap Transit. ■ Prioritize active uses over surface parking. Short-term parking strategies: ■ Manage the most convenient spaces as community assets that are prioritized for turnover and have convenient payment options, re -invest parking revenues within the district, and identify projects in partnership with local merchants. ■ Establish better oversight of parking problems, particularly through a parking committee. ■ Communicate parking options to the development community. ■ Improve and standardize parking way -finding. Audit of Parking Management, Regulations, and Agreements Parking regulations guide the quantity and quality of parking for new development through setting parking minimums, design standards, environmental regulations, and more. As part of the existing conditions analysis, an audit of the existing code and agreements was completed. The audit is a useful tool to consider what is working and where there are targeted areas for potential regulatory changes. CODE AND DESIGN STANDARDS AUDIT Exhibit 9 provides an audit of parking regulations in the City of Bremerton. :111 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 10 Exhibit 9. Parking Regulations Audit Off-street Parking - ■ Residential: A minimum of 1-2 per dwelling unit, based on unit type and Minimum Requirements number of bedrooms. 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report ■ Non -Residential Business/Commercial: 1 per 75-600 sq ft, depending on the use. ■ Non -Residential Eating/Drinking: 1 per 150 sq ft for those less than A,000 sq ft and 20 per 100 sq ft per those greater than A,000 sq ft. ■ Non -Residential Entertainment: 1 per 100 sq ft, 5 per bowling lane, 1 per A fixed seats, or 15 per 1,000 sq ft. ■ Non -Residential Industrial: 1 per 600-3,000 sq ft. ■ Non -Residential Lodging: 1 per 1-2 guest rooms. ■ Non -Residential Medical/Dental: 1 per 150-600 sq ft or 1.8 per overnight bed. ■ Non -Residential Recreational: 10 per 1,000 sq ft or 2 per court, or 5 per swim facility. ■ Non -Residential Public: 1 per A00 sq ft or 1 per A seats. ■ Non -Residential Educational: 1 per 5-10 students, 2-6 per classroom, or 2 per 1,000 sq ft. ■ Non -Residential Automobile: 1 per 200-3,000 sq ft. ■ There are no minimum parking requirements for ground floor retail uses fronting main street. ■ There are lower requirements for pedestrian -oriented retail. Off -Street Parking ■ Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront — Non-residential uses: Minimum Requirements — l; Maximum A spaces per 1,000 sq ft (the first 3,000 sq ft of ground floor Downtown Subarea retail are exempt from off-street parking requirements). Plan ■ Downtown Core and Downtown Waterfront— Residential uses: .5 per dwelling unit. ■ Multifamily Residential (1 +2), Neighborhood Business Overlay, Employment District, Pedestrian Oriented Mixed -Use District, and Warren Avenue Corridor — Residential: 1 per dwelling unit. ■ Residential (R-20) — Residential: 1 per dwelling unit for up to 2 bedrooms;2 per dwelling unit for 3 or more bedrooms. ■ Neighborhood Business Overlay — Commercial: 1 per 1,000 sq ft for commercial over 2,000 sq ft; No parking required for less than 2,000 sq ft. ■ Neighborhood Business Overlay — Live -work business: No parking if less than 1,500 sq ft. ■ Employment District, Pedestrian Oriented Mixed -Use, and Warren Avenue Corridor — Non -Residential: 1-3 per 1,000 sq ft over 5,000 sq ft; No parking required for less than 5,000 sq ft. ■ Additional design standards for the Downtown area parking uses are included in the Subarea Plan. 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 12 ■ Multifamily Residential (1 +2): for lots with more than 50 percent development coverage, structured parking is required and parking can be reduced by the Director of Community Development if it meets certain criteria. ■ In the Neighborhood Business Overlay, required parking may be located in satellite locations within the Downtown Subarea Plan area. ■ In the Employment District, Pedestrian-Oriented Mixed-Use District, and Warren Avenue Corridor, shared parking and satellite parking are allowed. Other required ■ For nonresidential uses and residential development with six or more parking dwellings, motorcycle spaces and bicycle facilities should be provided. Shared/Joint Use ■ Shared driveways are encouraged for abutting lots whenever practical. Parking ■ Joint use parking facilities can be granted if the principal use is located within an 800-foot radius of the joint parking facility, the use is not separated from the joint parking by an arterial street, there will be no conflict between the two uses and their hours of operation, and the joint use parking facility will remain available. Paid Parking ■ On-street paid parking exists on sections of 2nd Street, 4th Street, Burwell Street, and Fifth Street. ■ City-managed paid garage parking exists in three locations. ■ City-managed paid surface lot parking exists in two locations. On-Street Restrictions ■ 30-Minute Parking: Vehicles allowed 30-minute parking for in and out visits to local businesses. ■ Load/Unload 15-Minute Parking: Passenger and commercial vehicles are allowed 15 minutes to actively load and unload. ■ Load/Unload: Passenger and commercial vehicles are allowed to actively load and unload. ■ 4-Hour Maximum Disabled Parking: Any vehicle may park in accordance with the time restrictions. Vehicles with a disabled placard can park up to 4 hours regardless of the time restriction. ■ Disabled Parking: Parking for disabled vehicles displaying a disabled placard or license plate. ■ No Parking/Temporary No Parking: No vehicle may park during the times posted. ■ No Repark Same Named Street: No vehicle may repark on the some named street on the same day. ■ Other on-street restrictions include no parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, no parking within 30 feet of a stop sign, no parking within 20 feet of crosswalks, no parking within 5 feet of driveways, and no parking on or over the sidewalk or planting strip areas. ■ No parking on the street for more than five days. Parking for Disabled ■ Those with a valid special disabled person's card, decal, or license plate Persons can park in metered spaces for free and in non-metered spaces for unlimited periods of time. 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 12 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 13 ■ Disabled persons parking spaces are reserved for those who meet eligibility. ■ Where signed, a four-hour time restriction is imposed on parking spaces dedicated to disabled persons. Violations & ■ Time limited parking in the Downtown Core prohibits re-parking on the Enforcement same side of the same named street during the same calendar day. ■ In residential parking zones, a vehicle cannot remain parked or re-parked within four blocks of the same location within the zone during the same day, except with a permit for the zone. ■ No vehicle can be parked in the same location for more than five days. ■ No RV, boat, vessel, trailer, semi-trailer, or combination exceeding 22 feet or 10,000 pounds can park on any street unless they are engaged in business and cannot be parked on any street for longer than 2A hours unless authorized. ■ City police, other law enforcement officers, and parking enforcement officers may enforce the parking regulations. ■ A process is established in BMC 1 0.10.1 10 for impounding vehicles in violation of the regulations in BMC 10.10. ■ Additional violation and enforcements in BMC 10.10.070. ■ Vehicle will be impounded if someone has three or more outstanding parking tickets that are more than A5 days old and is parked on-street after notice. ■ If someone has six or more parking tickets over 90 days, the vehicle will be impounded if parked on-street in the Downtown Core within 90 days of notice. Parking as a Primary ■ Parking structures are permitted as a primary use in the Business Core (BC) or Principal Use zone and Downtown Core (DC) zone. ■ Structured parking with other permitted uses are allowed in the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone. ■ Parking is allowed as a principal use in the Institutional (INST) zone. Commercial surface ■ Commercial surface parking lots that are not serving a permitted use are parking prohibited in the Downtown Core (DC) zone and the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone. ■ Stand-alone commercial parking not serving a permitted use is not allowed in the Downtown Waterfront (DW) zone. Parking Reduction ■ Bicycle Storage: One less stall per six bicycle spaces are allowed if the bicycle storage is covered and secured, with a maximum reduction of five percent of required parking. For a greater reduction of parking, additional bicycle storage and showers and lockers must be provided. ■ Transit Improvements: Up to 15 percent reduction if improvements to the local transit system are made by the applicant for residential developments with ten or more units or commercial development with 50 or more employees, assuming a transit facility is located within 1,500 feet. 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 13 ■ Designated Land Use Centers: The minimum parking can be reduced by up to ten spaces if a center zone designation results in a significant increase in the parking requirement. ■ Group Residential Facility: A reduction can be authorized if there is indication that the requirements are excessive due to factors such as residents' age, ability to drive, or mental and physical abilities and disabilities. Development Bonus ■ In the General Commercial (GC) zone, District Center Core (DCC), Employment Center (EC) and Neighborhood Business (NB) zone, a development that provides 50 percent of off-street parking underground or within a building can receive a bonus on the maximum base area. Electric Vehicle ■ Electric vehicle charging stations are encouraged. Residential Parking Rental, lease, or other use of parking spaces for commercial purposes in Rental residential zones is not allowed. Satellite Parking ■ Off-street parking requirements can be satisfied with the approval of satellite parking. ■ The facility must be located within 400 feet of the property. ■ The facility cannot be on property zoned for low density residential. ■ Limits on the time of day that the satellite facility is used may be a condition of approval. Change of Use or ■ In the Downtown Core (DC), parking is exempt from off-street parking and Rehab of Existing landscaping requirements if a structure is not enlarged, extended or Building structurally altered in a way that would require additional parking. Source: City of Bremerton Municipal Code, Title 20; Title 10; Downtown Regional Subarea Plan, 2007 Exhibit 10 highlights design standards for parking in Bremerton. Exhibit 10. Parking Design Standards Residential Parking ■ Minimum width (SF): 8 ft Design Standards ■ Minimum depth (SF): 18 ft ■ Maximum driveway width: 20 ft ■ Minimum Side Yard Setback: 3 ft ■ Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 3 ft ■ Minimum Alley Setback: 0 ft ■ Minimum Front Yard Setback: Not located within the front yard setback area for the zone, except within driveways. Non -Residential ■ Minimum Front Yard Setback: 10 ft Parking Design Standards ■Minimum Side/Rear Yard Setback: 5-10 ft 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 14 ■ Where no low density residential is adjacent, setbacks can be reduced to 0 ft if a solid fence or wall is provided and a landscaped island with at least IMPARK ENFORCEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT The City of Bremerton has a contract with Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. (Impark) to enforce parking for on -street parking and off-street public lots, including the five facilities identified in Exhibit 3. The existing contract began in 201 1, following completion of a contract with Diamond Parking, and was extended through 2019. The scope of work in Impark's contract includes: ■ Recruiting and selecting enforcement personnel ■ Communicating with the Police Department ■ Maintaining parking facilities ■ Issuing parking tickets • Collecting money from meters as well as daily, monthly, and event lots ■ Depositing parking revenues to the designated City account daily "All JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report II 15 UP 45 sq ft of area is provided. Additional Design ■ GC, DCC, and NB zones — On-site parking should be in the rear or side of Regulations buildings and not occupy more than fifty percent of the site frontage facing arterial street frontage. ■ GC, DCC, and NB zones— Avoid installing parking on street corners and screen parking located between the building frontage and street corners. Additional Parking ■ GC — Parking access should be from adjacent non -principal arterial streets Access Regulations or from driveways off the principal arterial. ■ GC, DCC, and NB zones— Driveways providing access to parking should be well marked. ■ DCC and NB zones — Access should be prioritized first from an alley, then from a local street, then from a non -principal arterial street, and then from a principal arterial street. Downtown Subarea ■ Facades should be treated with high quality materials and given vertical Plan Parking Garage articulation. Design Principles ■ Facades should visually screen cars at street level and sloping floors should not be visible on the exterior of the building. ■ Retail storefront uses should be on the street level along the principal street and are encouraged along all adjacent streets. ■ Pedestrian entries should be clearly visible and easy to locate. ■ Lighting for safety and comfort should be balanced with avoidance of glare and spill out on to adjacent streets. ■ Off-street bicycle parking is encouraged. Source: City of Bremerton Municipal Code, Title 20; Title 10 Downtown Regional Subarea Plan, 2007 IMPARK ENFORCEMENT SERVICE AGREEMENT The City of Bremerton has a contract with Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. (Impark) to enforce parking for on -street parking and off-street public lots, including the five facilities identified in Exhibit 3. The existing contract began in 201 1, following completion of a contract with Diamond Parking, and was extended through 2019. The scope of work in Impark's contract includes: ■ Recruiting and selecting enforcement personnel ■ Communicating with the Police Department ■ Maintaining parking facilities ■ Issuing parking tickets • Collecting money from meters as well as daily, monthly, and event lots ■ Depositing parking revenues to the designated City account daily "All JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report II 15 UP PARKING AGREEMENTS Exhibit 1 1 summarizes the parking agreements that the City holds with local vendors and organizations. Exhibit 11. City Parking Agreements Bremerton Cinema, LLC ■ Leases 50 full time parking spaces in the Park Avenue 2018 Plaza garage year round. ■ Leases an additional 50 parking spaces for all Fridays in May through August 1 5th and November 1 8th through January 15}. ■ Leases a total combined 200 parking spaces from 5 PM to 2 AM during the week and 10 AM to 2 AM on Saturdays and Sundays, with the specific location of the spaces mutually agreed on and can be changed. Jimmy Johns/ Mundy Jo ■ Leases four full time parking spaces in a City surface 2023 Holdings LLC lot on the corner of 4th Street and Park Avenue. Anthony's/Mad ■ Grants a perpetual easement to Anthony's for use of Perpetual Anthony's, Inc portions of the City's garage. easement ■ Grants non-exclusive access rights to the garage, including ramps, walkways, stairways, passenger and freight elevators, garbage, recycling, loading areas, and ingress/egress. ■ Gives exclusive parking rights to Anthony's for 80 parking stalls. Bremer Trust Bremerton commits at least 150 parking spaces for up 2017 to ten years at the redevelopment on the J.C. Penney parking lot. Bremerton Housing ■ The Housing Authority is authorized to purchase permits 2012; continued Authority for $45/month from Impark for the City's Municipal on a month -to - garage at 451 Washington. month basis ■ Permits are for level 3 or above. Downtown Business ■ Downtown Business Association is authorized to 2012; continued Association purchase monthly parking permits for employers and on a month -to - employees of downtown businesses for $40/month in month basis the 451 Washington municipal garage. ■ Permits are for the roof levels. Kitsap County Health ■ Kitsap County Health District may purchase monthly 2012; continued District parking permits for $45/month for employees in the on a month -to - 451 Washington municipal garage. month basis ■ Permits are for level 3 or above. Housing Kitsap ■ Housing Kitsap may purchase 36 monthly parking 2012; continued permits for $45/month for employees in the 451 on a month -to - Washington municipal garage. month basis 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 16 Kitsap Entrepreneurial ■ Kitsap Entrepreneurial Center may purchase monthly 2012; continued Center parking permits for $45/month for employees. on a month -to - 0 Permits are for level 8 (the roof). month basis Kitsap Transit ■ Kitsap Transit purchased and owns 116.5 spaces in the 2006; continued Conference Center garage, all on Level 1. on a month -to- ■ Kitsap Transit has 75 dedicated and designated month basis spaces. ■ Kitsap Transit receives 8 percent of the net income or loss from the general public parking pool net revenue. ■ City of Bremerton owns the remaining 401.5 spaces. Olympic ESD 114 ■ Olympic ESD may purchase monthly parking permits 2012; continued for $45/month for employees at the 451 Washington on a month -to - municipal garage. month basis ■ Permits are for Level 3. Port of Bremerton ■ Port of Bremerton may purchase permits for the 451 2012; continued Washington municipal garage for $6/24 -hour period on a month -to - or $14/54 -hour period for marine customers. month basis Parking Revenues and Expenditures The parking system in Bremerton is funded through the following revenue sources: ■ Parking fees. These fees include parking permits from the residential system, on -street parking fees, and off-street parking fees from the surface lots and garages that offer monthly and daily parking options. ■ Parking Infractions. Revenues from parking enforcement. ■ Transfers from other funds. Between 2009 and 2016, there was only one year (201 1) with transfers -in from other funds. From 2004 to 2008, an average $376,282 was transferred into the parking system fund from other funds annually. Operating expenditures for parking include utilities, repairs, security, and taxes. Additional annual expenditures to the parking system include the cost of enforcement, insurance, and capital improvements. Exhibit 12 shows the revenues dedicated to the parking system annually from 2004 through 2015, with operating expenditures, net operating income, other expenditures (including debt service), and parking system net income. "All JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report II 17 UP Exhibit 12. Revenues and Expenditures (2004 - 2015) 2004 $1,467,154 $126,655 $1,340,499 $1,077,096 $263,403 2005 $1,899,276 $246,663 $1,652,613 $1,637,054 $15,559 2006 $1,990,241 $200,046 $1,790,195 $1,854,582 -$64,387 2007 $1,839,008 $260,463 $1,578,545 $1,674,595 -$96,050 2008 $1,400,312 $260,463 $1,578,545 $1,674,595 -$96,050 2009 $1,303,040 $195,792 $1,107,248 $810,240 $297,008 2010 $1,173,361 $240,796 $932,565 $873,707 $58,858 2011* $10,833,630 $555,840 $10,277,790 $10,377,226 -$99,436 2012 $1,136,138 $301,019 $835,119 $891,598 -$56,479 2013 $1,280,127 $376,073 $904,054 $920,901 -$16,847 2014 $1,383,094 $337,821 $1,045,273 $1,001,908 $43,365 2015 $1,544,385 $ 378,744 $1,165,641 $1,013,865 $151,776 Compound Annual Growth Rate 0% 10% -1 % -1% -5% *On February 20, 2003, the City issued a $10.8 million principal amount of Weekly Rate Demand Revenue Bonds for the Kitsap Regional Conference Center Parking Garage. The bonds were secured by a letter of credit with Bank of America that initially expired in 2006 and was extended. The extension expired in August of 201 1 and was replaced by issuance of a $9,675,000 limited tax general obligation bond anticipation note that was due on August 1, 2013. In May or 2013, the City refunded the bond anticipation note and issued $8,965,000 in limited tax general obligation bonds. Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 In 2017, the Downtown and residential parking enforcement program revenue budget is $1.6 million, with parking infractions expected to account for $250,000 of the 2017 revenues. Expenditures in 2017 include $934,000 for operations and maintenance, $25,000 in capital (to be used for lighting improvements), $503,000 for debt service payments, and a transfer out of $170,000 to debt service. ENFORCEMENT COSTS AND REVENUES Between 2004 and 2016, Bremerton's parking system has seen a rise in enforcement costs and a decrease in revenues from infractions. This could be due to a number of factors, including a growth in violations both in number and geographic area which puts added pressure on enforcement resources, as well as a decrease in revenues as enforcement succeeds in curbing behaviors and bringing down violations. Between 2004 and 2015, on average, enforcement cost the City $317,580. Infraction revenues, on average, have been $285,283 over the same years. Exhibit 13 shows the growth in 11 JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 18 enforcement costs and the trend in infraction revenues. Exhibit 13. Enforcement costs and Revenues (2004 — 2015) $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $ 300,000 $250,000 / $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 of` yo o`' Ob o1 yo 0 ,yo , yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo Enforcement Costs Infractions Revenues Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 :11I JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix A. Existing Conditions Report 11 19 Appendix B. Data Collection Summary Bremerton Parking Study Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Downtown Subarea Inventory and Data Collection Summary...................................................2 DowntownFindings...................................................................................................................................... 2 DowntownOn -Street Inventory................................................................................................................. 4 DowntownOff -Street Inventory................................................................................................................ 5 DowntownPeak Occupancy....................................................................................................................... 6 DowntownOn -Street Data.........................................................................................................................7 DowntownOff -Street Data......................................................................................................................1 1 DowntownVehicle Source Data..............................................................................................................12 Residential Neighborhoods Inventory and Data Collection Summary.....................................13 ResidentialFindings...................................................................................................................................13 ResidentialOn -Street Inventory..............................................................................................................14 ResidentialOn -Street Data......................................................................................................................15 Parkand Ride Data...................................................................................................................18 Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones Attachment B. Downtown Data Collection Maps Attachment C. Residential Data Collection Maps Attachment D. Vehicle Source Maps — Downtown and Residential Collection Areas June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 0 Introduction The City of Bremerton is conducting a parking study to better understand parking conditions in Downtown Bremerton and in residential neighborhoods (See Exhibit 1). An inventory of on and off-street parking facilities has been completed for the Downtown Subarea and for on -street facilities in selected residential neighborhoods. Off-street facilities are those that provide public parking for various parking users, including for non-residential land uses. Residential off-street parking is not included except for a few selected sites in the Downtown. A first round of data collection was completed on October 1 1'" (on -street) and 12'" (off-street) in 2016 for the Downtown Subarea. The collection covered the area within the Downtown Subarea Plan boundary and included both on -and off-street counts. Data collection provides information about behavior, capacity, and violations on a site-specific scale. On -street counts were completed every hour between 7 AM and 7 PM to capture the shorter -term nature of on -street parking users. Off-street parking, which includes surface lots and structured parking, was collected three times throughout the day (morning, noon, and evening) to capture the longer-term and commuter nature of off-street parking users. A second round of data collection was completed on March 8, 2017 for on -street facilities in residential neighborhoods anticipated to be the most impacted by employee and commuter parking spillover. Exhibit 1. Parking Study Area Context Source: BERK, 2017 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 1 Downtown Bremerton during evening rush hour Downtown Subarea Inventory and Data Collection Summary The following subsections describe the overall findings for data collection in the Downtown Subarea, and summarize the on- and off-street parking data. More detailed analysis is available in Attachment A and B. DOWNTOWN FINDINGS Confirmation of significant vehicle movements known as the "Bremerton Shuffle." During the on -street data collection period, a total of 510 vehicle movements were observed in Downtown and confirm what is commonly referred to as the "Bremerton Shuffle." These vehicle movements are likely the result of long-term users seeking to avoid time limits in Downtown. June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 2 ■ Many on -street blocks have occupancy at 85% and above. The "85% rule" is a common metric used to assess and manage demand for on -street parking. Parking occupancy of 85% or below ensures there is at least one stall available on each block. Occupancies above 85% indicate opportunities to further manage parking demand by decreasing time limits, increasing pricing, or using other strategies. ■ Off-street parking has high occupancies in commuter parking areas. Parking lots serving commuters, particularly those near the Naval Base and Shipyard, have high occupancies. Since these lots are intended to support longer-term daily parking, high occupancies aren't necessarily a problem. However, the high demand and price for parking is preventing the redevelopment of these surface lots for more active Downtown uses consistent with the City's Downtown Subarea Plan. ■ Park and ride facilities have available parking. Several Kitsap County Park and Rides have available parking stalls at peak utilization. Increased park and ride use and transit access have the potential to reduce parking demand and resulting traffic impacts in Downtown. 11 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 3 DOWNTOWN ON -STREET INVENTORY The Downtown Subarea in Bremerton has over 1,000 on -street parking stalls. Exhibit 2 shows the block faces and the number of parking stalls in the Downtown study area. Exhibit 2. Downtown Subarea On -Street Parking Inventory r ■ x .,n 1 �.. s ■ % 2 4 6 2 • I•I r.a,,,f�� ,7,,0 C Do IL• • 16 ID 6 4 ` r■r■ ' •3 00 • 3 ^� :5 00 5 5 • 12 N r ■ F ■ ■r' � I � 12 m ■ 13 _ 16 ;," 14 24 " ■ ,n 29 • UD . ■ ' g 12 12 22 11 9 ■ 19 4 F 14 ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■r■■■■■■■■■■r■■♦ 30 ■ ■ a " 5 • r■ • • s s r + On -Street Parking Inventory, By Blockj 114h •• "'r Downtown Sub -Area Plan Boundary (DSAP) Source: ESRI, 2017; BERK, 2017 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 4 DOWNTOWN OFF-STREET INVENTORY Bremerton has almost 1 1,000 non-residential off-street parking stalls located in the Downtown study area and the surrounding areas to the north and west of Downtown, including Olympic College and the area by Kitsap Way and Callow Avenue. Residential off-street parking was not included in the inventory or data collection. Within the Downtown Subarea alone, there are 6,340 parking stalls. Exhibit 3 shows the location of off-street parking within Downtown, which was the data collection area for this project. Exhibit 3. Downtown and Surrounding Area Off -Street Parking Inventory AMM Ownership - Private Public 4...: Downtown Subarea Boundary ■ r ♦ r IF I . •♦ i♦ Y Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; PSRC, 2016; BERK, 2016 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 5 DOWNTOWN PEAK OCCUPANCY The data collection completed in October 2016 shows that at peak occupancy, which occurred mid-day, both on- and off-street parking located closest to Naval Base Kitsap and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard was heavily used (See Exhibit 4). On -street occupancy mid-day was also high in parts of the retail core of Downtown, as well as on some of the more residential streets. The large parking garages tended to be highly occupied, while the surface lots used for customer parking and restricted for certain uses, located further from the core, saw more of mix in occupancy during the mid-day peak. This may be due to their proximity to jobs, college, and retail opportunities. In addition, the pricing (or lack of) for certain lots and street stalls may be contributing to the observed patterns. Exhibit 5 shows the summary of system -wide peak occupancy. On -street peak was observed at the noon collection period and off-street peak was Exhibit 4. Peak Occupancy Map N Peak Occupancy = 0%-55% 55% -70% _A�n F � L_J I I77-1111IF-t ■ `� _ ■ 8rerr�erron�. -EW Peak Occupancy: On -Street (12 PM) & Off -Street (11 AM -3 PM) observed during the 1 1 AM to 3 PM collection Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 period. Overall, peak occupancy results show that there is capacity available in the parking system, although some specific areas are experiencing high occupancies and additional strategies may be needed to alleviate demand in these locations. Exhibit 5. Peak Occupancy Summary Off-street 12 PM 65% 35% On -street 12 PM 68% 32% Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016; BERK, 2017 M Surface parking lots are a prominent land use in Downtown Bremerton June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 6 DOWNTOWN ON -STREET DATA Exhibit 6. On -Street Duration Downtown On -Street Duration Parking duration data shows the amount of time a vehicle is parked in a parking stall. In addition, it allows for the comparison to a parking restriction (for example, two-hour parking) to assess the number of potential violations. Exhibit 6 shows the average vehicle duration by block in the Downtown area for the parking collection period on October 1 1 th. There are some areas closer to Evergreen Rotary Park and the college where vehicles are parked for over six hours (red). On average, vehicles tended to park in the core retail area of Downtown for under two hours. More frequent turnover typically helps support retail spending and local businesses. However, due to the frequent vehicle movements in the Downtown, those vehicles may be used for commuting and not for local shopping Downtown. Parking Duration (Hours) -°-' A �. ,-2 2-4 �_.. 4-5 I I� r �P Ori -Street Average Parking Duration Collected Tuesday, October 11th. 2016 (7 AM - 7 PM) Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 7 Downtown On -Street Occupancy On -street occupancy data helps with understanding the relationship between the supply and demand of parking in specific locations. On -street occupancy in Downtown was collected hourly to get a sense of the changes throughout the day. On average, throughout the collection period, occupancy was between about 50 and 70 percent during the October 2016 collection period, with two peaks at 68% shown at mid-day and the end of the work day (See Exhibit 7). Peak occupancy at the noon collection period is shown by location in Exhibit 8. The map indicates that although not all hours of the day had occupancy challenges, during peak there were many blocks with occupancy above 85 percent, which is considered the threshold for needing additional supply. Areas showing high occupancy tended to be outside of the Downtown retail core, as well as close to the ferry terminal. Attachment B shows the occupancy data for each collection period. Exhibit 7. On -Street Occupancy Trends 80% 70% 68% 68% 60% 50% 53% 40% 48% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1P`S $per BP`S oP`StitiP`SytiQ`S �Q� nie -t' Exhibit 8. On -Street Peak Occupancy N Parking Occupancy 0%- 55% 55%-70% _. 70%- 95% -' Ei�-rsri.l i JOC �JU J "" evner on On -Street Occupancy Peak \ , Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (12 PM) Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 8 Downtown On -Street Vehicle Movements During the on -street data collection, vehicle movements were tracked and analyzed between five parking zones in Downtown (See Exhibit 9). A vehicle movement is defined as a vehicle moving at least 100 feet. A total of 510 vehicle movements were observed within Downtown, likely due to longer term commuters moving their vehicles to avoid time limits and paying for parking. Exhibit 10 shows the number of vehicle movements by zone. Exhibit 10. Downtown On -Street Vehicle Movements Southwest 6 30 36 Residential Terminal 6 23 29 South Southeast 85 129 214 Business and Terminal Northeast 75 105 180 Residential West 10 41 51 Business Total: 510 Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016; BERK, 2016 Exhibit 9. Downtown Parking Zones June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 9 Downtown On -Street Restrictions The on -street parking restrictions within Downtown are shown on Exhibit 1 1. Most restrictions are time- limited depending on the street and block. Some residents have permits that allow them to park 24/7 in areas otherwise posted with time restrictions. Restrictions include the following: ■ 30 Minute Parking ■ 1 -Hour Parking (7 days a week) ■ 2 -Hour Parking (restriction days vary for Monday through Friday or 7 days a week) ■ 3 -Hour Parking (restriction days vary for Monday through Friday or 7 days a week) ■ 10 -Hour Parking (paid) Additionally, Bremerton's Downtown has 15 -minute load and unload zones for passenger and commercial vehicles, 4 -hour maximum parking for those with a disabled placard, dedicated disabled parking stalls, and areas with no parking. Bremerton maintains a rule where, when posted, no vehicle may re -park on the same named street on the same day to avoid vehicles shuffling throughout the day. Moving vehicles to another named street, even if nearby, is currently legal. Exhibit 11. On -Street Parking Restrictions Downtown Sub Area Plan Boundary (DSAPj 30 -A parking �- 1 hour parking, 7 days a week 2 hour parking, Sam-7pm, M -F 2 hour parking, Gam -Spm. M -F — z neer Parking. � aeys a week Z parking, gam to Spm, 7 days a week 3 ha ur parking, 7 aeys a week 10 hour Parking (Paid) C" Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 10 A ...... ...... ii J Downtown Sub Area Plan Boundary (DSAPj 30 -A parking �- 1 hour parking, 7 days a week 2 hour parking, Sam-7pm, M -F 2 hour parking, Gam -Spm. M -F — z neer Parking. � aeys a week Z parking, gam to Spm, 7 days a week 3 ha ur parking, 7 aeys a week 10 hour Parking (Paid) C" Source: City of Bremerton, 2016; BERK, 2017 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 10 DOWNTOWN OFF-STREET DATA Downtown Off -Street Occupancy Occupancy for off-street facilities peaked at 65 percent, which indicates overall system capacity, even if certain locations are experiencing higher demand (See Exhibit 12). The total occupancy during the evening count period was 46%, and the lower occupancy is likely due to employees and commuters leaving for the day. The data collection in October 2016 indicated that high demand for off-street parking was scattered throughout the downtown core, near the ferry terminal, and near the Naval Base and Shipyard. Some additional off-street facilities showed high use, including in smaller lots serving local businesses. Parking for employees and commuters tended to have higher occupancy with less variation throughout the day. Exhibit 13 shows the mid-day peak for off-street parking, when parking is the most utilized and constrained. However, there appears to be available parking supply that could be further utilized through shared parking. Attachment B shows the occupancy data for each collection period. Exhibit 12. Off -Street Occupancy Trends 80% 61% 65% 46% 40% 20% 0% q 11 QA 2i, 9'Li 'Li, Exhibit 13. Off -Street Peak Occupancy Parking Occupancy ■ 0% - 55% ,5%- 70% _ 70% K'$ No ■ ■MEN ■ N WM M t VMM- ■ M. Off -Street Peak Occupancy Collected Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 (11AM - 3 PM) Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 1 1 DOWNTOWN VEHICLE SOURCE DATA Vehicle license plate numbers were collected during the on -street data collection period using License Plate Reader (LPR) technology that collects license plate numbers during data collection and allows for more detailed data analysis. License plate numbers were matched to data from the Washington Department of Licensing (DOL) and vehicle registration addresses were geocoded and assigned to census tracts. The resulting analysis shows where vehicles that were parked in the Downtown Bremerton collection area during the observation period are registered (by census tract) to indicate commute patterns and opportunities to increase transit use and access to the Downtown Bremerton area. In the Downtown area, only 37% of vehicles observed were registered to a Bremerton address. Exhibit 14. Downtown Bremerton Vehicle Registration Address (by Census Tract) Vehicle Registration Count by Census Tract: _ 200 0, .- 101 . zoo 51 -TOO A 11 50 1-10 :ill BERK KlmleyOHorn rn�a ome: Mm nai � ieoa ----------- -- ---------- _ "a0 Bremerton OWzide Bremerlan Source: BERK, 2017; WA DOL, 2017; Kimley-Horn, 2017 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 12 Residential Neighborhoods Inventory and Data Collection Summary The following subsections describe the overall findings for data collection in the Downtown Subarea and summarize the on- and off-street data. More detailed analysis is available in Attachment C. RESIDENTIAL FINDINGS ■ Parking utilization was high on many streets in residential neighborhoods (above 85%). Many blocks in the study area, particularly at peak occupancy, had occupancies above 85% indicating high demand including from non-residents. ■ Peak occupancy occurred at 10 AM and is not typical of a residential neighborhood. Residential parking demand typically peaks during the hours of 12 AM and 5 AM as most residents are at home then. Peak occupancy that occurs during the day typically indicates increased non-residential parking during the day -time. ■ Parking duration is over six hours on many residential streets, despite time limits for non -permit holders. Most blocks studied in the residential data collection area were parked for six or more hours despite one to two hour time limits on most residential blocks of between one and two hours. Residential permit holders are exempt from the time limits. ■ Many observed vehicles are registered to addresses outside the City of Bremerton. Forty- three percent of the vehicles observed are registered to addresses outside of Bremerton, indicating that they are likely commuters parking in the residential neighborhood during the workdays. W ill June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 13 RESIDENTIAL ON -STREET INVENTORY The residential data collection area in Bremerton has over 1,200 on -street parking stalls. Exhibit 15 shows the block faces and the number of parking stalls for the Downtown study area. Exhibit 15. Residential Collection Area On -Street Parking Inventory 3 8 4 0 17 15 0� N ry e-1 00 00 2 7 45 4 Ln n 8 n 9 M I -' I I`ll N ]N 5 x00 HLn Rnr" 12 16 9 38 1 x-11 17 14 18 m 14 12 _j12 3 NI MI NII 1DI I N On -Street Inventory (by block) A Source: ESRI, 2017; BERK, 2017 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 14 RESIDENTIAL ON -STREET DATA Residential On -Street Average Duration Exhibit 16. Residential Collection Area Average Parking duration data shows the average amount of Duration time a vehicle occupies a parking stall per block. In addition, it allows for the comparison to a parking restriction (for example, two-hour parking) to assess the number of potential violations. Exhibit 16 shows the average vehicle duration by block in the residential data collection area for the parking collection period in March 2017. There were a significant number of blocks throughout the collection area where vehicles were parked for over six hours (red) and the average duration across the collection area was seven hours. A second duration analysis was completed, excluding the license plates belonging to vehicles permitted to park beyond the time restriction (around 12% of plates). This analysis, which is mapped in Attachment C, shows average durations that are lower than those found in Exhibit 16, but are still generally longer than the 2 -hour restriction. N Legend Duration (Hours) 0-1 1-2 2-4 4-6 I L-1 1� 1 `J I � loll I II On -Street Average Duration Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Source: Kimlev Horn. 2017 7,111 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 15 Residential On -Street Occupancy On -street occupancy data helps with understanding the relationship between the supply and demand of parking in certain locations. On -street occupancy in the residential data collection area was collected hourly at seven different periods during the day (between 6 AM and 6 PM) to get a sense of the changes throughout the day. Peak occupancy system -wide was between 7:30 and 9:30 AM. Peak occupancy is shown by location in Exhibit 18. The map indicates that although not all blocks had occupancy challenges, during peak there were many blocks with occupancy above 85%, which is considered the threshold for needing additional supply. Areas showing this high occupancy tended to be close to high -use destinations such as Olympic College and the Naval Base and Shipyard. Attachment C shows the occupancy data for each of the seven collection periods. Exhibit 17. On -Street Occupancy Trends 100% 90% 83% 80% /70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Exhibit 18. On -Street Peak Occupancy N Legend Peak 0% -55% 5955 -70% 70% - 05% l� mHI �r F 9 LjI II Peak (10 AM) ❑ n -Street Source: Kimley Horn, 2017 7,111 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 16 Residential On -Street Vehicle Source Data Vehicle license plate numbers were collected during the on -street data collection period using License Plate Reader (LPR) technology. License numbers were matched to data from the Washington Department of Licensing (DOL) and the vehicle registration addresses were geocoded and assigned to census tracts. The resulting analysis shows where vehicles that were parked in the residential collection area during the observation period are registered (by census tract) to indicate commute patterns and opportunities to increase transit use and access to the Downtown Bremerton area. In the residential area, 57% of vehicles observed were registered to a Bremerton address, compared to 43% registered to an address outside Bremerton. Only 216, or 12%, of the unique license plates observed were associated with a residential parking permit. Exhibit 19. Residential Collection Area Vehicle Registration Address (by Census Tract) Vehicle Registration Count by Census Tract; Zoo 101-200 51 - 100 11 . 50 1 - 10 Al BERK Kimleyr oHorn 1 7 Source: BERK, 2017; WA DOL, 2017; Kimley-Horn, 2017 i�'� June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 17 Park and Ride Data The following page shows the location and capacity of the Kitsap Transit park and ride facilities. The facilities are scattered around the Kitsap Peninsula and connect to various Kitsap Transit bus and passenger ferry routes. Exhibit 21 shows the occupancy data for the Kitsap Transit park and rides for the 2016 data collection period. Parking counts were collected once a month, except for February and May. Exhibit 22 shows location and size of Kitsap County park and ride facilities. Exhibit 23 shows the number of available parking stalls at peak demand based on Kitsap County transit occupancy counts. Exhibit 21. Kitsap Transit Park and Ride Utilization Exhibit 20. Kitsap County Park and Ride Facility Source: N.L. Olson & Associates Clearwater Casino 96 26% 38% 60 Bayside Community Church 210 23% 27% 153 Gateway Fellowship 138 86% 102% 0 George's Corners 225 45% 50% 113 Poulsbo Junction 35 54% 63% 13 Poulsbo Nazarene Church 100 28% 30% 70 Suquamish United Church of Christ 65 55% 71% 19 American Legion Post 26 38% 46% 14 Bethany Lutheran Church 80 60% 76% 19 Island Church 37 57% 92% 3 Crossroads Church 107 67% 77% 25 Evergreen Lutheran Church 19 26% 47% 10 1 st United Methodist Church 53 60% 100% 1111111111111111111111111 Gateway Center 104 60% 68% 33 McWilliams Road 151 56% 66% 52 7,111 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 11 18 Annapolis Park & Ride First Lutheran Church Harper Free Evangelical Church Mullenix and Highway 16 Olalla Valley Fire Station Port Orchard Armory Burly Bible Church 82 80% 89% 9 13 62% 462 92 102% 47 40% 51% 23 105 56% 83% 18 20 65% 85% 3 TOTAL 2,267 47% 57% 983 Source: Kitsap Transit, 2016; BERK, 2016 W ill June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 19 Exhibit 22. Kitsap Transit Park and Ride Facilities — Vehicle Capacity Evergreen Lutheran Church Bremerton Park and Ride Locations, by Vehicle Capacity < 100 100 - 400 400 Source: Kitsap Transit, 2016; BERK, 2017 FSA Georg�e'�Sclrners Bayside Co'��ity,Church Poulsbo Nazarene Church Poul.sbo Junction Gateway Fellowsh'PSuquamlsh-Unitecl Church of Christ Clearwater Casino Island Church Crossr cls Church Bethany Lutheran Church Mcwl,lliamsrRc)ad American Legion Post 1st United Methodist Church Gat&Way C I nter—rt, Annapolis Park & Ride Port Orchard'Armory First .Luthe4n`6hurch Harper FreI6 Evangelical Church MuI1eni':',%n`HighwaY "16") Burly Bible Church` dh:h" P June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 20 Exhibit 23. Kitsap Transit Park and Ride Facilities - Available Parking Stalls at Peak Demand George�Qrs �r Bayside dommunity'Church Poulsbo Nazarene Church Poulsbo Junction Gateway rFellowship5uquamish U-nited Church of Christ Clearwater Casino �« Island Church Evergreen Lutheran Church Crossroads_Church Bethany Lutheran t n Church G r McWilliams%Road American Legion Post 1st United Methodist Church Gateway Centec,.,- a Annapplis Park & Ride Port Orchard Armory First Lutheran°Church Bremerton Park and Ride Locations, by Vacancy at Peak Parking < 30 0 30-100 0> 100 Source: Kitsap Transit, 2016; BERK, 2017 Harper Fre Evangelical Church Mullenix and Highway 15 Burly Bible Chu'�cF' i�'� June 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix B. Data Collection Summary 21 Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 • l�'l June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 1 N c :�Lml.ir 4{ talk $I a M _. 11th St iGh, S I " afe"Mn t,., 11r :� I• Hqh L\ .x 11th 51 - a 6 ski' N Y "' Itr til tlrlr ti� Northeast Residential 70th sl 9th st API, I c West Business Q •A U th St } slh sl Terminal, South ilh s Southwest Residential Southeast Business and Terminal veil S1 b Grngwy Wary E,t,r;'i all Ave Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 • l�'l June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 1 Northeast Residential ■ On -street occupancy peaked at the beginning of the collection period at 69% (see chart). ■ On -street occupancy at the end of the collection period was lower, at around 50% (see chart). ■ Off-street occupancy in Northeast Residential was low, with a mid-day peak of 46%. (Source: Kimley Horn, 2016) Northeast Residential Average On - Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 100% 80% 69% 60% 57% 40% 42% 20% 0% 6. 8. 9. 1 1 1 1• �• �'. S. 6. S0 10 1`p oda' '`91 '�9 X6' �rosP 0 �o1�o 10. ' 7 1 1. �. a?. S 6: �0 '16 1. ?� �� AP,oSO,o X9,0 �T 0.0 q'Li q'Li �q� q� ,off � 'Li 2i 'Li 2i 2i Northeast Residential Off -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 100% 80% 60% 46% 40% 28% 32% 20% 0% q'Li '9ij7 2i Iv, - 7,111 v 7,11'1 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 2 Southwest Residential ■ On -street parking in the Southwest Residential collection area was high during the beginning of the collection period, with a morning and early afternoon peak above 100%. Peak occupancy above 100% is likely due to illegal parking or more vehicles parking on a block face where there are unstriped parking stalls. ■ On -street occupany was much lower at the end of the collection period, at around 60%. ■ Off-street parking in the collection area peaked at 80% in the morning, and had a low of 1 1 % by the end of the day. (Source: Kimley Horn, 2016) 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Southwest Residential Average On - Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 134% 130% 55% 0 0 61 61 0 6' 1. �A �A V 9A �A 92i 92i 19 y� o� °� 2i 2i 2i k, 2i Southwest Residential Off -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 100% 80% 80% 73% 60% 40% 20% 11% 0% 11 lot" t" � 'All June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 3 Southeast Business and Terminal fr, West Business ASoutheast Business and Terminal Average On -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 100% Northeast Residential i 78% 77% ,000o'J 55% 48% 40% 20% 0% ■ On -street occupancy in the collection area that includes the Downtown core had two peaks, one mid-day at 78% 100% and one in the early evening at 77%. ■ On -street occupancy was lowest in the 80% morning at 48%. 60% ■ Off-street occupancy peaked at 60% in the middle of the day. Evening occupancies were lower than morning 40% occupancies. (Source: Kimley Horn, 2016) 20% 0% 6s 31q 3`�A G � 6. q2i q2i 1Al 2* 2! 2! 2! 2i Southeast Business and Terminal Off - Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 60% 51% 39% qui '9i� 'Li June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 4 Terminal South ■ On -street occupancy varied greatly throughout the day in this collection area. ■ On -street peaks occurred first thing in the morning (at 109%), mid-morning (at 131 %), and mid-day (at 120%). ■ On -street occupancy was very low in the evening, at 17%. ■ Off-street occupancy was highest in the morning for this collection area, with 78% occupancy, and very low at the end of the day, with 13% occupancy. (Source: Kimley Horn, 2016) 140% 40% 20% 0% Terminal South Average On -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 131% 17% 6s0 X10 -61j�� IZ �1 �� I36A SSA SQA O,A ZEA �1 1z0 1 1 7- est '.:P .0 60 7 0 6 � l ?� �� �A 0 V 9Q 0 92i 92i 19� y� ,o�'°2f 2i 2i 2i 2i 2i Terminal South Off -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 100% 80% 78% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13% June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 5 /1 Rorlheast Residential �It�"I Business South7l Reaidantial mi, So Southeast Business and Terminal �ry P C L- ■ On -street occupancy varied greatly throughout the day in this collection area. ■ On -street peaks occurred first thing in the morning (at 109%), mid-morning (at 131 %), and mid-day (at 120%). ■ On -street occupancy was very low in the evening, at 17%. ■ Off-street occupancy was highest in the morning for this collection area, with 78% occupancy, and very low at the end of the day, with 13% occupancy. (Source: Kimley Horn, 2016) 140% 40% 20% 0% Terminal South Average On -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 131% 17% 6s0 X10 -61j�� IZ �1 �� I36A SSA SQA O,A ZEA �1 1z0 1 1 7- est '.:P .0 60 7 0 6 � l ?� �� �A 0 V 9Q 0 92i 92i 19� y� ,o�'°2f 2i 2i 2i 2i 2i Terminal South Off -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 100% 80% 78% 60% 40% 20% 0% 13% June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 5 West Business 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% West Business Average On -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 152% 70% 6S0 0 7d'1��1�r'7�r'1�,6' �Po��o� oZ�o 2. c?. S. 6 10 16 �� 11 1�� 7�� st�A S0A OVA 0`9A 70 West Business Off -Street Occupancy A (Oct 2016) high occupancy at all times of the day, Northeast Residential with a morning low of 100%, peaking wast Boalneaa throughout the middle of the day, and ending the day at a low of 70% 80% occupancy. Terminal. 5—th 60% BOUlhwaatRMidential Seulheasl 6uslness and Terminal 3911:47% allow more parking than would 40% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% West Business Average On -Street Occupancy (Oct 2016) 152% 70% 6S0 0 7d'1��1�r'7�r'1�,6' �Po��o� oZ�o 2. c?. S. 6 10 16 �� 11 1�� 7�� st�A S0A OVA 0`9A 70 :111 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 6 West Business Off -Street Occupancy • The West Business collection area had (Oct 2016) high occupancy at all times of the day, with a morning low of 100%, peaking 100% throughout the middle of the day, and ending the day at a low of 70% 80% occupancy. 60% ■ Construction activities appeared to 3911:47% allow more parking than would 40% typically be feasible and likely contributed to occupancies above 20% 21% 100%. Illegal parking may have also Conti buted. 0% ■ On -street occupancy had a mid-day qui qi� 'Li peak of 47%, with a morning occupancy of 39% and an end -of -day occupancy of 21 %. (Source: Kimley Horn, 2016) :111 June 2017 City of Bremerton I Attachment A. Downtown Data Collection Zones 11 6 Attachment B — Downtown Data Collection Maps Parking Occupancy M 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% M 85%+ m Ii � I C T__r � � ,! ON Lr. "rem-nertor�___ Awl Off -Street Peak Occupancy I rT r7 Collected Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 (11AM - 3 PM) N A - 0-55% 55%-70% 70%-85% - 85%+ ov A 7 Cx r '. �. f�th'� 1 Cit IN f• m t - _ m � ■WE 1711 i - .._... � l P rrrrerto 2 MEWT 'r Off -Street Average Occupancy Ir`T r Collected Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 (7AM - 7PM ) A Parking Duration (Hours) 0-1 1 —2 2-4 4 — 6 M +6 .;Math': 7-1 M,= m Ing■ LI I I I m ,11 ST = Off -Street Average Duration Collected Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 (7AM - 7PM) N A J A IF r., T11 I St r rer emerto ; rF,, T MEW I CT r- __I/ , Parking Occupancy _ 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% - 85%+ L I its I; TH ST. - Smith` 7 BE i EmsM r : rretmertor - T MEW/ I Off -Street Occupancy Collected Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 (11AM - 3PM) A, Parking Occupancy - 0-55% 55%-70% 70%-85% - 85%+ N w •tet .Smith ■ M Ing03 ■ E't t ' r ■ - N Parking Occupancy M 0% - 55% its 55%-70% d 70%-85% 11 rH -5-T,, M 85%+ Smith: I F, Rim■ VMIFAj 17 M-11ST "14 r T er-nerto n �oT Off -Street Occupancy Collected Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 (3PM - 7PM) w� Parking Occupancy ® 0%-55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ C On -Street Occupancy Peak Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (12 PM) rei-near ail H F On—Street Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ On -Street Average Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (7 AM - 7 PM) H Bremerton - T Parking Duration (Hours) a-1 1 -2 2-4 4-6 +6 7 IL brefr)ertoll 3717.""_� 777`� On -Street Average Parking Duration Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (7 AM - 7 PM) Parking Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (7 AM) remner (w =77-,, Parking Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ 077 ,r Terser 017 IJ LC m I On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (8 AM) Parking Occupancy ® 0%-55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ Bremerton 777,7177 On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 r' (9 AM) Parking Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% ' 70% - 85% 85%+ I:n C C C7 Gr d 141 Q�� — On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016' r. (10 AM) Parking Occupancy 0% - 55% 55%-70% { 70% - 85% 85%+ C mm L On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (11 AM) Parking Occupancy 0%-55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ 7H On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (12 PM) �rei-near ail H F Parking Occupancy 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% -85%+ "1 7 J �-, I ............... Ternerr oll On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (1 PM} Parking Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% -85%+ On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (2 PM) Parking Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ J �r On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (3 PM) emer orl Parking Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ 7 17 i N Teener ®C7 iPPF aac_l rT On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (4 PM) On—Street Occupancy � 0% - 55% 55%-70% 70%-85% 85%+ M L 0 On -Street Occupancy Collected Tuesday, October 11th, 2016 (5 PM) Bremerton T Attachment C — Residential Data Collection Maps Legend Peak 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ Peak (10 AM) On -Street A Legend Duration (Hours) 0-1 1-2 2-4 4-6 +6 On -Street Average Duration Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 A Legend Parking Occupancy 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 1 (6 AM - 7:30 AM) Legend Parking Occupancy 0% -55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 2 (7:30 AM - 9:30 AM) Legend Parking Occupancy 0% -55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 3 (9:30 AM - 11 AM) A Legend Parking Occupancy 0% -55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ A On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 4 (12 PM - 1:30 PM) Legend Parking Occupancy 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 5 (1:30 PM - 3 PM) A Legend Parking Occupancy 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 6 (3 PM - 4:30 PM) Legend Parking Occupancy 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 7 (4:30 PM - 6 PM) Legend Parking Occupancy 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ -1ST- SI On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 1 (11 AM - 11:30 AM) W� m� On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 1 (11 AM - 11:30 AM) N Legend ij Parking Occupancy' 0%-55% 55% -70% 70% -85% 85%+ I ST- ST a. t +r ,u , a L t� On -Street Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Run 2 (6 PM - 6:30 PM) Legend Duration (Hours) 0-1 1-2 2-4 4-6 +6 On -Street Average Duration Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 A Legend Duration (Hours) 0-1 1-2 2-4 4-6 +6 On -Street Average Duration - No Permit Collected Wednesday, March 8th, 2017 Attachment D — Vehicle Source Maps BREMERTON PARKING VEHICLE SOURCE ANALYSIS Downtown N A ISLAND SNOHOMISH DOWNTOWN COUNT AREA BREMERTON DOWNTOWN AREA w rj THURSTON PIERCE 0 5 10 Miles r Vehicle Registration Count :111 BERK by Census Tract: Kimley>>>Horn _ 200 or more Map Dare: May 2017 1800 101 - 200 1600 1649 Total 51 -100 400 200 1033 11 -50 1000 800 F 616 1 - 10 600 - 400 200 0 Bremerton Outside Bremerton Vehicle Registration Count :111 BERK by Census Tract: Kimley>>>Horn _ 200 or more Map Date: May 2017 2000 101 - 200 1800 _ - - -- 1648 ............ 1864 Total 1600 51 - 100 1400 1200 11 -50 1000 800 l 1 - 10 600 400 216 200 0 Non-permit Holders Permit Holders Appendix C. Parking Strategies Bremerton Parking Study Introduction & Project Scope Community concerns regarding parking impacts in Downtown Bremerton and the surrounding residential areas have existed for many years. This study is the first significant effort by the City and the community to better understand parking conditions, obtain public input, work with key community stakeholders, and develop parking policy and management strategies to support community goals for Downtown Bremerton, residential neighborhoods, economic development, housing, and transportation. This document provides a summary of select strategies available to address the parking issues identified during the study. Each strategy will have system -wide impacts and the effects of implementation should be considered comprehensively. Strategies Based on input from the public, the advisory committee, the City, and data collection and analysis the following draft parking management strategies are proposed for further consideration. Some of the strategies represent multiple options to address the same issue and are subject to further community decision-making. The timeline for implementation is provided as short-term (1 year), mid-term (1-2 years) and long-term (3+ years). Mid- and long-term strategies are anticipated to take longer than a year to implement, but work should commence soon after adoption of the Bremerton Parking Study. Exhibit 1. Parking Strategies and Timeline Parking System Prioritize certain parking areas for residents, Short-term customers, and employee parking and manage accordingly Reestablish the City parking committee and Short-term develop a working group with representatives from NBK, the Shipyard, WA State Ferries, Kitsap Transit and others Create a new position in the City of Mid-term Bremerton to manage the parking system in JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies Bremerton including monitoring, policy, maintenance, and operations Enforcement Purchase a License Plate Reader (LPR) unit Short-term for use by parking enforcement throughout the City Increase parking violation fines and Short-term consequences Downtown Charge for on -street parking in parts of Mid-term downtown to discourage the "Bremerton Shuffle" and increase access for visitor parking (in addition to the 10 -hour paid spaces) Eliminate 10 -hour parking Downtown and Mid-term convert to short-term visitor parking Discourage new employee and commuter Short-term parking facilities in Downtown unless to serve businesses in the Downtown Subarea Planning Boundary Prohibit the re -parking of vehicles Short-term throughout specific areas of Downtown Encourage shared parking for off-street Mid-term facilities to take advantage of any underutilized parking Require loading vehicle permits Mid-term Transit and Multi- Work with Kitsap Transit to ensure parking Mid-term Modal locations and transit routing work well with Transportation the Bremerton parking system and commuter needs Improve opportunities for pedestrian and Long-term bicycle access to Downtown and major employment areas Residential Establish defined residential parking zones Mid-term Neighborhoods and standardize the parking restrictions within each zone Option A: Implement a residential -only Mid-term permit system in residential neighborhoods JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 2 mostly heavily impacted by employee and commuter parking Option B: Allow employees to purchase on- Mid-term street permits and invest a portion of the proceeds back into the residential neighborhood Employee Parking Work with the Naval Base and Shipyard to Long-term require more long-term on-site parking Special Events Develop an overflow parking plan for occasional special events STRATEGY DISCUSSION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Parking System The following strategies address the overall parking system: Prioritize certain parking areas for residents, customers, and employee parking and manage accordingly The City should develop and implement clearer policies regarding preferred parking users throughout the parking system, including on- and off-street facilities. When available parking capacity exists, secondary users may be provided. Once the parking priorities are more clearly established, the City should focus on the enforcement and management of the system to achieve desired outcomes. The following parking priorities should be implemented: • Residential Neighborhoods: On -street parking is prioritized for residents through the residential permit program. If capacity is available, and is supported by the City and neighborhood residents, employee permits may be provided with a portion of the permit revenue being invested back in the neighborhood. • Downtown: 0 On -Street Parking: On -street parking is prioritized for short-term visitors to Downtown. Longer-term parking users, including employees and commuters, should park off-street or use other transportation options to access Downtown when available. 0 Off -Street Parking: Off-street parking should be prioritized for longer-term parking for those visiting and working Downtown. Future parking expansion to serve commuters and employees outside of Downtown should be located outside of the Downtown boundary. Estimated Costs: Minimal costs to the City associated with staff time. 2ug"�Ij JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 3 Reestablish the City parking committee and develop a working group with representatives from NBK, the Shipyard, WA State Ferries, Kitsap Transit and others The City has had several different parking committees over time. The City should reestablish and maintain a dedicated committee to advise City staff and City Council on parking policy and management and get input from the public on parking issues. The committee should establish and maintain a relationship with major employers, institutions, and transit agencies to cooperate on parking issues. Estimated Costs: Minimal cost to the City associated with staff time. Create a new position in the City of Bremerton to manage the parking system in Bremerton including monitoring, policy, maintenance, and operations Bremerton has a complicated parking system and a unique set of parking issues for a City of its size. Currently, parking management is the responsibility of the City Clerk, Finance Director, and Impark through a service contract for enforcement and management of City -owned facilities. To address current issues identified in the data collection findings and concerns from the public, the City should hire a full- time staff person to lead management of the parking system and implement the recommendations in this plan. Duties may include staffing the parking committee, managing parking policy and regulations, overseeing enforcement, engaging the public and representatives from major stakeholder groups, advising the City Council, and overseeing the financing, operations, and maintenance of the City's parking facilities. Estimated Cost: $80,000 per year including benefits. Enforcement The following strategies address enforcement of the City's parking system: Purchase a License Plate Reader (LPR) unit for use by parking enforcement throughout the City As shown in the data collection findings, enforcement is constrained by existing resources, the size of the parking system, and high demand for parking. Current enforcement is done using handheld devices that require the digital "chalking" of tires. The enforcement officer must then return to the same area after the expiration of the time -period to issue any citations. This process is not efficient and limits the area that can be covered, making compliance difficult. One of the strategies to improve parking enforcement is to use a license plate reader(s) (LPR). An LPR unit is a camera mounted to a vehicle that allows the enforcement officer to drive around as the system collects license plate information for enforcement. The LPR unit can be used in several different ways depending on the parking restrictions in place. For example, with time limited parking the LPR unit will "chalk" vehicles, but can cover much more ground than an enforcement officer using a handheld device. The LPR unit also allows for the loading of license plates associated with residential and employee permits and will automatically notify the enforcement officer when it detects an unpermitted vehicle. For paid parking, the LPR system can be tied to real time license plate data that will notify the officer immediately of any violations depending on the type of paid parking system in use. Estimated Cost: $140,000 investment in year 1 for LPR equipment, installation, and software for both enforcement and data collection. Ongoing software costs approximately $60,000 per year. These costs �� ��� JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 4 may be offset initially by increased violation revenue and long-term by increased in revenue through permit programs and paid parking. Increase parking violation fines and consequences To improve enforcement and achieve compliance with City parking regulations, the City should considering increasing the cost for parking fines and escalation for multiple violations. The current fine for a violation of time limits is $25 and may not be sufficient as a deterrent given the high cost for all -day parking in Bremerton. Increasing the fine for first time violations to $35 to $40 would be more of a deterrent to risking a parking violation. Doubling the base violation for each repeat violation within a three-month time frame would also likely reduce violation rates and improve compliance. Increasing parking fines may bring an initial increase in revenue, but would likely decrease over time as compliance increases. The purpose of parking fines is to achieve compliance and violation revenue shouldn't be relied on for long-term management and operation of the parking system. Estimated Costs: Minimal costs to the City to update the City's parking violation rates. Downtown The following strategies are focused on Downtown Bremerton: Charge for on -street parking in parts of downtown to discourage the "Bremerton Shuffle" and increase access for visitor parking (in addition to the 7 0 -hour paid spaces) One of the key data collection findings was to confirm the existence of the "Bremerton Shuffle," where parking users move their vehicles frequently to avoid paying for parking or getting a parking ticket. On - street parking Downtown should be prioritized for short-term visitors to access Downtown businesses, services, and amenities. To discourage the movement of vehicles, the City should expand short-term paid parking Downtown. There are several options for implementing paid parking in terms of equipment and technology including: Single-space parking meters Single-space parking meters allow for the payment of parking by cash or credit card at each parking stall and are generally more convenient than multi -space pay stations. Exhibit 2. Example of Single -Space Parking Meters JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 5 Source: www.minnpost.com, 2017 Estimated Cost: $300-$500 per meter. Downtown has 1,062 on -street parking stalls for a total cost range of $318,600 and $531,000 plus maintenance costs. Multi -space pay stations Multi -space pay stations require payment and the display of a ticket on the vehicle or inputting license plate information. Bremerton currently uses multi -space pay stations by T2 Systems to serve some parking areas. A single station can typically cover 10-15 parking stalls. Exhibit 3. Example of Multi -Space Pay Station by T2 Systems Source: www.timesbusiness.com, 2017 Estimated Cost: $5,000 to $10,000 per unit. Downtown has 1,062 stalls for a total cost range of $354,000 to $1,062,000. Pay by Phone or Similar Service JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 6 Another option for on -street paid parking is to use Pay by Phone or a similar service. Pay by Phone allows parking users to pay for parking using a smart phone app, on the web, or via phone by calling a toll-free number. Bremerton already provides the option to use Pay by Phone at some of the City's paid parking facilities. Often time Pay by Phone options are provided in addition to standard meters, but the City could expand paid parking using only Pay by Phone. The upfront costs are significantly reduced because the City would not have to purchase or maintain costly parking meters or pay stations. In addition, license plate data from Pay by Phone can be integrated in real time with the use of LPR for enforcement. Pay by Phone may also be used to set variable pricing. For example, a resident could pay a different fee than an employee for a permit program. Pay by Phone can be used for both short-term paid parking or for longer term permit parking, such as the City's current residential permit program. Estimated Costs: The only costs to the City is to install signage, which is provided by Pay by Phone at no cost to the City. Signs may be installed on existing sign posts to further minimize costs. Pay by Phone charges a 35 -cent transaction fee that is typically in addition to the parking cost. Estimated Revenue: To start, it is anticipated the City could charge on average about $1 per hour for parking with the potential for increased rates in the highest demand areas. Based on these rates it is anticipated the City could generate approximately $50 per parking stall per month. With a total parking stall count of 1,062, stalls it is estimated the City could generate approximately $53,000 per month or $636,000 per year. These revenue estimates are conservative, and the City could potentially generate significantly more revenue. Eliminate 10 -hour parking Downtown and convert to short-term visitor parking Several Downtown blocks allow for 10 -hour parking and should be converted to short-term visitor parking to support Downtown businesses. Long-term parking should be focused off-street. Estimated Costs: Minimal costs to the City. Remove existing meters and implement short-term paid parking consistent with the recommendation to add paid parking Downtown. Discourage new employee and commuter parking facilities in Downtown unless to serve businesses in the Downtown Subarea Plan Boundary The City of Bremerton has invested significant resources into revitalizing Downtown. Investments in streets, parks, and public spaces have improved the overall experience Downtown. The high demand and cost for parking Downtown is a deterrent to redeveloping existing parking lots to support more active Downtown uses that are consistent with the City's vision. Downtown parking should be prioritized to support desired Downtown land uses, including parking for employees working Downtown, and short-term visitor access. Parking for employees working outside of Downtown, including at NBK, should be discouraged at least in the short-term. Using large areas of Downtown to support employee and commuter parking for land uses outside of Downtown provides little benefit in support of the City's goals for Downtown. Estimated Costs: Minimal costs to the City. May require an update to the City's municipal code. Prohibit the re -parking of vehicles throughout specific areas of Downtown Currently, it is only a parking violation for vehicles to re -park on the same named street in the Downtown. The City should amend the parking code to prohibit the re -parking of vehicles within a larger area to discourage the "Bremerton Shuffle." The City should prohibit re -parking within a four -block radius of mug"�Ij JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 7 where the vehicle first parked within a four-hour period. The use of LPR will make it easier to enforce this regulation. Estimated Costs: Minimal cost to the City. Action requires an update to the City's municipal code. Encourage shared parking for off-street facilities to take advantage of any underutilized parking Despite very high parking demand, there is some capacity in the off-street system in Downtown. Some of this parking is restricted to support on-site land uses and is not currently available for public use, but could be made available through shared parking. Where capacity exists, the City should encourage the use of shared parking to support the Downtown parking demand with a focus on longer-term parking demand from employees or commuters. Increasing the use and efficiency of the off-street system will reduce pressure on the on -street system from the "Bremerton Shuffle" and long-term parking users. Estimated Costs: Minimal cost to the City. An update to the City's municipal code may be required to allow and encourage shared parking. The City may also use resources to share parking data with property and business owners that may have available capacity to facilitate the use of available parking. Require loading vehicle permits Currently, the City is responsible for locating loading zones and there is no fee or permit for the adjacent businesses. One option is for the City to require vehicle loading permits for loading areas within the public right-of-way along with a permit fee. Estimated Costs: Minimal costs to the City. An updated to the City's municipal code will be required. Permit fees will cover the costs of managing the program. Transit and Multi -Modal Transportation The following strategies are focused on transit and multi -modal transportation: Work with Kitsap Transit to ensure parking locations and transit routing work well with the Bremerton parking system and commuter needs Kitsap Transit is currently updating its transit systems plan that serves as the agency's long-term plan for transit service improvements including park and ride facilities. Kitsap Transit has a major role in providing commuting options to employees in Bremerton including regular bus service, worker -driver buses serving NBK, van pools, and park and ride facilities. The City should maintain an active partnership through the City's parking committee and City staff to improve access to major employers and minimize parking impacts Downtown and in residential neighborhoods. Improve opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access to Downtown and major employment areas Improving opportunities for commuting and traveling by biking and walking has the potential to reduce parking demand and impacts in Downtown and in residential neighborhoods. The City should continue to pursue these opportunities in and around Downtown and connections to residential neighborhoods. Parking revenues should be considered to support pedestrian and bicycle improvements, such as through an employee parking permit program. JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 8 Residential Neighborhoods The following strategies are focused on residential neighborhoods: Establish defined residential parking zones and standardize the parking restrictions within each zone The City has an extensive residential permit program that includes residential areas most likely to be impacted by non-residential parking demand, such as near NBK and Olympic College. However, the parking restrictions for non -permitted vehicles vary in some cases from block to block and are not consistent. The most common parking restriction for non -permitted vehicles is a 2 -hour time limit. It is common for cities to develop residential parking zones, which are smaller geographic areas covering specific neighborhoods and include uniform parking restrictions within the zone. Permits are typically issued by zone with further restrictions on how close permit holders must park to their residence. These uniform boundaries and restrictions allow for easier enforcement, management, and public outreach to stakeholders within each zone. Estimated Costs: Costs to the City include updating mapping of zone boundaries, upgrading to existing signage, new permits by zone (which may be virtual), and updating to the City's municipal code. These costs may be offset by increases in permit fees or working with a third -party vendor to minimize upfront and ongoing program maintenance costs. Option A: Implement a residential -only permit system in residential neighborhoods mostly heavily impacted by employee and commuter parking To increase the efficiency of enforcement the City could implement residential only parking in all areas that currently have residential permit parking. Enforcement officers would simply have to look for unpermitted vehicles and not have to chalk tires and return after the time -period has expired to issue any parking violations. Residential guests would be allowed to park for longer than the time -period with a guest permit. Estimated Costs: Costs to the City include updates to the City's municipal code and new signage, but may be offset by increases in permit costs. Option B: Allow employees to purchase on -street permits and invest a portion of the proceeds back into the residential neighborhood Another option for addressing employee parking in residential neighborhoods is for the City to issue permits for employee use and use a portion of the funds to invest in neighborhood improvements. The concept of sharing parking revenue with the neighborhood is referred to as a parking benefit district because parking revenue directly benefits the neighborhood or district where the revenue is being generated. Funds may be used for sidewalk, street, public space improvements, or other amenities within the neighborhood. To implement this system the City should conduct more outreach with neighborhood residents and could allow the neighborhoods to choose to opt -in to the program. Residents may have concerns about the availability of residential parking and the impacts of providing employee parking, but should also consider the benefits to the neighborhood of having funding for neighborhood improvements. The City would also have to do more analysis to determine how many parking stalls would be available, the locations of those parking stalls, and at which times per day to ensure there is adequate parking for residents and their guests. JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 9 Estimates Costs and Revenues: Upfront costs include updates to the City's municipal code, developing an employee permit system, and initial management of the program. However, the permit fees would more than offset costs to the City. Due to the high demand for employee parking and high cost of parking in Bremerton, permit fees may be in the $40 to $50 range per month. For example, if the City sold 2,000 permits monthly, annual gross revenues are estimated at between $960,000 to $1,200,000. Employee Parking The following strategies are focused on employee parking: Work with the Naval Base and Shipyard to require more long-term on-site parking During the stakeholder advisory meetings representatives from the Navy indicated a desire to provide more long-term parking for employees on-site. However, they indicated that securing funding for constructing new parking is challenging. The City should work with NBK and the Shipyard to explore options for providing more on-site parking or other options that are not within Downtown Bremerton. Special Events The following are strategies to address parking during special events: Develop an overflow parking plan for occasional special events Parking for special events presents unusual challenges due to very high demand over a short period. The City should work with event managers, transit agencies, and business and property owners on parking strategies for public events. Strategies may include the use of shared parking at off-street facilities, signage to direct attendees to available parking, the use of buses or shuttles from park and ride facilities, and reduced pricing at City owned facilities to encourage the use of available parking. JUNE 2017 City of Bremerton I Appendix C. Parking Strategies 11 10 From: City Clerk Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:19 PM To: Dakarev@gmaiLcom' Cc: City Council; Greg Wheeler; Bremertoncsr@impark.com Subject: Parking Complaint Dear Daniel, Thank you for submitting the below concern about parking on State, Gregory and Anoka. The City of Bremerton, and Impark are not enforcing the posted allowable parking regulations on Gregory. As a tax paying, proud resident of this city, I am flabbergasted by the impotence the city is demonstrating by not enforcing their own standards. Knowing, this, shipyard workers are able to park on our streets with impunity and are frequently not ticketed at all and get away with taking up spots in well excess of the posted allowable times. When challenged on their lack of enforcement Impark states that they do not want to be seen as 'harassing' and therefore do not patrol and enforce these rules. This is ridiculous on multiple levels. First of all, how is enforcing a law harassment? Secondly, why have the laws/rules that are not going to be enforced. It makes the city look impotent and incompetent. Additionally, i AM the tax paying resident who gets nothing from the city by this flagrant disregard. The city is catering more to people who use the city as a road and parking lot and live and spend money and pay taxes elsewhere. I would be better served by having my house catch an fire, collecting insurance, paying less in property taxes and having my lot turned into a parking lot and selling parking then contributing to ever increasing property taxes that don't even go back to repairs or maintenance of our streets which are some of the worst 1 have seen in the country. I am so frustrated with this city and their incompetent management of parking and the claims that there is also not enough money to justify hiring more people for parking enforcement when you would have more then enough money from parking tickets to pay for the extra employees if you just actually enforced Gregory for violators every day (and multiple times a day). You would have more than enough. 1 would appreciate a meeting with Mr. Gregory Wheeler to discuss these issues since this directly impacts his district. Please pass this along to him. Thank you for your time. I checked with Impark on the patrols. Impark is currently patrolling Gregory, State and Anoka streets daily. In accordance with the contract it is no more than twice per day and S times per week in restricted residential areas. I have also looked at the number of citations issued so far this year for those streets and compared it to last year. Below is a breakdown of citations issued Jan -May of each year: As you can see, Impark has more than doubled the citations issued for those three streets. The City believes Impark is enforcing the area in accordance with the contract. The City's Parking Study is scheduled to be presented to City Council on June 28, 2017. Please see our website for details of the parking study at v,/ww.breniertotiwa.gov/g)arkin study. I am hopeful the recommended strategies, if implemented by Council, will help mitigate the impact of commuter parking on street in residential areas. I have cc'd the City Council office and Council Member Wheeler so he may respond to you as well. The City appreciates residents bringing to our attention their concerns. Best Regards, 2016 2017 Anoka St. 45 120 Gregory 177 347 State 42 97 Total 264 S64 As you can see, Impark has more than doubled the citations issued for those three streets. The City believes Impark is enforcing the area in accordance with the contract. The City's Parking Study is scheduled to be presented to City Council on June 28, 2017. Please see our website for details of the parking study at v,/ww.breniertotiwa.gov/g)arkin study. I am hopeful the recommended strategies, if implemented by Council, will help mitigate the impact of commuter parking on street in residential areas. I have cc'd the City Council office and Council Member Wheeler so he may respond to you as well. The City appreciates residents bringing to our attention their concerns. Best Regards, VOTING RECORD COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 28, 2017 X15 -Minutes to discuss Pending Litigation under RCW 42.30.110 (1) (i) NAME YES NO ABSTAIN SULLIVAN V/-"' MCDONALD i WHEELER DAVIS V RUDDY I u r— — --- &ftlli�ib v YOUNGER COUNCIL PRESIDENT q ; Pm M' 5 -D DSV i ) M0A(0%�- f cksS4 I-LXakl wto us R:1City Counci]\MEETING PREPWOTtNG RECORD - Form (Study Session).docx